HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2005/07/25CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
Monday, July 25, 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. YMCA Quarterly Report
7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. 7:05 pm: Public Hearing to Consider Resolution 6587, Awarding a Construction Contract and
authorizing a Letter Agreement with TKDA for the Groveland Park Building Replacement
Project
B. 7:10 pm: Public Hearing and Consideration of an Amendment to the Walgreens PUD by
Allowing “OFFICE” as a Permitted Land Use
C. Resolution 6583 Approving the Final Plans and Specifications and Setting a Bid Date for the
City Hall Rehabilitation Project
D. Resolution 6584 Revising the 2005 Fee Schedule
E. Resolution 6567 Appointing Peter Berling to the Position of Police Officer
F. Resolution 6582 Appointing Mark Beer as the Finance Director/Treasurer
G. Resolution 6572 Approve Appointments to the Northwest Area Library Access Task Force.
9. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Resolution 6586 Approving Plans and Specifications for the Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP)
Installation Project
B. Licenses for Approval
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. June 27, 2005 City Council Meeting.
11. REPORTS
A. Reports of Mayor and Council
B. Reports of Staff
C. Reports of City Attorney
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, August 1, 2005 @7pm
Next Council Meeting: Monday, August 8, 2005 @7pm
Mounds View Community Center Program Report
April-June 2005
Program Start Date End Date Participants Fee Revenue Expenses Net
YOUTH CLASSES
Fox and Geeseres 3/14/2005 5/23/2005 7 $50 $350 $367.55 ($17.55)
Willy Tilly's 3/15/2005 5/24/2005 7 $49.50 $346.50 $367.55 ($21.05)
Kid Kaboodle 3/17/2005 5/26/2005 8 $55 $440.00 $367.55 $72.45
Play Nights 3/17/2005 5/26/2005 ***Cancelled due to low enrollment
Parent/child Tumbling 3/9/2005 4/27/2005 ***Cancelled due to low enrollment
Preschool Tumbling 3/9/2005 4/27/2005 5 $15 $75 $69 $6
Preschool Sports 2/28/2005 3/23/2005 13 $15 $195 $69 $126
Preschool Dance 3/29/2005 5/31/2005 12 $35 $420 $215.30 $204.70
Birthday Parties 4/1/2005 6/30/2005 2 $55 $110 $60.00 $50.00
School Days Out Trips 3/22/2005 3/24/2005 9 $18 $162 $180.00 ($18.00)
Ballet and Jazz 3/29/2005 5/31/2005 ***Cancelled due to low enrollment
Sports Grades 1/3 3/28/2005 4/20/2005 ***Cancelled due to low enrollment
Kid Smart Self Defense 6/30/2005 6/30/2005 ***Cancelled due to low enrollment
Gym Time 4/12//05 5/24/2005 5 $15 $75 $69.00 $6.00
4th and 5th Grade Track 4/18/2005 5/30/2005 87 $43-48 $7,361 $6,223.83 $1,137.17
Biking, Blading & Running 2/1/2005 6/1/2005 79 $0 $0 $0.00 $0.00
Teen Nights 4/1/2005 6/30/2005 201 $1 $152 $758.00 ($606.00)
After School Crafts 3/28/2005 4/25/2005 ***Cancelled due to low enrollment
Summer Baseball/Softball 3/28/2005 4/25/2005 109 $34 $3,706 $1,225 $2,481
Summer Soccer 6/1/2005 7/28/2005 37 $34 $1,258 $420 $838
New Brighton Playgrounds 6/1/2005 7/28/2005 17 $61-$142 $1,697 $1,663 $34
Karate 6/1/2005 8/4/2005 61 $15-$30 $1,605 $1,160 $445
Basketball Camp 6/13/2005 6/17/2005 30 $45 $1,350 $1,335 $15
Preschool Crafts 4/1/2005 6/30/2005 26 $5 $130 $76 $54
Totals 715 $19,433 $14,626 $4,807
ADULT CLASSES
55 Alive 3/16/2005 3/16/2005 26 $12 $312.00 $255.00 $57.00
55 Alive 4/21/2005 4/21/2005 20 $12 $240.00 $160.00 $80.00
55 Alive 5/18/2005 5/18/2005 30 $12 $360.00 $325.67 $34.33
55 Alive 6/15/2005 6/15/2005 29 $12 $348.00 $290.00 $58.00
Senior Luau 3/10/2005 3/10/2005 15 $15 $225.00 $275.82 ($50.82)
Senior Picnic 6/21/2005 6/21/2005 180 $0 $0.00 $35.00 ($35.00)
Totals 300 $1,485.00 $1,341.49 $143.51
Youth and Adult Totals 1015 $20,918 $15,967.49 $4,950.51
Item No. 8A
Meeting Date: June 13, 2005
Type of Business: CB
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City Administrator Review _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6587 Awarding a Construction Contract
and authorizing a Letter Agreement with TKDA for
the Groveland Park Building Replacement Project
Background / History:
On May 10, 2004 the City Council approved Resolution No. 6203, which
authorized the preparation of a site plan, construction plans, specifications, and
consultant selection for the Groveland Park Building Replacement Project.
