HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2005/07/11
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
Monday, July 11, 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. Review Fire Department Building Plans (Fire Chief Zikmund) – verbal report
7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. Resolution 6577 Approve 2004 Certified Annual Financial Report
B. 7:05pm Public Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance 760 Authorizing the Sale of Land
Comprising The Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course to the Mounds View Economic Development
Authority.
C. Resolution 6540 Approving a Comprehensive Land Use Amendment for The Bridges of Mounds View
Golf Course Site.
D. Resolution 6541 Accepting and Approving the Final Draft of the Bridges Office Development
Alternative Urban Areawide Review Document.
E. Resolution 6574 Severance Payment for Marla Manypenny
F. Resolution 6579 Revising the Policy for Employee Appreciation Events and 5-year Employment
Milestone Gift Certificates
G. Appointing a Candidate for the Finance Director Position
9. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Licenses for Approval
B. Establish Special Council Work Session for 7:00pm, July 18, 2005 at City Hall to Discuss Work Plan
and Review Schedule for County Road J Reconstruction.
C. Resolution 6576 Approving Tobacco and Gasoline License for Gas for Less located at 2525 Highway
10
D. Resolution 6578 Approving a Contract for the Scheduled Replacement of a Street Sweeper.
E. Set a Public Hearing for July 25, 2005 at 7:05 pm to Consider an Amendment to the Walgreens PUD
Related to Allowed Uses on the Vacant Parcel Behind Walgreens
F. Resolution 6565 Approving and Authorizing the Conversion to an IP (Internet Protocol) based Phone
and Voice Mail System with the City of Roseville, as part of the City Hall Renovation Project, and
Approving the Draft Joint Powers Agreement and Draft Cost Recovery Agreement (contingent upon
review by legal council ) with the City of Roseville for Use and Support of the IP System
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. June 13, 2005, City Council Meeting Minutes.
B. June 27, 2005 City Council Meeting Minutes will be presented at the July 25, 2005 City Council
Meeting.
City Council Agenda
July 11, 2005
Page 2
11. REPORTS
A. Reports of Mayor and Council
B. Reports of Staff
C. Reports of City Attorney
12. Next Council Work Session: (Special) July 18, 2005 @7pm
Next Council Meeting: Monday, July 25, 2005
Item No. 8A
Meeting Date: July 11, 2005
Type of Business: Council Business
Administrator Review: ______ City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Mary Tatarek; Interim Finance Director
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6577 Accepting the Annual Financial
Report for the Year Ended December 31, 2004
Attached is Resolution 6577 that accepts the Annual Financial Report for the year
ended December 31, 2004.
The City’s auditors, Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich, & Co., P.A.
(MMKR) will provide a review at the July 11, 2005 City Council meeting instead of
at a work session. The review will include financial analysis and a management
report.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mary Tatarek
RESOLUTION NO. 6577
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OR RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL
REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2004
WHEREAS, the city staff has prepared a Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report for the City of Mounds View for the year ended December 31, 2004, and
WHEREAS, the firm of Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich, & Co.,
P.A. was appointed by the City Council to audit this report and they have issued
their Management Letter and Special Purpose Audit Reports regarding the Annual
Financial Report, and
WHEREAS, Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich, & Co., P.A.
reviewed these reports before the City Council at this meeting, and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mounds View that the comprehensive annual financial report for the year ended
December 31, 2004 is hereby accepted.
Adopted this 11th day of July, 2005.
________________________________
ATTEST: Rob Marty, Mayor
________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No: 8C
Meeting Date: July 11, 2005
Type of Business: CB
Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Resolution 6540, a Resolution Approving a
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment
Associated with the Bridges Golf Course
Introduction:
Since early 2004, the City of Mounds View has been actively exploring redevelopment
options associated with the Bridges Golf Course site located north of Trunk Highway 10 in
the northeast corner of the City. Presently operated as a municipal golf course, the City
Council has been considering other options as a means to enhance and improve revenues
and tax base. The Future Land Use Map currently identifies the Bridges site as both Passive
Open Space (OSP) and Outdoor Sport Recreation (SRO), designations consistent with the
present use. In 2003, the City rezoned the golf course to I-1, Light Industrial, in recognition
of the surrounding land uses as well as potential redevelopment opportunities.
The City Council authorized a rezoning of the Bridges site in October of 2003 from Public
Facilities (PF) to Industrial (I-1). Minnesota Statutes requires that the zoning of a property
not be inconsistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, so it became necessary to amend
the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the anticipated future land use of the site, which was
determined to be an Office (OFC) designation. On June 27, 2005, after nearly a year of
discussions and negotiations, the City Council approved the Medtronic development
proposal and terms of the purchase agreement relating to the Bridges site.
Discussion:
On September 13, 2004, the Economic Development Authority (EDA) of the City of Mounds
View authorized the preparation of an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) that would
assess the maximum development potential of the Bridges site assuming an office or light
industrial land use and the impacts of such a development. To achieve consistency with the
zoning of the site and in recognition of the work being undertaken relative to the AUAR, the
City Council will need to approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan specific to the
anticipated future land use of the golf course site, from SRO and OSP to Office—OFC.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendment on January 19, 2005. The
Commission examined a variety of land use designations potentially consistent with an
Industrially zoned property and considered the ramifications of a mixed-use, planned unit
development designation. Ultimately, the Commission came to a consensus on the OFC
designation as being the most closely associated with the intended future use of the site. On
February 2, 2005, the Commission adopted Resolution 783-05 which recommended a future
Comp Plan Amendment Report
July 11, 2005
Page 2
land use amendment from SRO and OSP to OFC. The Planning Commission’s resolution
was sent to the Metropolitan Council along with a detailed Comp Plan Amendment
application which was authorized by the Council and prepared by RLK-Kuusisto, LTD. On
April 27, 2005, the Met Council reviewed the City’s Comprehensive Plan Amendment
proposing to change the land use designation of the golf course from OSP and SRO to OFC.
The Met Council found that the amendment conformed to the regional system plans for
aviation, recreation open space, transportation and water resources management; was
consistent with the 2030 Regional Development Framework and compatible with the plans of
adjacent jurisdictions. As such, the Met Council approved the proposed amendment.
Recommendation:
Consider Resolution 6540 approving the future land use map amendment of the golf course
from OSP and SRO to OFC. After redevelopment activity commences, Comp Plan text
amendments will also be necessary but there is no urgency in adopting these subsequent
amendments.
________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 783-05
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT FROM OUTDOOR SPORT RECREATION (SRO) AND PASSIVE OPEN
SPACE (OSP) TO OFFICE (OFC) FOR THE BRIDGES REDEVELOPMENT SITE;
SPECIAL PLANNING CASE SP-134-05
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has directed staff to explore potential
redevelopment options relating to the Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course site as
identified in the map attached as Exhibit 1, and;
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has become aware of significant interest
in the Bridges site for a potential corporate office campus redevelopment; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has authorized the preparation of an
Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) to assess the maximum development potential
of the Bridges site assuming a corporate office land use; and,
WHEREAS, to resolve an inconsistency between the zoning and future land use of
the site, the Mounds View City Council has authorized the preparation of a Comprehensive
Plan Future Land Use Map amendment; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission reviewed the proposed
amendment on January 19, 2005 and held a duly noticed public hearing on the
amendment February 2, 2005.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission
does hereby make the following findings of fact relating to the Comprehensive Plan Future
Land Use Map for the Bridges Redevelopment site:
1. The Bridges site is situated north of Trunk Highway 10, west of Interstate 35W
and south of County Road J and 82nd Street NE
2. The Bridges site, as identified in Exhibit 1, is currently designated as Passive
Open Space and Outdoor Sport Recreation.
3. The Bridges Site is currently zoned I-1, Light Industrial, as a result of action
taken by the City in 2003.
4. The Bridges site is bordered by industrially-zoned and utilized lands within and
outside of the city.
Resolution 783-05
Page 2
5. The Bridges site should reflect a future land use designation that is both
consistent with the approved zoning and indicative of the anticipated
redevelopment as a corporate office campus.
6. There exists a relative scarcity (less than 1%) of land in the City designated as
“Office”.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based on the above findings of
fact, the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby conclude that the Bridges site
should bear the future land use designation of “OFFICE” and recommends approval of
such an amendment effectuating said change.
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 2nd day of February, 2005.
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
James Ericson
Community Development Director
(SEAL)
\\trout\commdev\special planning cases\sp-134-05 (comp plan amendment)\resolution 783-05.doc
Exhibit 1.
Bridges Site – Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map
Bridges Redevelopment
Site
RESOLUTION NO. 6540
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM
OUTDOOR SPORT RECREATION (SRO) AND PASSIVE OPEN SPACE (OSP) TO
OFFICE (OFC) FOR THE BRIDGES REDEVELOPMENT SITE;
SPECIAL PLANNING CASE SP-134-05
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has directed staff to explore potential
redevelopment options relating to the Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course site as
identified in the map attached as Exhibit 1, and;
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has authorized the preparation of an
Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) to assess the maximum development potential
of the Bridges site assuming a corporate office land use; and,
WHEREAS, to resolve an inconsistency between the zoning and future land use of
the site, the Mounds View City Council has authorized the preparation of a Comprehensive
Plan Future Land Use Map amendment; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission reviewed the proposed
amendment on January 19, 2005 and held a duly noticed public hearing on the
amendment February 2, 2005.
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission adopted Resolution 783-05 on
February 2, 2005 which recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment;
and,
WHEREAS, on April 27, 2005, the Metropolitan Council approved the City’s request
for a Comprehensive Plan amendment that would change the future land use designation
of the golf course from OSP and SRO to OFC; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council reviewed the proposed amendment and
held a duly noticed public hearing on May 23, 2005; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council on June 27, 2005 approved the
proposed sale of the Bridges site to Medtronic and approved the terms of the purchase
agreement and contract for private development.
Resolution 6540
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View City Council makes the
following findings of fact relating to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map for the
Bridges Redevelopment site:
1. The Bridges site is situated north of Trunk Highway 10, west of Interstate 35W
and south of County Road J and 82nd Street NE
2. The Bridges site, as identified in Exhibit 1, is currently designated as Passive
Open Space and Outdoor Sport Recreation.
3. The Bridges Site is currently zoned I-1, Light Industrial, as a result of action
taken by the City in 2003.
4. The Bridges site is bordered by industrially-zoned and utilized lands within and
outside of the city.
5. The Bridges site should reflect a future land use designation that is both
consistent with the approved zoning and indicative of the anticipated
redevelopment as a corporate office campus.
6. There exists a relative scarcity (less than 1%) of land in the City designated as
“Office”.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based on the above findings of
fact, the Mounds View City Council does hereby authorize and approve the amendment to
the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan that would change the future land
use designation of the Bridges Golf Course as identified in Exhibit 1 to “OFFICE.”
Adopted this 11th day of July, 2005.
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kurt Ulrich
City Clerk / Administrator
(SEAL)
Exhibit 1.
Bridges Site – Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map
Bridges Redevelopment
Site
Item No: 8D
Meeting Date: July 11, 2005
Type of Business: CB
Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Resolution 6541, a Resolution Accepting and
Approving the Bridges Redevelopment Alternative Urban
Areawide Review (AUAR) Final Document
Introduction:
In 2003, the City rezoned the golf course to I-1, Light Industrial, in recognition of the
surrounding land uses as well as potential redevelopment opportunities. Since early 2004,
the City of Mounds View has been actively exploring redevelopment options associated with
the Bridges Golf Course site located north of Trunk Highway 10 in the northeast corner of the
City. Presently operated as a municipal golf course, the City Council had been considering
other options as a means to enhance and improve revenues and tax base. On June 27,
2005, the City Council approved a proposed sale of the Bridges Site to Medtronic, Inc. and
approved the terms of the contract for private development which would entail the
construction of an 820,000 square foot corporate office campus.
Discussion:
On September 13, 2004, the Economic Development Authority (EDA) of the City of Mounds
View authorized the preparation of an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) that would
assess the maximum development potential of the Bridges Golf Course site assuming an
office or light industrial land use and the impacts of such a development. Attached to this
staff report is the AUAR Executive Summary and responses to a complete copy of the AUAR
document. The primary issue of concern that was identified in the AUAR is the impact to the
transportation system. Already at or exceeding capacity, the transportation system was
carefully analyzed by the consultant with the assistance of numerous outside agency
stakeholders which included representatives from the following:
• The City of Blaine
• The City of Mounds View
• The City of Shoreview
• Anoka County
• Ramsey County
• Metropolitan Council
• MN Dept of Transportation
Working together with these stakeholders, a comprehensive transportation improvement plan
was created that would mitigate all identified traffic impacts caused by maximum
development on the Bridges site as well as to resolve existing system deficiencies. Only
three agencies submitted comments in response to the second public comment period—
Anoka County, MnDOT and the DNR. The final draft of the AUAR includes these comments
as well as the appropriate responses.
AUAR Acceptance Report
July 11, 2005
Page 2
Recommendation:
Consider Resolution 6541 accepting and approving the Bridges Redevelopment Site
Alternative Urban Areawide Review.
________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
Attachments:
1. Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Executive Summary
2. Resolution 6541
RESOLUTION NO. 6541
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND APPROVING THE BRIDGES REDEVELOPMENT
SITE ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW (AUAR);
SPECIAL PLANNING CASE SP-137-05
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has directed staff to explore potential
redevelopment options relating to the Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course site as
identified in the map attached as Exhibit 1, and;
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Economic Development Authority (EDA) authorized
the preparation of an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) to assess the maximum
development potential of the Bridges site assuming a corporate office land use; and,
WHEREAS, the EDA selected the consulting firm RLK-Kuusisto, LTD (RLK) to
coordinate and prepare the AUAR doscument; and,
WHEREAS, the City and RLK followed all statutory guidelines and requirements
regarding the preparation and publication of the AUAR; and,
WHEREAS, the AUAR dated November 17, 2004 and the AUAR Amendment and
Mitigation Plan dated April 22, 2005 are complete; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council on Julne 27, 2005 approved the terms of
the proposed sale of the Bridges site to Medtronic and approved the terms of the proposed
contract for private development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View City Council accepts and
approves the Bridges Redevelopment Site Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) and
Mitigation Plan and makes a negative declaration on the need for an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS).
Adopted this 13th day of June, 2005.
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kurt Ulrich
City Clerk / Administrator
(SEAL)
Exhibit 1.
Bridges Redevelopment Site AUAR Map
Bridges Redevelopment
Site
Item No. 08E
Type of Business: CB
Meeting Date: July 11, 2005
City Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree Crane, Administrative Assistant
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6574 Authorizing Severance Payment for Marla
Manypenny
Marla Manypenny has resigned from her position in the Surface Water Division of the
Public Works Department effective June 24, 2005.
In accordance with Article 26.1 of the Public Works Labor Contract, Severance pay shall
be granted in the amount of fifty percent (50%) of the maximum accrual of one hundred
and twenty (120) days (960 hours) of unused sick leave to employees who have
completed two years of service. Resolution 6574 provides a cash payout of Ms.
Manypenny’s sick time of $68.35. This is calculated as 6.75 accrued sick hours times
50% times her hourly rate of $20.22.
Resolution 6574 provides a cash payout of Ms. Manypenny’s vacation time of $335.65.
This is calculated as 16.6 accrued vacation hours times her hourly rate of $20.22.
Resolution 6575 also provides a cash payout of Ms. Manypenny’s compensation time of
$45.49. This is calculated as 2.25 accrued compensation hours times her hourly rate of
$20.22. Both vacation and compensation cash payout is compliant with Article 26.5 of the
Public Works Labor Contract, which states the following:
Article 26.5 An employee will be compensated for accrued vacation and
compensatory time upon separation on a one-hour to one-hour rate.
Recommendation
Staff recommends severance payment for Marla Manypenny in accordance with the
Public Works Labor Contract.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree Crane
RESOLUTION NO. 6574
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING SEVERANCE FOR MARLA MANYPENNY
WHEREAS, Marla Manypenny has resigned from her position with the Surface Water
Division with the City of Mounds View effective June 24, 2005; and
WHEREAS, Article 26.1 of the Public Works Labor Contract states that severance pay
shall be granted in the amount of fifty percent (50%) of the maximum accrual of one hundred
and twenty (120) days (960 hours) of unused sick leave to employees who have completed two
years of service; and
WHEREAS, Article 26.5 of the Public Works Labor Contract stated that an employee will
be compensated for accrued vacation and compensatory time upon separation on a one-hour to
one-hour rate; and
WHEREAS, the balance of accrued and unused sick leave time is 6.75 hours effective
June 24, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the balance of accrued and unused vacation time is 16.6 hours as of June
24, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the balance of accrued and unused compensation time is 2.5 hours as of
June 24, 2004; and
WHEREAS, Marla Manypenny’s current annual salary is $42,057.60 which translates to
a rate of pay of $20.22 per hour; and
WHEREAS, the maximum potential payout of vacation time will be 16.6 hours x $20.22
= $335.65, the maximum potential payout of compensation time will be 2.25 x $20.22 = $45.49,
and the maximum potential payout of sick leave time will be 6.75 hours x 50% x $20.22 =
$68.35 for a total of $449.49.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council approve a
one-time payout of accrued and unused vacation time and compensation time in an amount not
to exceed $381.14 and 50% of accrued and unused sick leave in an amount not to exceed
$68.14 as of June 24, 2005 to Marla Manypenny.
Adopted this 11th day of July, 2005.
________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No. 08F
Meeting Date: July 11, 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 6579 Revising the Policy Approving
Certain Employee Appreciation Events and
Employee 5-year Milestone Awards
Background:
Staff was directed by the City Council on the July 5, 2005, Work Session, to
revise the policy set in Resolution 5617 for Plaques awarded to retiring
employees. Staff was directed to give retiring employees the option of either a
plaque or a gift certificate. Resolution 5617 (passed October 8, 2001), created a
mechanism by which employees would be appreciated and awarded for
achieving certain level of years of service.
Discussion:
Resolution 5617 was adopted by the Council to show its appreciation for City
employees for their dedicated and committed services. One of the clauses
indicates that Mounds View will provide to employees “gift certificates in the
amount of $5 per year of service at five-year increments” and also authorizes
providing retiring employees with “plaques.”
Resolution 5617 also states that the annual employee appreciation event is to be
held at the Mounds View Banquet and Conference Center. The last two
Employee Appreciations were held at City Hall Park. Staff has revised this policy
to include Mounds View City Parks to ensure that more options are considered.
Recommendation:
Attached for the City Council consideration is Resolution 6579 Revising the
Policy Approving Certain Employee Appreciation Events and Employee 5-year
Milestone Awards. Staff recommends approval of this Resolution.
Respectfully Submitted,
Desaree M. Crane
RESOLUTION 6579
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING CERTAIN EMPLOYEE AND VOLUNTEER
APPRECIATION EVENTS
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council wishes to show its
appreciation to employees and volunteers for dedicated and committed service;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that showing appreciation to
employees and volunteers benefits the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Mounds View will
annually (when funds are available) contribute $1000 toward an annual
employee appreciation event to be held at the Mounds View Banquet and
Conference Center or Mounds View City Parks.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City of Mounds
View will issue to employee gift certificates in the amount of $5 per year of
service at five-year increments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of
Mounds View will annually (when funds are available) contribute $1000 toward
an annual volunteer appreciation event to be held at the Mounds View Banquet
and Conference Center or at Mounds View City Parks.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of
Mounds View will present the employee’s choice of a plaque ($60 max) or gift
certificates ($50 max) to retirees with 10 years of service at regularly scheduled
City Council meetings.
Adopted this 11th day of July, 2005
________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No. 08G
Type of Business: CB
Meeting Date: July 11, 2005
City Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Appointing a Candidate for the Finance Director Position
According to the Recruitment Process outlined in the May 2, 2005 Work Session, a
candidate should be considered on July 11, 2005. Most of the City Council has
conducted interviews on the two Finance Director Candidates Staff has completed
Criminal Background checks, and both have passed. Staff is currently checking
references on each candidate. A credit check would be conducted on the selected
finalist.
If a suitable candidate is apparent, staff recommends that the City Administrator be
authorized to present an offer consistent with the position as advertised, submit to
formal City Council approval at the next City Council Meeting and satisfactory
completion of background checks.
Respectfully submitted,
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item No: 09A
Meeting Date: July 11, 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.
All-Brite Sign, Inc. Sign New
Apollo Heating and Vent. Corp. HVAC Renewal
Inland Pools Swimming Pool New
Interior Care & Construction General (Commercial) New
Mobile Home Improvement HVAC Renewal
Signcrafters Sign Renewal
Steve Binstock Construction General (Commercial) New
Total Comfort HVAC Renewal
Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested.
Item No. 09C
Type of Business: CA
Meeting Date: July 11, 2005
City Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree Crane, Administrative Assistant
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6576 Approving a Tobacco and Gasoline License
for Gas for Less located at 2525 Highway 10.
Gas for Less business licenses expired on June 30, 2005. Gas for Less has
decided to renew their Tobacco and Gasoline license. The property owners at
the Gas for Less were scheduled to sell the property on June 27, 2005, but the
closing date has been rescheduled. Sharouki Enterprises, the owners of Gas for
Less, is requesting to operate the business until the transfer of property is
finalized.
The appropriate application materials, fee and proof of workers compensation
insurance have been submitted. A fire inspection was done, and some minor
code violations were noted. The license period will be July 1, 2005 to June 30,
2006.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of Resolution 6576, approving a Gasoline and
Tobacco License for Gas for Less located at 2525 Highway 10.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree Crane
RESOLUTION 6576
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
A Resolution Approving a Gasoline and Tobacco License for Gas for Less
located at 2525 Highway 10
WHEREAS, Sharouki Enpterprises recently submitted an application for a
gasoline and tobacco license for Gas for Less; and
WHEREAS, the licensing period would be July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006;
and
WHEREAS, all City of Mounds View businesses must be approved by the
City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mound View City
Council does hereby approve a gasoline and tobacco license for Gas for Less
located at 2525 Highway 10.
Adopted this 11th day of July, 2005.
_______________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No: 09D
Meeting Date: July 11, 2005
Type of Business: CB
Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Tim Pittman, Public Works Supervisor
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6578 Approving a Contract for the Scheduled
Replacement of a Street Sweeper
In the late 1980’s the City of Mounds View did a cost comparison of taking over the
snow plowing and street sweeping of all the municipal roadways, which was contracted
to the County of Ramsey. After it was determined that it was in the best interest of the
City of Mounds View to purchase the equipment required to successfully complete
these programs with in the public works department. One (1) of the pieces of equipment
is a 1990 Elgin Street Sweeper (3-wheel mechanical) that is used for fall (leaf pick-up)
and spring (sand and debris pick-up) street sweeping, this is also used periodically to
clean up parking lots, after parades (Festival in the Park), and through out the summer
months as needed to keep the City of Mounds View street clean and safe.
As mentioned, this is a 1990 model that is up for replacement, this is in the 2005
budget account # 245-4417-7030, in the amount of $114,000.00. Due to steel prices
and inflation since last quoted for budget purposes the purchase price for a 3-wheel
sweeper has increased to $126,978.00 plus sales tax. With this increase staff looked at
another style of street sweeper that other cities are converting to and will best serve the
City of Mounds View’s needs in more ways than one. With 43.5 miles of roads and the
requirements of the city’s NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System),
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Permit and the City’s Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Program in full gear and a 5-year program that is mandated by law, this
sweeper would benefit the city in meeting these requirements. This sweeper would also
require less staff to perform these duties. This is a 4 Wheel Regenerative Air Sweeper
that has multiple capabilities, rather than just sweep the roads it has a vacuum system
that helps in picking up all the impurities that are running to our streams and rivers at
the same time.