In addition, the City Council authorized “the execution of a letter of agreement
with TKDA for the preparation of the site plans, construction plans, specifications,
and any other planning phase aspects of this project”.
On June 21, 2004, the City’s engineering firm of TKDA submitted a Letter of
Agreement with a list of the scope of work to be provided. Although the concept
of a letter agreement was previously approved, now that the actual letter was
available, Staff wished to have the City Council review the letter agreement.
On June 28, 2004, Staff presented Resolution No. 6292 approving and
authorizing the execution of a Letter of Agreement with TKDA for the Groveland
Park Building Replacement Project. The estimated cost of the proposed work
was $19,600. At this meeting, the Council voiced an objection to the estimated
costs submitted by TKDA for the proposed work for the Groveland Park Building
replacement plans. The City Council did not approve Resolution No. 6292 and
gave Staff direction to develop a Request For Proposal (RFP) for other
engineering and architectural firms.
On July 12, 2004, the City Council approved Resolution No. 6300 rescinding
Resolution No. 6203 and authorizing the preparation of a Request For Proposal
(RFP) for work associated with the preparation of a site plan, construction plans,
and specifications for the Groveland Park Building Replacement Project.
On August 23, 2004, the City Council approved Resolution 6333 authorizing the
publication of a Request For Proposal (RFP) for work associated with the
preparation of a site plan, construction plans, and specifications for the
Groveland Park Building Replacement Project.
On October 25, 2004 the City Council approved Resolution No. 6383 approving
and authorizing the execution of a Letter Agreement with TKDA for the
Groveland Park Building Replacement Project. This letter of agreement
authorized the creation of plans and specifications.
On June 13, 2005 the City Council approved Resolution No. 6558 approving
plans and specifications, setting a public improvement hearing, ordering the
project, setting a bid date, and authorizing to advertise for bids for the Groveland
Park Building Replacement Project.
Discussion:
Review Bids - Bids for the Groveland Park Building Replacement Project were
received at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, July 14, 2005 at City Hall. The bids were
composed of the base bid to perform the construction of the building and a bid
alternate for the air conditioning of the building.
A total of two (2) bids were received for this project. The low bid of $289,700.00
was submitted by Unicorp Incorporated of Saint Paul Minnesota. The bid
alternate for air conditioning was $7,000.00. A bid bond for five percent (5%) of
the bid amount was included with the bid. The bid has been reviewed and found
to be in order.
A complete bid summary is as follows:
BIDDER’S NAME BASE BID BID ALTERNATE
Unicorp Incorporated $289,700 $7,000
Meisinger Construction $302,000 $5,500
The engineer's estimate was $227,000. 27.6% less than the lowest actual bid
TKDA Construction Services – Should the City Council wish to proceed with
this project, it is recommended that the City utilize the construction services of
TKDA to over see the project and ensure that the contractor adheres to the plans
and specifications. TKDA has submitted a letter agreement in the amount of
$14,000.00 to provide these services. See attached agreement.
Project Cost Discussions - As per resolution 6558; Sixty-five percent (65%) of
the total project cost shall be financed utilizing Park Dedication Funds (Account
No. 285-4470-3030), and the remaining 35% to be derived for the Special Project
Funds (Account No. 280-4180-7050).