Street sweeping with the 3- wheel mechanical sweeper such as the city owns has been
around since the 1950’s and has been very effective for the use it was created for, such
as spring and fall street cleaning and new construction of roads. Due to environmental
concerns and laws put into effect the demand for a more efficient type of sweeper has
been created to help meet this criteria. The 3-wheel sweeper can clean the surface of
large debris, but dirt and fine particulates are left behind on the surface and in the
cracks. This also has a main broom that needs to be replaced every 120 to 150 hours,
(2) brooms per year at the most recent cost of $299.66 each plus tax, and this is a total
of $638.28 each year. Requires (2) employee’s to perform this job, (1) to operate the
sweeper and (1) to operate a dump truck that the sweepings are dumped into, and then
they are hauled to a dumpsite. It takes approximately (31/2) weeks to sweep all the
roadways in the City of Mounds View with the 3- wheel sweeper. The 4-wheel sweeper
would reduce labor costs due to being a (1) person operation and eliminate the costs
associated with the use of a dump truck. During street sweeping operations at this time
other projects are put aside due to lack of staff, such as the continuous pothole filling,
seasonal transition of equipment, (summer to winter use etc.), boulevard and street
repairs due to water main – breaks, (7) breaks this winter season, staff also schedules
the flushing of water mains around the street sweeping program to help reduce some of
the of contaminants that have built up during the season from getting into the storm
drainage system. The 4-wheel sweeper is a conventional chassis, which explains the
elimination of the use of the dump truck; all the components of a sweeper and a
combination of high air pressure and high volume suction systems (Regenerative Air
System) are mounted on this chassis.
This system uses a controlled blast of air to dislodge debris, dirt and fines from cracks
and the surface area, all debris is picked up by the pick-up head and is directed up a
large heavy-duty suction hose into a large hopper that will handle twice the capacity of
the 3-wheel sweeper. This also reduces the amount of trips and travel time to the
dumpsite, which is also cost, and time effective. This type of sweeper can also be used
in rainy weather (within reason) to keep on schedule with out delays, with the present
sweeper staff has to stop and reschedule projects due to unexpected weather
conditions. As stated earlier that this is a multipurpose sweeper that can be very
beneficial in other aspect of use. In the year of 1996 staff implemented a cleaning
program of the complete sanitary sewer system and has been very successful in no
lawsuits due to blockages in the mains that the city is responsible for maintaining. Since
the requirements of the city’s NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System)
have been put into effect staff has fallen behind in this program due to the cleaning of
storm sewer. At this time we are using the same piece of equipment (Vactor) to try and
meet both programs needs. The Vactor is a combination unit that creates high volume
water pressure that is used to clean underground infrastructures and a vacuum for
removing debris from those infrastructures, which could create blockages. The storm
and sanitary sewer system are very simuliar in their functions and design. With the
new catch basins, storm septors, and rain gardens that have to be installed to meet the
requirements of the RCWSD (Rice Creek Water Shed District), they also need to be
maintained to function properly. At this time the Vactor is being used to clean such
structures were as this new style 4-wheel sweeper also has a vacuum system
specifically designed to perform this task and help resolve many of the scheduling
issues that are being created. Due to the size of the Vactor and set–up time to do this
task it requires (2) employees for safety reason’s, the 4-wheel sweeper would only
require (1) employee to perform the same task. This being cost effective and the
manpower would be designated to other projects of high importance.
Staff had the (4) manufactures of this style sweeper come to the City of Mounds View
to demonstrate the performance and effectiveness. The Schwarze Model A7000, the
Tymco Model 600, the Elgin Crosswinds, and the Johnston Model 770. All (4) machines
were operated by staff and were given the same criteria of tasks to perform. After hours
of operation of each sweeper, staff made comparisons and called other establishments
for information on each sweeper. After extensive research staff concluded that the Elgin
Crosswinds would best suit the city’s needs.
BENEFITS:
• Meeting of requirements and regulations
• Less equipment to complete the job
• (1) Employee operation verses a (2) employee operation
• Less maintenance costs
• More efficient and cost effective: Refer to report #1 of 3 that is included in this
report by (Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District). Page 13 is of cost
comparisons.
• Multi-purpose uses
• Help eliminate scheduling problems
• Operates in rainy weather (within reason)
• Large capacity hopper (less travel time to dump site)
• Cost difference is justifiable
All (4) of these 4 – wheel sweepers are on state bid, the results are as shown:
ABM Equipment & Supply Inc. Schwarze Model A7000 $149,695.00
- $19,695.00
Trade-in
$130,000.00 + tax
Ruffridge – Johnson Equipment Johnston Model 770 $150,850.00
Trade-in -$25,625.00
$125,225.00 + tax
MacQueen Equipment Inc. Elgin Crosswinds $144,866.00
Trade-in $21,000.00
$123,866.00 + tax
Environmental Equipment Inc. TYMCO 600 $141,550.00
Trade-in -$23,000.00
$118,550.00 + tax
Auto Lube System (installed by staff) $2,542.03 + tax
All above sweepers were highly investigated by staff (operators and mechanic) for
design, (operator friendly), the least maintenance issues, safety, and parts availability.
With all this being considered the Elgin Crosswind is determined to be the best machine
to meet the requirements of the City of Mounds View. The staff realizes that cost is a
major consideration; therefore the staff has made a direct comparison between the final
choice and the lowest bidder. We feel the Elgin Crosswind is a better choice based on
the following criteria.
-Better performance. It was noticed that the Elgin Crosswind performed a
cleaner job in the same setting. The crosswind was also quieter,
therefore reducing likelihood disturbing residents while in use.
-Superior design. The staff felt that Crosswind was a much more modern
design and that there were many specific items that would allow the
machine to operate more efficiently and last much longer. The staff and
mechanic also felt that maintenance and adjustments were much more
easily performed on the Elgin Crosswind.
-Brand Reputation. After contacting multiple users of both sweepers we
felt the Elgin Crosswind has established a consistent reputation of
performance and reliability.
-Operator friendliness. The staff wholly agreed that the Elgin Crosswind
was much easier to operate, both in a street sweeping application and
when cleaning catch basins.
-Safety. The staff feels that the design of the Crosswind, specifically the
way in which the hopper is emptied, is much safer than other designs.
The cost differential would come from the vehicle replacement fund that was approve
by Mayor and Council to assist in the budgeted amount of $114,00.00 to make up the
difference of $12,408.03 + tax.
Staff was asked to explore other options. These were as follows:
1. Purchasing with another city:
Staff does not feel that this is an option because of conflict of the same
programs and time frames. Staff did follow thru and called the surrounding
communities to see if this was of interest. These cities consisted of:
Blaine, at this time they have (2) 4-wheel sweepers and didn’t feel it would work
to have a joint ownership due to conflicting schedules, they have the same
programs and services as The City of Mounds View.
New Brighton, they have (2) 3-wheel sweepers and are seriously looking at a 4-
wheel sweeper to replace one of them when it is up for replacement. They have
a 15-year replacement schedule on their sweepers. Their comments and
concerns were the same.
Fridley, they have (2) sweepers, (1) 3-wheel sweeper and (1) 4-wheel sweeper,
they replace their sweepers between 5-7 years due to the wear and tear that
they receive. Their comments and concerns were of the same.
Shoreview , they have (1) 3-wheel sweeper, it is a 1997 Elgin that they are
replacing next year, and this is a 9-year replacement. Staff is seriously looking at
a 4-wheel sweeper to replace it. They have no interest in a joint ownership, didn’t
see how it would be feasible to get the demands accomplished if this were
implemented. They have a street crew of (6) employee’s and they run a sweeper
almost every day.
Arden Hills, they have (2) 3-wheel sweepers, same comments and concerns.
They have a 10-year replacement program and will be looking at the 4-wheel
sweeper when the replacement schedule is in effect.
Spring Lake Park, at this time they contract out their street sweeping in the
spring and fall, they also felt that this would not work to have a joint ownership.
They are hoping to purchase one in the future to save on this expenditure (2)
times each year, and have the ability to go out when ever staff felt it was
necessary.
2. Contracting this service out:
The cost of contracting this out is per hour, the fall sweeping charge is $69.00
per hour, and the spring sweeping charge is $65.00 per hour. As mentioned in
this report it takes 31/2 weeks to sweep the complete city. This is a total of
$9,660.00 for the fall sweeping, $9100.00 for the spring sweeping. This does not
include the use of city staff and equipment.
There are a number of issues associated with dealing with a contractor for this
program such as:
1. The initial cost often seems low, but the city needs to take into account
the cost of trucking, disposal and the man-hours involved. These services
are typically not included and are the most expensive part of the project.
Also, a contractor will bring out several sweepers in order to do the job
quickly, which means the city would have to supply several dump trucks to
keep up with the sweepers, which now turns a “one-man/truck operation
into a” several-man/truck operation”. The city is now paying for a
contractor to do a job and still paying for staff and equipment also.
2. Hiring a contractor, the city would have to wait until they can fit us into
their schedule, not only does this reduce the level of service to the
residents, it also allows more time for road debris to drain into the storm
sewer system.
3. Cleaning of the storm sewer catch basins is not included in a street
sweeping project with a contactor. This being a great concern to the city
with the laws and regulations that have been mandated.
4. Staff mentioned above the capability of going out and sweeping at any
given time with the cities own sweeper. Examples: Festival In the Park
Parade, clean-up day events, Spring/fall, and like this season, very rainy
which carries a lot of debris to the streets.
5. As like any other project that is hired out by the city, it would have to be
supervised to meet the requirements. This again takes staff away from
other projects of importance, this not being cost effective or efficient.
3. Keeping the sweeper the City of Mounds View owns:
This is a 1990 Elgin (Pelican P series ) with 9152 miles = 366 miles per year,
2827.7 hours = 113.11 hours per year. This machine is in good condition due to
the maintenance program that is implemented by the public works department,
although there are parts that are of concern such as the conveyor belt that
appears fine but could fail at anytime due to the age and use, drive chains and
hydraulic motors that could fail at anytime due to the age. Staff inquired with the
dealer and was given an over the phone quote of $5000.00 to $8000.00 to
replace such parts. Example: 1989 Ford Dump Truck (Unit #125) was coming up
for replacement at the 15 year scheduled replacement date when the
transmission failed, this was an expenditure of $4955.59. Staff requested that
the replacement policy to be changed to 10 to 12 years replacement after getting
information from other cities and trade-in values from dealers in the best interest
of the city.
Keeping the current sweeper will not increase the efficiency or help in meeting of
the ever-growing requirements that are to be accomplished at the end of each
year by law.
This sweeper was purchased in March of 1990 for a cost of $70,989.25 and has
been retained beyond its optimum trade-in value time. Due to the overall
condition the venders are willing to be generous with the trade-in offers. In the
above findings the replacement of a street sweeper varies from 5 to 15 years, 15
years being the maximum time frame stated. These cities can justify (2)
sweepers due to their size, to meet the demands that each city is to comply with.
4. Leasing / Purchasing Program for:
2005 Elgin Crosswind Street Sweeper $131,917.00 this includes taxes.
Rate: 5.00%
Terms: 5 years
Payment: $30,468.00 (payments are annual, due at the end of each period)
Trade in would be used as down payment
Total after interest and terms: $152,340.00
Interest alone: $20,423.00
Note: Lease programs are available anywhere from 3 to 8 years.
Rental:
Quote from dealer: At the current time there is no rental unit available due to timing
and cost issues.
Rental – We have found that timing would be a problem because of the fact that our
demo unit is scheduled for demos at the same time most cities are sweeping.
Cost – Because of the limited demand for a Crosswind rental unit we would not be
able to cover the cost of such a purchase. I.e.: the demand period for a sweeper
runs from mid-March to the end of April. We would not be able to charge enough for
rent in a six-week period to cover the cost of a $150,000.00 unit.
Purchasing a used sweeper:
At this time there are no used or demo Elgin Crosswind sweepers available that are
new enough to meet the demands that the city is requiring.
RECOMMENDATION:
Consistent with the City of Mounds View’s Long Range Financial Plan approved by City
Council on December 13, 2004, Resolution 6403, Staff recommends that the City
Council approve the purchase of a 2005 Elgin Crosswind Street Sweeper under state
contract and award a contract to McQueen Equipment, Inc. in the amount of
$123,866.00 plus tax.
Finally, Staff recommends that the City Council approve the trade-in of the 1990 Elgin
(Pelican) 3 –wheel sweeper to McQueen Equipment Inc. at a credited value of
$21,000.00, this is already presented in the over- all cost.
Respectfully Submitted,
Timothy Pittman, Public Works Supervisor
RESOLUTION NO. 6578
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR THE SCHEDULED REPLACEMENT OF A STREET
SWEEPER
WHEREAS, The street sweeper (Elgin P Series) was purchased in 1990; and
WHEREAS, is scheduled for replacement as in accordance with the vehicle
replacement policy; and
WHEREAS, staff contacted the (4) companies that represent this equipment and
demonstrations were performed; and
WHEREAS, the sweeper is a state contract pricing item, after a trade- in value of
$21,000.00 and Auto Lube system the total amount of $126,408.03 + tax; and
WHEREAS, the adopted 2005 Budget has $114,000.00 allotted in the Enterprise
Fund, under the Street Cleaning Fund (account 245-4417-7030); and
WHEREAS, Staff recommends that additional funds are recommended to be
derived from the Vehicle Replacement Fund that was adopted by Mayor and Council,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1. That the purchase of an Elgin (Crosswind) sweeper be approved in
accordance to the vehicle replacement policy in the amount of $126,408.03 +
tax.
2. That the Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to
enter into a purchase agreement with McQueen Equipment Inc.
3. That the funds to finance this project will be derived from the Enterprise
Fund, under the Street Cleaning Fund (account245-4417-7030) and that any
additional funds that may be required are to be derived from the Vehicle
Replacement Fund.
Resolution 6578
Page 2
Adopted this 11th day of July, 2005.
____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No. 09F
Meeting Date: July 11, 2005
Type of Business: CA
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City Administrator Review _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Jim Hess, Engineering/IS Technician
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6565 Approving and Authorizing the
Conversion to an IP (Internet Protocol) based
Phone and Voice Mail System with the City of
Roseville, as part of the City Hall Renovation
Project, and Approving the Draft Joint Powers
Agreement and Draft Cost Recovery Agreement
( contingent upon review by legal council ) with
the City of Roseville for Use and Support of the IP
System
Background:
On April 25, 2005, the City Council approved the preparation of plans and
specifications for the City Hall Rehabilitation Project. During the construction
phase of this project staff will need to vacate the building. The current plan is to
move the police department to the new Ramsey County Building in Arden Hills
and the rest of the staff to the community center.
Discussion:
One of the first steps in the City Hall Renovation Project is to plan for the
relocation of all City Hall staff. The police department will be locating to the new
Ramsey County Sheriffs office building in Arden Hills. All other staff will be
moving to the Community Center. Moving the phone and voicemail system as
well as the computer network must be addressed before staff can relocate. The
time to set up these systems at two different locations is anticipated to take
several weeks and involve the use of various consultants.
Staff has consulted with the City of Roseville’s IT staff and Acticor, the city’s
current phone system vendor, on the expenses involved. To move the existing
phone and voicemail system to two locations would require the purchase of an
additional phone and voicemail system for the second location. Acticor has
indicated that it would cost considerably more to keep the existing system
operational during the move than is would be to convert to an IP Telephony
system.
In an IP based system the phones are connected to the same wiring as the
computer network. This technology allows for the ability to use one system at
several sites. IP phones are configured using software, much like computers.
Once setup and configured the phones can be moved anywhere in the building
and no phone technician is needed to reroute the lines. This is a major cost
savings for future office changes and especially for the move back into the
renovated city hall. The cost to move these systems back into city hall would be
negligible.
The City of Mounds View has an existing Joint Powers Agreement with the City
of Roseville for computer technology assistance. Mounds View is currently
connected to Roseville and several other cities as well as the Ramsey County
Sheriffs building by fiber optic cable. Mounds View is currently using the domain
servers, mail servers and data backup servers owned by Roseville as part of a
Joint Powers Agreement. Because IP phones connect together like computers
and Roseville is currently using IP phones, Mounds View has the opportunity to
expand on the agreement with Roseville and utilize their system. Roseville’s IP
Telephony system was purchased with the capacity to add other cities. The main
servers and software for the IP system are owned and maintained by Roseville.
Roseville is prepared to assist Mounds View in the conversion to IP Telephony.
The Joint Powers Agreement would be revised to include the addition of IP
Telephony support and use. The current response time for support of our
computer network by the Roseville IT staff has been excellent.
By working with Roseville, Mounds View would not have to purchase the servers
or the “call manager” software, which is a major part of the IP system. Mounds
View would need to purchase the IP phones and associated hardware as well as
the client access licenses to use the software as well as participate in the costs
of the maintenance agreement. A quote was received from the City of Roseville
detailing these costs for a total of $30,565.74. This quote includes the purchase
of a $5,221.35 network switch that has already been budgeted for replacement
this year. Not including this switch would reduce the quote to $25,344.39.
Roseville IT staff has also expressed interest in doing a portion of the installation
of the new system to further reduce the costs. In addition, the network
connectivity with other cities will allow the use of these phones at other sites.
This is an important safeguard should any catastrophic event require the
vacation of city hall. Employees could relocate to any other member city and their
phone would still be operational. Roseville has also built in a redundancy plan;
should the main phone server go down a second server takes over the call
management.
Staff also contacted Acticor, the current phone system supplier to request a
quote to convert to IP Telephony. Due to the complexity and time constraints,
only a verbal quote was received. They stated that they also could provide an IP
Telephony system using the current phones and the existing voicemail system.
The verbal quote received was approximately $22,000.00. This does not include
support or maintenance agreements as was included in the Roseville quote. Our
aging phones would be required to be reused and there would not be a backup
system in place should the system go down. Their technicians would need to be
called for most modifications or troubleshooting needs based on an hourly
charge. This system does not provide the continuity that joining the Roseville
system provides.
Staff has also contacted Nextel, the city’s current cell phone provider, to get an
idea of the cost associated with using cell phones for a six-month period.
To provide phone and voicemail to all existing employees who currently have
phone and or voicemail would require the purchase of 67 phones. The monthly
charge for a 1000-minute plan would be $45.91 each. The total cost for this
monthly service plan on 67 phones for six months would be $18,455.82 not
including the purchase of the phones or the activation fees. The cost of the
phones varies widely base upon the features needed. Assuming a typical phone
cost of $50.00 and an activation fee of $25.00 would add $5,025 to the cost for a
grand total of $23,480.82. This total would not include phone lines that need to
be set up for modems and faxes. Many plans are available for cell phone service.
Unlimited minutes would cost more and lower minute plans would cost less.
Minutes are used for incoming, outgoing and access to voicemail. A 1000-minute
plan was used for a base line average. With this scenario the existing phone
system will need to be removed and stored, then reinstalled and configured for
the move back into the renovated city hall at an additional cost. Reception is also
a factor to consider with cell phone use in a brick/block building.
Since the change to IP Telephony would provide the city with a new phone
system at a comparable cost to the other options and the current network
connections to Roseville and other cities are already established, staff
recommends that Mounds View proceed with the conversion to IP Telephony
with Roseville. In addition the maintenance and support of the system by
Roseville IT staff, through the Joint Power Agreement, will free up time for
Mounds View staff maintaining the current phone system.
The change to IP Telephony would need to take place as soon as possible to
guarantee that the phones will be operational for the initial move. The existing
phone numbers would remain the same. The conversion of the phone system
would be financed as part of the City Hall Renovation Project utilizing the Special
Projects Fund.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the conversion to an IP based
phone and voicemail system with the City of Roseville as part of the renovation to
city hall and to approve the draft Joint Powers Agreement and draft Cost
Recovery Agreement (contingent upon review by legal council) for support and
use of the system.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jim Hess, Engineering/IS Technician
RESOLUTION NO. 6565
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING AS PART OF THE CITY HALL
RENOVATION PROJECT THE CONVERSION TO AN IP TELEPHONY PHONE
AND VOICEMAIL SYSTEM WITH THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND
AUTHORIZING THE REVISION OF THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR
USE AND SUPPORT OF THE SYSTEM.
WHEREAS, on April 25, 2005, the City Council, at a Council Meeting,
approved the preparation of plans and specifications for the City Hall renovation
project; and
WHEREAS, staff will need to vacate city hall during renovation and
relocate to two separate locations; and
WHEREAS, a phone and voicemail system will need to be in place and
operational before staff can relocate; and
WHEREAS, converting to an IP Telephony system is the most effective
way to provide phone service during and after the move; and
WHEREAS, a Joint Power Agreement for computer network support
currently exists with the City of Roseville; and
WHEREAS, the City of Roseville is willing to provide IP Telephony service
and support for the City of Mounds; and
WHEREAS, the conversion to IP Telephony will be financed as part of the
City Hall renovation project utilizing the Special Projects Fund.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1. The conversion of the existing phone and voicemail system to IP
Telephony with the City of Roseville is hereby approved as part of
the City Hall Renovation Project and financed by utilizing the
Special Projects Fund.
2. The draft Joint Powers Agreement and the draft Cost Recovery
Agreement with the City of Roseville to include IP Telephony
support is hereby authorized (contingent upon legal council review).
3. The Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized to execute
said agreements.
4. The estimated cost of the conversion to IP Telephony is $25,344.39
and is to be derived from the Special Project Account (Account No.
280-4180-7050).
Adopted this 11th day of July 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
June 13, 2005 6
Mounds View City Hall 7
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 8
7:10 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, Stigney and Thomas 16
17
NOT PRESENT: None. 18
19
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 20
21
A. Monday, June 13, 2005 City Council Agenda. 22
23
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Gunn. To Approve the Monday, June 13, 2005 agenda as 24
presented. 25
26
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 27
28
5. PUBLIC INPUT 29
30
Linda Taylor, 5711 Quincy Street, stated that she is here today to ask the Council for their help in 31
making the crosswalk areas across Highway 10 safer for the children who have to cross over to 32
Edgewood. She expressed concerns about the safety stating that there is a real need for a 33
crossing bridge or safety guards during school hours so that the children can cross safely. She 34
stated that her son walks to school between 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. and she wants him and other 35
children to be safe. She explained that her son, along with several other children cross at 36
Edgewood and the light only stays on long enough to get half way across Highway 10 noting that 37
the easiest route would be to cross at County Road H and Highway 10. She asked the Council to 38
add this item to a future agenda for discussion and resolution. She stated that she has several 39
parents with her tonight who are also in support of her concerns adding that she is willing to do 40
whatever they need to help address the safety issues. 41
42
Mayor Marty acknowledged her concerns stating that he has timed this light and the change over 43
from green to yellow is 12 seconds if the button is not pushed for pedestrians. He stated that the 44
Council has discussed this issue before and plans to discuss it again in the near future. 45
Mounds View City Council June 13, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
1
Public Works Director Lee stated that the project management team assigned to the County Road 2
10 Corridor Improvement project has discussed this issue with the County. He stated that the 3
County does recognize that the timing is at the pedestrian crossing and this will be corrected as 4
part of the project. 5
6
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 7
8
A. Certificate of Recognition for Mounds View Resident Andre Koen, recently 9
named ‘Community Presentations Volunteer of the Year’ by Minneapolis 10
Area Chapter of the American Red Cross. 11
12
Mayor Marty stated they have a Certificate of Recognition for Mounds View resident Andre 13
Koen recently named the Community Presentations Volunteer of the year by the Minneapolis 14
Area Chapter of the American Red Cross. He asked Mr. Koen to come forward for the 15
presentation. He read the Certificate of Recognition and presented the certificate to Mr. Koen. 16
17
Sally Newberry, Minneapolis Area Chapter, stated that she would like to leave some brochures 18
and magnets that address how residents can be prepared for emergencies. 19
20
Mayor Marty thanked them for all their hard work noting that the American Red Cross is a very 21
worthwhile organization and a lot of it is based on volunteer efforts. He thanked them on behalf 22
of the City of Mounds View and the City Council for their work and efforts. 23
24
7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS. 25
26
Council Member Flaherty had the following questions: 27
• Page 6, Mr. Manthis - clarified that he is not an employee of the City. Mary Tatarek stated 28
that there are three Mr. Manthis’ who provide golf lessons, one is a full time employee and 29
two are contract employees. 30
• Page 6, He asked whose PGA membership dues is the City paying for. Mary Tatarek stated 31
that they are paying their employee, Ken Manthis noting that he is the PGA pro that the golf 32
course has fully employed. Council Member Stigney stated that this PGA membership 33
provides private membership benefits and he personally thinks that Mr. Manthis should be 34
paying for this membership himself adding that he has said that every time this request has 35
been presented and would like to reiterate this again. 36
• Page 13, payment to Fridley for water and sewer: Mary Tatarek explained that a small 37
section of Mounds View actually receives water from the City of Fridley. She stated that the 38
City of Fridley sends the bill to the Mounds View and Mounds View bills the residents. 39
• Page 13, Joseph Holberg, escrow refund: Community Development Community 40
Development Director Ericson explained that this item is related to a minor subdivision on 41
County Road J. He stated that part of a driveway had to be relocated and the City took an 42
escrow to make sure the driveway restoration was completed properly. He stated that the 43
funds were refunded back upon completion. 44
Mounds View City Council June 13, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
1
Mayor Marty had the following questions: 2
• Page 5, 116169-Anoka County – He asked what the Joint Powers Agreement is for. Public 3
Works Director Lee explained that the joint powers agreement is with the Cities of Spring 4
Lake Park and Anoka County for the traffic signals located at Pleasantview and County Road 5
10. He stated that it was installed in 2002 and is a one-time payment. 6
• Page 7, 116188, Sun Newspaper ad for $506.00. City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich confirmed 7
that the ad was for the replacement of the Finance Director. 8
• Page 10, Bonestroo, Rosene and Anderlik, 2003 Street Improvement project for $3,304.00 – 9
Is this a final payment. Public Works Director Lee stated that this is a bill from January 30 to 10
March 31st noting that Bonestroo was in the process of upgrading their invoicing software 11
and was behind in their monthly billing. He stated that this is a two-month bill noting that 12
there would be additional bills coming for the 2003 Street project. 13
• Hidden Hollow utility improvements second access – He asked if this would be passed on to 14
the developers or would this be a City cost. Public Works Director Lee stated that he would 15
have to review the bill as there was a cost split for a utility access that was installed as a part 16
of the project. He stated that a portion is City cost and a portion would be a cost to the 17
developer and would have to be split out. 18
• Status on the County Highway 10 improvements - Public Works Director Lee stated that the 19
project mgmt team is meeting this Thursday. 20
21
Mayor Marty called a brief recess due to inclement weather at 7:20 p.m. 22
23
Mayor Marty called the meeting back to order at 7:50 p.m. 24
25
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Flaherty. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as presented. 26
27
Ayes - 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 28
29
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 30
31
A. 7:05 p.m. Public Hearing, Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 759 32
Amending Section 4.02 of the Mounds View City Charter, Filing for Office. 33
34
Administrative Assistant Crane stated that the City Council approved the first reading and 35
introduction of the Ordinance 759 amending section 4.02 of the Mounds View City Charter at the 36
May 23 rd City Council meeting. She stated that corrections were made to the first reading adding 37
that staff has reviewed the changes and supports adoption of the ordinance. Staff recommends a 38
public hearing considering the second reading and also requires a roll call vote. 39
40
Council Member Thomas asked for clarification on the changes. 41
42
Administrative Assistant Crane stated that Minnesota Statute 205.1.3 was originally mistyped. 43
She stated that it was originally written as 202.1.3. 44
Mounds View City Council June 13, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 4
1
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. 2
3
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. 4
5
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Marty To waive the reading and adopt Ordinance 759 Amending 6
Section 4.02 of the Mounds View City Charter, Filing For Office. 7
8
ROLL CALL VOTE 9
10
Marty-Aye 11
Gunn-Aye 12
Flaherty-Aye 13
Stigney-Aye 14
Thomas-Aye 15
16
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 17
18
B. Resolution 6551 Authorizing Severance Payment for Sergeant Jerry Johnson. 19
20
Administrative Assistant Crane stated that Sergeant Jerry Johnson retired effective May 31, 2005. 21
She stated that a resolution is attached authorizing severance payment to Sergeant Jerry Johnson 22
adding that the payments are in accordance with the Mounds View personnel manual and the 23
LES labor agreement. She stated that the resolution provides a cash payout of Mr. Johnson’s 24
vacation time of $1,118.76, calculated at 54.65 accrued vacation hours times his hourly rate. In 25
addition the resolution also provides a cash payout for his sick time and in accordance with 26
Article 22 of the LES Sergeants Labor Contract he is eligible to contribute 65-percent of his 27
accumulated and banked sick leave for contribution to the Employee Retirement/Health Savings 28
Plan. She stated that this is calculated as 2,168.73 accrued banked sick hours times 65-percent, 29
times his hourly rate of $33.28 and comes to $46,914.16, to be contributed to the Employee 30
Retirement/Health Savings Plan. Staff recommends severance payment and contribution to the 31
Retirement/Health Savings Plan for Sergeant Jerry Johnson in accordance with the City 32
personnel manual and LES labor agreement. 33
34
City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich pointed out that they did change the retirement plan and this is a 35
relatively high in terms of what would be seen in the future. With the new contract they did cap 36
it at 960 hours and put the amount at 50-percent versus 65-percent for all employees who are 37
currently under 960 hours. He explained that some of the employees were grandfathered in with 38
the police and sergeants, Mr. Johnson being one of them. He stated that from now on severance 39
payment should be less. 40
41
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Thomas. To waive the reading and approve Resolution 6551 42
Authorizing Severance Payment for Sergeant Jerry Johnson. 43
44
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 45
Mounds View City Council June 13, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 5
1
C. Resolution 6552, Authorizing Severance Payment for Charlie Hansen. 2
3
Administrative Assistant Crane stated that Mr. Hansen resigned from his position as Finance 4
Director effective June 3, 2005. She stated that in accordance with Section 4.35d of separation 5
compensation of the personnel manual indicates that an employee would be compensated for 6
their accrued vacation time and 50-percent of their accrued sick leave upon separation. This 7
resolution provides a cash payout of Mr. Hansen’s vacation time of $9,803.91 and calculated at 8
259.02 accrued vacation hours times his hourly rate of $37.85. Mr. Hansen was in compliance 9
with the vacation carryover provisions of the personnel manual at the beginning of the year. She 10
stated that this resolution also provides cash payout for his sick leave of $5,416.34 and 11
calculated as 286.20 accrued sick hours times 50-percent of his hourly rate of $37.85 and is in 12
accordance with the City personnel manual. 13
14
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Flaherty. To waive the reading and approve Resolution 6552, 15
Authorizing Severance Payment for Charlie Hansen in accordance with the City Personnel 16
Manual. 17
18
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 19
20
D. Resolution 6541 Resolution Accepting and Approving the Bridges 21
Redevelopment Site Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR). 22
23
E. Resolution 6557 Appointing Nicholas Fleischhacker to a Vacancy in the 24
Surface Water Division of the Public Works Department. 25
26
Public Works Director Lee stated that they have a vacancy in the Surface Water Division noting 27
that he received a letter of resignation from Marla Mennypenny. He stated that this is a very 28
important position in the Public Works Department noting that this position administrates the 29
City’s permit with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. He stated given this staff advertised 30
internally for this position as required by the labor agreement. He stated that they did receive one 31
application from Nicholas Fleischhacker. He stated that he did interview Mr. Fleischhacker 32
noting that he is a very qualified candidate for this position. He stated that based on this Staff is 33
recommending that Council authorize appointing Mr. Fleischhacker to be placed into the vacant 34
position within the Surface Water Division and authorize staff to advertise for the vacant position 35
in the Sanitary Sewer Division. 36
37
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Flaherty. To waive the reading and approve Resolution 6557 38
Appointing Nicholas Fleischhacker to the vacant position in the Surface Water Division and 39
authorize staff to advertise for the vacant position in the Sanitary Sewer Division of the Public 40
Works Department. 41
42
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 43
44
F. Resolution 6558 Approving the Plans and Specifications, Waiving the Public 45
Mounds View City Council June 13, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 6
Improvement Hearing, Ordering the Project, Setting a Bid Date, and 1
Authorizing to Advertise for Bids for the Groveland Park Building 2
Replacement Project. 3
4
Public Works Director Lee stated that the plans and specifications for the Groveland Park 5
building have been completed. He stated that the plans are similar to the Hillview building 6
noting one of the proposed changes in the design was to not include the setback or utilize the 7
building materials for the walls. He explained that this would allow for additional storage in the 8
building and would also include a small serving area. He stated that it would not be a full 9
kitchen. He stated that the Parks and Recreation Commission have reviewed the plans and they 10
have recommended approval. He stated that a motion regarding the financing was also made to 11
avoid depletion of the Park Dedication Fund. He stated that staff recommends up to 65-percent 12
of the total project costs be financed from the Park Dedication Fund with remainder of funding 13
coming from other sources. He indicated that the other park projects listed on the 2005 project 14
list include the City hall irrigation system and park paths. He stated that these projects, as it 15
currently stands, would not be completed in 2005. He recommended utilizing a special projects 16
fund as a good source for potential funds. He stated that staff is recommending approval and 17
asking for authorization to set a bid date of July 14, 2005. 18
19
Council Member Flaherty asked what the R-factor would be for the insulation. Public Works 20
Director Lee stated that he currently does not have that information. 21
22
Council Member Flaherty asked why they want to install air conditioning in a warming house 23
and asked how they plan to use the building. Public Works Director Lee explained that this 24
structure would be replacing the current warming house and that it would be used as a year-round 25
building. He stated that the building would be rented to the Boy Scouts, churches and civic 26
groups for their events and meetings. He stated that the Park and Recreation department would 27
also use this building for the YMCA programs. 28
29
Council Member Thomas stated that she does not see a need to waive the public hearing process. 30
She stated that with a project like this the residents should have an opportunity to discuss and 31
provide feedback. She stated that all of the neighborhoods should be informed and urged staff to 32
stay on track with communicating with the residents on important issues such as this. 33
34
Council Member Stigney stated that he has received calls from residents who are questioning the 35
need for air conditioning in a warming house. He asked for clarification on the actual needs for 36
the structure and whether this is part of the actual design. 37
38
Public Works Director Lee stated that it is a bit of both, need and design. He stated that if they 39
were planning to utilize the structure year round, air conditioning would be necessary. He 40
assured Council that the building would be closely managed and that the temperature would be 41
set and kept at a comfortable level. He noted that costs were not discussed with the Parks 42
Commission. 43
44
Council Member Stigney asked if a breakdown of the costs for the air conditioning unit was 45
Mounds View City Council June 13, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 7
available for their review. 1
2
Public Works Director stated that he did not have a cost estimate at this time adding that he 3
would provide the Council with a copy for their review when it is received. He stated that the 4
costs would be approximately $5,000 noting that the unit would be located in the roofline of the 5
building. He indicated that it was originally designed to be installed on the ground but was 6
changed due to the potential for vandalism. He stated that the building is designed to include the 7
proper ventilation the air conditioning unit. 8
9
Parks and Recreation Commission Chairman John Kregle confirmed that the Parks Commission 10
did not discuss the costs for the installation or the unit. He stated that air conditioning exists in 11
the Hillview building adding that the intent was to reflect the Hillview building design with a few 12
minor changes. He explained that the air conditioning unit is necessary because the building 13
walls and floors would be cement and this would help reduce moisture and condensation. 14
15
Council Member Gunn stated that after talking with residents and determining that the main 16
reason for lack of use was due to the buildings being too warm during the summer months. She 17
explained that when they did the first building, part of the reasoning for installing the air 18
conditioning unit was to make the buildings more useable and because City Council felt that the 19
buildings were not being used to their full potential. 20
21
Council Member Flaherty agreed stating that the building does require good circulation and 22
cooling in order to keep the moisture out and condensation down. He acknowledged their 23
concerns regarding the summer months and suggested cross ventilation with fans for better air 24
movement. He stated that he would like to see the air condition unit cost broken out on the bid 25
as a separate line item. 26
27
Council Member Thomas asked what kind of units are they considering, HVAC system or 28
separate heater and conditioner. 29
30
Public Work Director Lee stated that they are looking at separate units. He stated that they could 31
have the unit broken out separately on the bid noting that it would also include information on 32
the HVAC system and the usage of the building. 33
34
Council member Gunn noted the usage stating that initially they want one building that would be 35
conducive to being able to hold family reunions. 36
37
Mayor Marty agreed with Council Member Thomas stating that he does not want to forgo the 38
public hearing. He stated that during the Hillview project he did receive a lot of calls from 39
residents who were concerned about the costs. He stated that he would like a break down of the 40
costs for review at the public hearing. He referenced the staff report noting a total of 41
$152,000.00 in budgeted expenditures that were not anticipated to occur in 2005 noting that he 42
was going to ask about cutting City Hall irrigation and the park lighting and it was not stated in 43
the staff report but was stated now. He expressed concerns stating that we don’t spend more than 44
what has been budgeted. 45
Mounds View City Council June 13, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 8
1
Public Works Director Lee clarified stating that in the staff report he stated that he did 2
recommend using the City Hall irrigation system for $12,000 and the park lighting for $50,000. 3
He stated that they are looking at combining all of the pathway projects and plan to schedule all 4
of the projects for 2007. 5
6
Mayor Marty acknowledged stating that he had only caught the $152,000 in budgeted 7
expenditures. He stated that he would not want to take another $86,300 from the special project 8
fund because they were not funded. 9
10
Public Works Director Lee clarified these items are included in the special projects fund. He 11
stated that all including $12,000 for the City hall irrigation system, $50,000 for park lighting, 12
$20,000 for pathway rehabilitation and $70,000 for the County Road H2 pathway. He stated that 13
they are looking at combining all of the pathway rehabilitation projects and the pathway on 14
County Road H2 into one larger project for 2007. He stated that the projects would be removed 15
from 2005 and budgeted for 2007 and the plan would include all pathway paving. 16
17
Mayor Marty stated that as far as the air conditioning, he does question it in light of the City’s 18
current budget and taxing of residents. He acknowledged that the majority of the funding would 19
be taken from park dedication adding that he would like to see a clear justification as to why they 20
actually need air conditioning in this structure. He stated that the justification should include the 21
type of groups that would utilize the building, the types of usage and the type of equipment 22
needed. 23
24
Council Member Stigney stated that it was his understanding that the money would not be used 25
in 2005 but would be in the future. He expressed concerns stating that if they spend it now it 26
won’t be available for future projects. 27
28
Public Works Director Lee recapped stating that Council wants to schedule the public hearing at 29
the time it comes back to City Council for contract award. He stated that in terms of the 30
advertising, the general process is to place a notification in the local newspaper. He stated that 31
typically, with a public hearing where assessments are involved a notice is sent to affected 32
residents within a 500-foot distance and asked Council if they should send individual notices to 33
affected residents or only a general notification. 34
35
City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich suggested mapping out an area near the park within 500-feet 36
similar to planning applications in addition to general notification using the local newspaper and 37
City website. 38
39
Council Member Gunn stated that the City did send out notices to the affected neighbors during 40
the Hillview project and also when they did the skate board project. 41
42
The Council agreed by consensus that they are comfortable with the 500-foot notification process 43
and the local newspaper as long as all residents are made aware of the project in some form. 44
45
Mounds View City Council June 13, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 9
Mayor Marty asked when the public hearing would take place. 1
2
Public Works Director Lee stated that the public hearing would be scheduled for the second 3
Council meeting on July 25, 2005. 4
5
Mayor Marty suggested submitting a note in the Mounds View Matters that would notify the 6
residents of the project. 7
8
Council Member Stigney stated that they are expecting to take 35-percent from the special 9
project fund and also looking at possibly a Medtronic proposal that would bring in approximately 10
$865,000 to the City and if they have that big project come in or other special projects he would 11
like to see that money added back to the special projects fund. He stated that they need that 12
money for future projects and if they have access to money to replace he would like to see that 13
happen. 14
15
Mayor Marty asked how they would word it if the park dedication fund comes into a windfall, 16
that this could be setup as a potential loan. 17
18
Council Member Thomas suggested stating that in Item 4 that at least 65-percent of the total 19
project cost on the park dedication and up to 35-percent for the special projects noting that it 20
would provide more flexibility. She stated that the whole point is if they have a windfall in the 21
park dedication it is never a pay back situation it comes directly out of that fund. She stated that 22
if they change the wording it makes the percentages more flexible and if the money is not there it 23
stills allows the ability to do this. 24
25
Council Member Stigney expressed concerns that it does not address paying back the special 26
projects fund. 27
28
Mayor Marty stated that he likes Council Member Stigney’s suggestion to make it a 29
reimbursement process. 30
31
Public Works Director Lee suggested removing Items 2 and 4 from the proposed resolution for 32
further review at the public hearing. 33
34
Council Member Gunn asked why they are ordering the public hearing when they are approving 35
the bidding. 36
37
Council Member Thomas explained that the public hearing is for the public input. 38
39
Community Development Director Ericson clarified that the approval of the resolution ordering 40
the project does not mean they are authorizing or awarding the project. He stated that this would 41
provide staff with the time they need to work through the verbiage in time for the public hearing. 42
43
Mounds View City Council June 13, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 10
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Gunn. To Approve Resolution 6558, remove Item 2 and Item 4 1
and to approve the plans and specifications, setting a bid date, and authorizing staff to advertise 2
for bids for the Groveland Park Building Replacement Project. 3
4
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 5
6
G. Set a Special Meeting of the City Council for June 20, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. at 7
the Mounds View Community Center located at 5294 Edgewood Drive for 8
the purposes of considering the proposed sale of land comprising the Bridges 9
of Mounds View Golf Course to Medtronic. 10
11
City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated that the meeting on June 20th is to be a joint meeting with 12
the City Council and EDA noting that the items to be discussed that are applicable to both 13
bodies, which are comprised of the same people but technically two different bodies. He stated 14
that the public hearing for the public subsidy is also scheduled for that evening and would be part 15
of the City Council’s review. He indicated that he also spoke with Bob Glazer who indicated 16
that he is planning to provide Council with a ten-minute presentation during the public comments 17
segment of the meeting. He reviewed the agenda noting that they would discuss the next step at 18
the end of the public hearing process. He stated that it would be an open meeting with no set 19
adjournment time. 20
21
Council Member Gunn suggested establishing rules of process before the meeting. She stated 22
that she would like to see that everyone signs in with their name and the City they are from; 23
allow Mounds View residents the opportunity to speak first, in the order of sign-in and then all 24
others; everyone signed in would be allowed one time to speak; anyone with responses would be 25
allowed to respond after all others have had an opportunity to speak first. She stated that this 26
would provide a more orderly and fair process for the residents noting that she has received 27
comments from many of the residents expressing frustration that they were not given a chance to 28
speak. She stated that everyone should have an opportunity to speak and suggested that the 29
Council really consider outlining the process prior to the meeting. She suggested providing the 30
audience with an overview of the meeting process at the beginning of the meeting. 31
32
Council Member Stigney agreed with everything to make it orderly and asked how they would go 33
about differentiating residents from non-residents. 34
35
Council Member Gunn explained that they would be able to differentiate based on the sign-in 36
sheet because all speakers would be expected to sign in and include the City they reside in. 37
38
City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated that they discussed this at a staff level and it was thought 39
that it would be a good idea to hand everyone a card. They would then sign their name on the 40
card with their address and hand the card to the attendant when they come forward to speak. He 41
stated that if they outline the process at the start of the meeting and then ask all residents to step 42
forward to speak. 43
44
Council Member Thomas agreed stating that this would apply to all except the local business 45
Mounds View City Council June 13, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 11
owners. She stated that they should have the right to speak in the first group, as they do pay 1
property taxes whether they live here or not. 2
3
Mayor Marty noted that for most meetings there is a three-minute limit and suggested changing 4
the limit to five-minutes for each speaker. 5
6
Council Member Gunn noted that there would be a large number of elderly residents who would 7
not be able to stay for the entire meeting and residents should be allowed the first opportunity to 8
speak before non-residents. 9
10
Council Member Flaherty expressed concerns regarding the differentiation between residents and 11
non-residents. He stated that they have allowed enough time at that particular venue where 12
everyone will have an opportunity to speak. He noted that the problems start when the people 13
continue to get back in line for rebuttal. 14
15
Mayor Marty clarified that no one can rebut until everyone has had an opportunity to speak. 16
17
Council Member Thomas stated that they have had numerous meetings where they have allowed 18
everyone to speak and for one meeting allowing preferential order should not be a problem. She 19
stated that it is her belief that no one thinks they are trying to prevent anyone from speaking but a 20
process to speak should be setup just to maintain order. 21
22
Mayor Marty asked for clarification noting that they are the Council and EDA, it has been spoken 23
as a continuation of the public hearing for the EDA and asked why they have to change hats. He 24
asked why they couldn’t conduct the meeting as the EDA. 25
26
City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich explained that a public subsidy hearing is required to be held by 27
the City Council. 28
29
Bob Glazer referenced the June 20th meeting stating that he doesn’t want to go into the meeting 30
unprepared and asked if he could ask a few questions. He asked if the taxes would go down or 31
up on a $150,000 home. 32
33
Mayor Marty stated that he met with Shelly Eldridge and Stacy Kilvang from Ehlers a week ago 34
and she stated that taxes would go down. He stated that he was told that on a $100,000 house the 35
taxes would go down $1.00 and on a $200,000 house they would go down $2.00. He clarified 36
that the numbers are not his they are Ehlers. 37
38
Mr. Glazer stated that he recently read an article in the Star Tribune that discussed 6,000 new 39
jobs versus 3,000 new jobs and asked which number was correct. 40
41
Council Member Gunn stated that 6,000 would be correct noting that it would be done in phases. 42
43
Council Member Thomas further clarified that some jobs would be considered ‘move’ jobs and 44
some of the jobs would be new, depending on the phases. 45
Mounds View City Council June 13, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 12
1
Mr. Glazer stated that it was also reported that the manufacturing work would be outsourced or 2
would it be limited to office and R&D work. 3
4
Council Member Thomas explained that according to what was discussed at the legislature a 5
limited amount of manufacturing and R&D would be taking place adding that this would be 6
basically limited to and considered the headquarters and R&D. 7
8
Mayor Marty stated that the initial phase 1 would be a consolidation of the six CDRM sites. 9
10
Council Member Thomas stated that according to the TIF files the filed with the Legislature 11
phase one would be 1200 moved jobs and the remaining would be new jobs. 12
13
City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated that it would be approximately 2,000 existing jobs from 14
other locations. He stated that he did not know what type of jobs it would involve. He 15
referenced the tax issues noting that taxes would go down approximately $2.00 per household 16
with everything else being equal if Medtronic is just taken by itself. He stated that the City 17
would still have a general tax levy next year that would go above the $200 so it is likely that the 18
residents would still see a tax increase from the normal tax levy. He stated that the tax levy was 19
scheduled to increase $10.00 and with Medtronic coming in it would increase by $8.00. He 20
stated that he does not want to leave the impression that taxes would be going down next year 21
because that is not the case. 22
23
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Flaherty. To authorize a special meeting of the City Council for 24
June 20, 2005 at 6:00 p.m., at the Mounds View Community Center located at 5294 Edgewood 25
Drive for the purposes of considering the proposed sale of land comprising The Bridges of 26
Mounds View Golf Course to Medtronic. 27
28
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 29
30
H. Authorization to conduct a Study to evaluate the Feasibility of Rerouting 31
Driveways within the Red Oak Estates Development Area through a Wetland 32
onto Long Lake Road. 33
34
Community Development Director Ericson stated that last week they had a meeting with the 35
residents around the Red Oak Estates Townhome development. He stated that it is the southwest 36
corner of Long Lake Road/County Road H2. He noted that approximately 50 residents attended 37
noting that it was the first opportunity in a group setting to discuss the townhome development 38
project. He stated that 72 units were approved in the 1970’s noting that six units were 39
constructed and 66 units are yet to be constructed. He stated that based on a ruling by a judge 40
last year they are looking at 66 additional units. He stated that what they wanted to discuss with 41
the residents is that they were fully informed on the project and to ensure that they were aware 42
that this was not something the City supported and their hand was forced. He stated that it gave 43
the opportunity to ask several questions of the developer noting that it also gave them the 44
opportunity to ask questions about drainage, access points and traffic concerns. He stated that 45
Mounds View City Council June 13, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 13
one of the issues discussed was the potential traffic increase on Louise and Clearview. He stated 1
that there would be approximately 30 of the townhomes that would take direct access to 2
Clearview and Louise and it was asked if it would be possible for the two driveways or a single 3
combined driveway to be relocated onto Long Lake Road or alternatively to County Road H2. 4
He stated that it is a possibility from an engineering standpoint but they need to take a look to 5
determine if it is feasible. He stated that the next day they contacted Bonestroo, Rosene, 6
Anderlik and Associates to ask them to give us an idea of what it would cost to look at whether 7
or not the driveways could be rerouted. He stated that there are a number of things that would 8
have to be looked at including wetlands, storm water management and poor soil so there would 9
have to be extensive research done to find out if it would be possible. He stated that the initial 10
estimate was about $12,500 to do the work. He stated that he has provided an updated memo on 11
the project noting that the ballpark estimate for the work would be in a range from $11,500 to 12
$70,500. He stated that there is a resolution here that staff does support looking at this from a 13
community perspective. He stated that staff feels strongly that if there is a way to reroute these 14
driveways to Long Lake Road, a more appropriate location that it would be worthwhile to pursue. 15
He indicated that Mr. Hart is not opposed to the City looking at this as an option. He stated that 16
the resolution would authorize Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates to do the feasibility 17
at a cost not to exceed $17,500.00. He stated it could come in less noting that it likely that soil 18
borings would be required. 19
20
Council Member Gunn clarified that if they do get the approval to go off Long Lake Road then 21
Greenwood be closed. Community Development Director Ericson confirmed that Greenwood 22
would be closed. 23
24
Council Member Gunn asked if they would be able to use the soil borings that Mr. Hart recently 25
took. 26
27
Community Development Director Ericson stated that they can and plan to utilize the current 28
boring samples noting that they would also have to take boring samples from specific areas 29
where the driveway would be routed. He stated that there is a significant variation between the 30
borings that were taken and they need to get a really good sense of what is underneath because 31
they don’t want the driveway to sink. 32
33
Council Member Gunn asked why the City is paying for it and not Mr. Harstad. She asked if the 34
City could bill him. 35
36
Community Development Director Ericson stated that the City could bill him noting that he 37
would not pay it. He explained that this is something that is the responsibility of the City. He 38
stated that Mr. Harstad has an approved plan that shows the driveways accessing Greenwood 39
Drive going out Louis and Clearview and he is not obligated to reroute the drives on his own. 40
41
Council Member Gunn asked if they have the results back on his soil borings and are they okay. 42
43
Community Development Director Ericson confirmed that they do have the results and explained 44
that the Rice Creek Watershed District is going to make that determination as to the drainage and 45
Mounds View City Council June 13, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 14
storm water management plan. He stated that based on the borings presented it does not appear 1
that there would be any problems. He stated that a number of issues were addressed at the 2
meeting including the possibility of reorient some of the buildings so that all of the buildings 3
took access of County Road H2 would be a possibility. He stated that one of the issues is that 4
these are legal lots of record and all property owners would have to approve the reconfiguration 5
of the lots. He stated that it is not out of the question noting that they are exploring all options. 6
7
Council Member Flaherty asked if this is the site plan from 1972. Community Development 8
Director Ericson confirmed that is the case. 9
10
Council Member Flaherty asked if this looked exactly the same and is the way the judge wants 11
the City to abide by. Community Development Director Ericson confirmed that it is. 12
13
Council Member Flaherty suggested tabling further discussion until they hear back from the Rice 14
Creek Watershed District on their results. He stated that he does not see a reason to move 15
forward until that time. 16
17
Community Development Director Ericson stated that there is a time issue to consider noting that 18
if the Rice Creek Watershed District were to approve this at their next meeting, which could be 19
as early as next week, the building permits could be submitted the next day. He stated that time 20
is of the essence and they probably can’t wait. 21
22
Council Member Thomas stated that if they do this is there any expectation in the legal realm 23
that, especially with the City paying for these borings, should that change be approved, that Mr. 24
Harstad would expect City participation and funding for the construction should it go across the 25
wetland areas. She stated that this would be a question for the City Attorney noting that if it 26
looks feasible and they can do it, would they have to be of the concept that it would be more 27
expensive. She asked if Mr. Harstad would approach the City for additional funding. 28
29
Community Development Director Ericson stated it is accurate that if they did go forward with 30
the proposal and it was feasible to relocate the driveways off Long Lake Road and County Road 31
H2 and is more expensive than what Mr. Harstad would be able to install with the plan, as is, he 32
is sure that Mr. Harstad would probably approach the City for assistance. 33
34
Council Member Stigney stated that he agrees with some of the comments made by Council 35
Member Flaherty noting that just because it is feasible may not mean that it is a cost benefit. He 36
stated that it could be cost prohibitive and asked what fund would be paying the $17,000.00. 37
38
Mayor Marty stated that was also one of his questions due to the fact that this is a storm water 39
area and water would it be possibly TIF eligible. 40
41
Public Works Director Lee stated that the estimates show that it would cost approximately 42
$100,000 to $200,000 to make this happen. He stated that the City is prepared to spend this to 43
make it happen noting that it would require a permit from the County and the County might not 44
approve access onto Long Lake Road. 45
Mounds View City Council June 13, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 15
1
Mayor Marty asked if this would be TIF eligible. 2
3
Community Development Director Ericson stated that it is possible that it could be TIF eligible 4
adding that he would be willing to look into it and update the Council. He stated that if the 5
Council does not feel that this is worth pursuing they could explore the possibilities with Ramsey 6
County. He stated that for peace of mind it would be good information to know. 7
8
Mayor Marty asked if they have talked with Mr. Harstad about the possibility of taking some of 9
the properties out onto County Road H2. 10
11
Community Development Director Ericson stated that this option was not discussed noting it is 12
possible but it would involve costs. He stated that they would be looking at the acquisition of 13
two lots in addition to rerouting two driveways. He stated that it would provide an alternative 14
access but also looking at costs someone would have to pay for. 15
16
Council Member Stigney stated that the Rice Creek Watershed District is going to be looking at 17
this property and suggested asking them to look at the possibility for alternate access points. He 18
explained that the reason he agrees with Council Member Flaherty suggestion to table this 19
decision is due to the legal issues. He stated that there is a homeowners association involved and 20
suggested waiting to see what they come up with. He stated that they should hold off to see how 21
everything works out first between the Rice Creek Watershed District and the Homeowners 22
Association. 23
24
Mayor Marty agreed that this is a valid point noting that after talking with Mr. Harstad it is his 25
understanding that his intention is that he would begin construction as soon as he receives his 26
permits. 27
28
Council Member Stigney expressed concerns noting that at the meeting it appeared that he was 29
trying to appease everyone. He stated that the City should not get in the middle of it at this point 30
and suggested that the council allow it to take its course. 31
32
Mayor Marty stated that he is concerned that if Mr. Harstad does get his approval from the Rice 33
Creek Watershed District, at that time he will start to break ground. His concern is that he would 34
state that he already has his equipment in place and plans completed and now to step back to do 35
studies they would have to go back to the Rice Creek Watershed District for further approvals. 36
Mr. Harstad is asking the Rice Creek Watershed District for what is currently on the plans. 37
38
Council Member Stigney acknowledged stating that it would be advantageous to step aside for a 39
short time. 40
41
Council Member Thomas agreed that there is the possibility that what they decide here tonight is 42
not going to change Mr. Harstad’s schedule and agreed that he would begin construction as soon 43
as he can. She stated that she would prefer to wait to see what happens with the Rice Creek 44
Watershed District versus tying the City into an expectation. 45
Mounds View City Council June 13, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 16
1
MOTION/SECOND Stigney/Thomas To postpone action on this until all issues have been 2
resolved. 3
4
Aye – 4 Nay –1 (Marty) Motion carried 5
6
I. Resolution 6561 Approving an Agreement with Mr. Charles Hansen to 7
provide Interim Financial Services. 8
9
City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated that this is proposal to pay the former Finance Director on 10
an hourly rate to come back to the City to finish work on the financial reports. He stated that he 11
has proposed a rate of $70 an hour, which is about half of what our auditor would charge for the 12
same thing. He stated that he spoke with the auditor and he indicated that it would involve 13
approximately 20-30 hours of work. 14
15
Mayor Marty asked if he has discussed this with Mr. Hansen. 16
17
City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated that he has not talked directly with Mr. Hansen adding 18
that the Auditor has been discussing it with him. He noted that Mr. Hansen proposed the hourly 19
rate. 20
21
Mayor Marty agreed that Mr. Hansen would have the expertise and knowledge of what is going 22
on with the City right now noting that one of the reasons Mr. Hansen left was due to the 23
workload. He stated that his concern is whether he would have the time. 24
25
City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated that it would be a limited contract to have him come back 26
for a short period to help get the work completed. 27
28
Council Member Flaherty asked if they approved extra expenditures for Ehlers and Associates to 29
handle this. He stated that if anyone should be hiring it should be MMKR to complete the audit. 30
31
City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich agreed that MMKR could be an option but the rate would be 32
higher. He stated that it would be cheaper to hire him directly. 33
34
Council Member Stigney asked if they have a specific timeframe and what is the scope of the 35
work. 36
37
City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated that it is the City’s financial reports that have to be 38
completed by July. He stated that he would help to prepare the items with MMKR under their 39
direction. 40
41
Mayor Marty stated that if Mr. Hansen can do it and MMKR has already talked with him he is 42
fine with it because with Mr. Hansen’s expertise it would save a lot of time and money. He 43
suggested changing the bottom line hours to ‘not exceed 30 hours’. 44
45
Mounds View City Council June 13, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 17
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Thomas. To Approve Resolution 6561 approving an agreement 1
with Mr. Charles Hansen to provide interim financial services, and to amend the hours to not 2
exceed 35 hours. 3
4
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 5
6
9. CONSENT AGENDA. 7
8
Council Member Thomas asked to pull Item I 9
10
Mayor Marty asked to pull Item J, K, and L. 11
12
I. Resolution 6555, Approving an Easement Use and Restoration Policy. 13
14
Council Member Thomas referenced Item 9I stating that she likes the wording except she wants 15
to have the option to have the homeowner remove any items. She does not want to put the 16
homeowner into the place of authorized agent. She stated that she would like the allowance 17
included in the policy that states that the homeowner has the option to remove items themselves 18
within the 30-day limit. 19
20
MOTION/SECOND Thomas/Stigney To approve amended Resolution 6555, Approving an 21
Easement Use and Restoration Policy. 22
23
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried 24
25
J. Resolution 6556, Approval of Prohibition of Parking on Knollwood Drive. 26
27
Mayor Marty referenced Item J stating that he would like it noted that the Church of the Messiah 28
Lutheran has come and asked the Council for this. He stated that they came to the streets 29
meeting and heard the concerns from the residents in the area and reviewed. He stated that they 30
too became concerned about the potential for accidents He stated that he would like to commend 31
the leadership of the church and note that it was proactive on their part. 32
33
MOTION/SECOND Marty/Gunn To approve Resolution 6556, Approving of Prohibition of 34
Parking on Knollwood Drive. 35
36
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried 37
38
K. Resolution 6559, A Resolution Authorizing the Posting of a Vacancy in 39
Community Development Department and Approving Supplemental 40
Summer Staffing. 41
42
Mayor Marty referenced Item 9K stating that in the staff report, first paragraph, about 43
advertisements that would appear with Star Tribune, and several other newspapers noting that the 44
Mounds View City Council June 13, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 18
Pioneer Press is the official City newspaper. He is wondering if this is a typo and is there a 1
reason it is being placed in the Star Tribune. 2
3
Community Development Director Ericson explained that the reason the ad is being placed in the 4
Star Tribune is because the paper is a more widely circulated daily publication and it would 5
receive more exposure. He further explained that historically they have always published the 6
City employment notices in Star Tribune in order to reach a wider base of candidates. 7
8
MOTION/SECOND Marty/Flaherty To waive the reading and approve Resolution 6559, 9
Authorizing the Posting of a Vacancy in Community Development Department and Approving 10
Supplemental Summer Staffing. 11
12
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 13
14
L. Resolution 6560, A Resolution Authorizing Additional Compensation to 15
RLK-Kuusisto for Work Associated with the Comprehensive Land Use 16
Amendment. 17
18
Mayor Marty referenced Item 9L stating that he pulled this because they are coming back and 19
asking for more money. He noted that in first paragraph they reference the expedited schedule 20
and they were aware of the expedited schedule from the beginning and this is the reason the City 21
decided to go with them. 22
23
Community Development Director Ericson acknowledged stating that this it is an issue of 24
coordinating several meetings between them and the DNR. He explained that there was some 25
juggling of the schedule to balance out requirements from the Environmental Quality Board 26
noting that there is an additional concern on the transportation issues being adequately reflected. 27
He stated that RLK was upfront in that this was not a typical land use. He stated that they regret 28
having to come back to ask for additional funding noting that it is deserved, as they have gone 29
above and beyond and having the document prepared by the Council would brings it to fruition. 30
31
Mayor Marty stated that it is noted in the resolution, the last few words state ‘at a cost not to 32
exceed $6,000.00’ yet on the previous page the total estimate in parenthesis suggests that it could 33
be more than this. He stated that he would like further clarification. 34
35
Community Development Director Ericson stated that he is not aware of what delivery fees or 36
reimbursable expenses there may be in relationship to this request. He agreed that he should 37
have researched this prior to bringing it to Council. He suggested that the resolution be amended 38
to not exceed $6,500.00 or they could table action until they can get a better response on what the 39
reimbursables would run. 40
41
Mayor Marty stated that this relates somewhat to Item 8D that was pulled from the Council 42
agenda and asked when this would come back to Council for consideration. 43
44
Mounds View City Council June 13, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 19
Community Development Director Ericson stated that he did receive some feedback from the 1
Environmental Quality Board noting that they have indicated that the Comprehensive Plan 2
should be adopted prior to the AUAR being adopted, which is why this was pulled from the 3
agenda. He stated that this would not be brought back before Council until a decision has been 4
made regarding the ultimate use of the golf course. 5
6
Council Member Flaherty clarified that the City contracted with RLK to come up with a 7
comprehensive land use plan for that particular territory adding that he can only assume that part 8
of the process developed that there would be approvals and changes from other agencies and 9
asked why RLK was not aware that the approval would have to go through other agencies. 10
11
Community Development Director Ericson acknowledged the concerns stating that this was a 12
difficult and time consuming land use amendment. He noted that normally this is not 13
controversial and not to the extent when talking about 72-acres. He agreed that they should have 14
given RLK a heads up that to adjust their estimates. He stated that no one anticipated that any 15
agencies would take issue with this that did and then the amount of time and number of meetings 16
necessary to achieve consent for the project. He agreed that it could have been given some 17
thought noting that it went beyond their anticipation to see this project through. 18
19
MOTION/SECOND Gunn/Stigney To waive the reading and approve Resolution 6560, 20
Authorizing Additional Compensation to RLK-Kuusisto for work associated with the 21
Comprehensive Land Use Amendment, with the amendment that the reimbursables not exceed 22
$6,500. 23
24
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried as amended. 25
26
Mayor Marty stated that he questions the whole comprehensive plan change. He stated that once 27
they do accept the change it takes the whole golf course and they have not actually accepted the 28
project to redevelop at this time. He stated that if they accept the Comprehensive Plan 29
Amendment it could impact this. 30
31
Community Development Director Ericson acknowledged that this is a valid point and explained 32
that this is something that had to be done regardless of what happens with Medtronic and the golf 33
course. He stated that this is being done to maintain consistency with the zoning board with 34
respect to the billboards so that the billboards would be legitimate. He noted that the City 35
Attorney also recommended this. 36
37
Council Member Thomas stated that the group authorized the work adding that the meetings are 38
more than expected. She stated that this comes after the fact and should have been anticipated 39
sooner. 40
41
Council Member Flaherty agreed 42
43
Mounds View City Council June 13, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 20
MOTION/SECOND Flaherty/Marty To waive the reading and Approve Amended Resolution 1
6560, Authorizing Additional Compensation to RLK-Kuusisto for work associated with the 2
Comprehensive Land Use Amendment. 3
4
Ayes-3 Nays-2 (Marty, Flaherty) Motion carried as amended 5
6
A. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, June 27, 2005, at 7:05 p.m. to Consider 7
Resolution 6545, an Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor License Renewal for ABC 8
Liquor located at 2840 Highway 10. 9
B. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, June 27, 2005, at 7:10 p.m. to Consider 10
Resolution 6546, an Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Big Top 11
discount Liquor located at 2577 Highway 10. 12
C. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, June 27, 2005, at 7:15 p.m. to Consider 13
Resolution 6547, an Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Vino & Stogies, 14
located at 2345 County Road H2. 15
D. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, June 27, 2005, at 7:20 p.m. to Consider 16
Resolution 6548, an On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Robert’s Sports 17
Bar and Entertainment located at 2400 County Road H2. 18
E. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, June 27, 2005 at 7:25 p.m. to Consider 19
Resolution 6549, an On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Jake’s Sport’s 20
Café located at 2400 Highway 10. 21
F. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, June 27, 2005, at 7:30 p.m. to Consider 22
Resolution 6550, an On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for The Mermaid, 23
located at 2200 Highway 10. 24
G. Approval to purchase Squad Car Set Up from Emergency Automotive 25
Technology, Inc. 26
H. Licenses for Approval. 27
I. Resolution 6555, Approving an Easement Use and Restoration Policy. 28
J. Resolution 6556, Approval of Prohibition of Parking on Knollwood Drive. 29
K. Resolution 6559, A Resolution Authorizing the Posting of a Vacancy in 30
Community Development Department and Approving Supplemental 31
Summer Staffing. 32
L. Resolution 6560, A Resolution Authorizing Additional Compensation to 33
RLK-Kuusisto for Work Associated with the Comprehensive Land Use 34
Amendment 35
36
MOTION/SECOND Stigney/Flaherty To approve Consent Agenda Items A through H. 37
38
Ayes–5 Nays-0 Motion carried 39
40
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. 41
42
A. City Council Minutes, May 9, 2005 43
44
Council Member Thomas had the following correction: 45
Mounds View City Council June 13, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 21
• Page 15, line 35 - change from Barb to Council Member Thomas. 1
2
Council Member Flaherty had the following corrections: 3
• Page 17, identify who Judy ?? is. 4
• Page 3, line 4 – should read ‘neighborhood look and feel’ not ‘fell’ and it should read ‘He 5
noted’ not ‘she noted’. 6
7
Mayor Marty had the following corrections: 8
• Page two, last word, change resolute to resolution 9
• Page 3, line 42, remove redevelopment, insert golf course 10
• Page 4, line 7, change funds from redevelopment comes from residents and insert ‘golf 11
course’ 12
• Page 5, line 16 – omit ‘was’ (freezer) 13
• Page 10, line 34 – talking about fire engine pumpers, amended up to $350,000 but if it 14
comes in under then Mounds View concurs. 15
• Page 13, line 12 – omit ‘for’ 16
• Page 13, line 20 – add ‘to’ at the end of the line 17
• Page 14 – issues should be issue 18
• Page 14, line 41, change from public sewage to public runoff. 19
• Page 15, line 1 should be ‘past, due’ 20
• Page 17, line 11 – should read ‘could approve ‘the’ resolution’ 21
22
Council Member Gunn had the following corrections: 23
• Page 10, line 15, should read ‘with Mr. Ryan, the Mayor of Blaine.’ 24
• Page 10, Line 16 change the first word from both to ‘I’ 25
26
27
MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Thomas To approve the City Council Minutes, May 9, 2005 as 28
amended. 29
30
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 31
32
B. City Council Minutes, May 23, 2005 33
34
Mayor Marty had the following corrections: 35
• Page 6, line 41, cresent should be cresa 36
• Page 8, line 4 – change to ‘if they could do a moratorium’ 37
• Page 8, line 6 – check speaker referenced as ‘County Representative’ – suggested replacing 38
with ‘County worker’. Stated that staff could verify the name, possibly ‘Glen Wilson’. 39
• Page 9, line 36 – should read ‘but word it to ‘state’ - not ‘stated’ 40
• Page 13, line 14 – should be Old Highway 8 not US Highway 10. 41
42
MOTION/SECOND. Flaherty/Gunn To Approve the City Council Minutes, May 23, 2005 as 43
amended. 44
Mounds View City Council June 13, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 22
1
Ayes-4 Nays-0 Abstain-1 (Thomas) Motion carried. 2
3
11. REPORTS 4
5
A. Reports of Mayor and Council 6
7
Mayor Marty noted Steve, a resident, had called him about a month ago, asking about the City 8
hall remodel. He stated that he mentioned the conversation to City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich 9
stating that it involved installing an air conditioning unit in the video room and shelving. He 10
stated that the resident suggested that instead of taking the funds from the special project fund 11
that they take it from the cable fund. He stated that he agrees with the suggestion adding that it is 12
a very good idea. Council agreed. 13
14
Mayor Marty reminded everyone that the EDA is having a special public hearing next Monday, 15
June 20, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. at the Community Center. He stated that the topic of discussion 16
would be The Bridges Golf Course and the Medtronic proposal. 17
18
B. Staff 19
20
City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated that they have interviewed two candidates for the Finance 21
Director position. He stated that he intends to set up a meeting with the Council for the last week 22
in June to have the Council interview the candidates. The Council suggested planning the 23
interviews before next Council meeting. 24
25
City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated that he received responses regarding the renaming of 26
Highway 10 noting that they did not particularly care for the name. 27
28
Mayor Marty stated that he spoke with the Harley Wells, the Mayor of Spring Lake Park, about 29
the command vehicle they would be sharing with the Fire Departments. He stated that Spring 30
Lake Park authorized the plans to go out for bids and once they got the bids they want it to come 31
back to them. He stated that he was not sure if their resolution authorized that the bids come 32
back to Council for their review and approval. 33
34
City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated that the bids would have to come back to Council for 35
review and final approval. 36
37
C. Reports of City Attorney 38
39
None. 40
41
12. Next Council Work Session: EDA – Monday June 20th 42
Special City Council Monday, June 20, 2005 43
Next Council Meeting: Monday, June 27, 2005 at 7 p.m. 44
45
Mounds View City Council June 13, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 23
13. ADJOURNMENT 1
2
Council agreed by consensus to adjourn the City Council Meeting of June 13, 2005 at 9:45 p.m. 3
4
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 5
6
Transcribed and recorded by: 7
8
Bonnie Sullivan 9
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 10