The following is the current total project cost summary:
TKDA Plan Preparation $19,600
Construction $289,700
AC – bid alt. $7,000
TKDA construction services $14,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $330,300
$214,695 - 65% financed by Park Dedication Fund
$115,605 - 35% financed by Special Project Fund
Next Steps – Should the City Council award the construction contract, work on
the building would begin in August, with construction being substantially
completed by November 30, 2005.
Recommendation:
It is recommended the City Council approve a resolution to award a construction
contract and authorize a letter agreement with TKDA for the Groveland Park
Building Replacement Project.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
RESOLUTION NO. 6587
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING A LETTER
AGREEMENT WITH TKDA FOR THE GROVELAND PARK BUILDING
REPLACEMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, on June 13, 2005 the City Council approved Resolution No.
6558 approving plans and specifications, setting a public improvement hearing,
ordering the project, setting a bid date, and authorizing to advertise for bids for
the Groveland Park Building Replacement Project; and
WHEREAS, bids for the Groveland Park Building Replacement Project
were received at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, July 14, 2005 at City Hall and were
composed of the base bid to perform the construction of the building and a bid
alternate for the air conditioning of the building; and
WHEREAS, a total of two (2) bids were received for this project, with the
low bid of $289,700.00 being submitted by Unicorp Incorporated of Saint Paul
Minnesota, with the bid alternate for air conditioning being $7,000.00; and
WHEREAS, should this project proceed, it is recommended that the City
utilize the construction services of TKDA to over see the project and ensure that
the contractor adheres to the plans and specifications; and
WHEREAS, TKDA has submitted a letter agreement in the amount of
$14,000.00 to provide these services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1. That the Base Bid of Unicorp Incorporated in the amount of
$289,700.00 for the Groveland Park Building Replacement Project
is the lowest responsive bid.
2. That a contract to perform said work is awarded to Unicorp
Incorporated and that the Mayor and City Administrator are hereby
authorized and directed to enter into a contract with said bidder,
contingent on City legal Counsel approval.
3. That a bid alternate for the inclusion of an air conditioning system
for the building was submitted in the amount of $7,000.00 is hereby
awarded to Unicorp Incorporated.
4. The Public Works Department is authorized and directed to return
the deposit made for said bids, except the deposit of the successful
bidder, which shall be retained until a contract has been signed.
5. The execution of a letter of agreement for construction services
with TKDA in the estimated amount of $14,000.00 is hereby
approved.
6. The Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized to execute
said Letter of Agreement, contingent on City legal Counsel
approval.
Adopted this 25th day of July 2005.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(SEAL)
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item No. 8C
Meeting Date: July 25, 2005
Type of Business: CB
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City Administrator Review _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6583 Approving Final Plans and
Specifications and Setting a Bid Date for the City
Hall Rehabilitation Project
Background:
On April 4, 2005, the City Council, at a Work Session, reviewed the status of the
City Hall Rehabilitation Project, which included design and development level
plans.
On April 11, 2005, the City Council set a public hearing date of April 25, 2005 for
this project and authorized its publication.
On April 25, 2005, the City Council held a public hearing and approved
Resolution No. 6504 which ordered the project, and approved a letter agreement
with SEH for the development of detailed plans and specifications for the City
Hall Rehabilitation Project.
Discussion:
Plans and Specifications - As directed, detailed plans and specifications for the
City Hall Rehabilitation Project have been completed. These are attached for the
City Council’s review.
The current specifications include a basic entry to City Hall and the main
entrance to the Police Department. These new entrances will meet the current
energy codes for a new building. There were several concept entrance designs
that were considered earlier in the design process. One that seems to be a
preferred choice was a “tower” style entrance. Since this design is more for
aesthetics than to meet energy code or other new federal regulations it will be
included only as bid alternate.
The objective of this project is to; 1) increase air quality, 2) increase the energy
efficiency, 3) make the building accessible to all based on current Americans with
Disability Act, and 4) make minor modification to arrange the space to better
serve the public. However, it should be pointed out that the construction
activities associated with these items would directly impact most interior
surfaces. Ceiling tiles will need to be removed. Walls will be scuffed or damaged.
And flooring will certainly be impacted. The plan therefore calls for the recovering
of most surfaces; replacement of ceiling tiles and flooring, and painting or adding
gypsum board to walls.
Bid Date – An August 24, 2005, 1:00 p.m. bid opening date will provide ample
time to provide the required notification to contractors as per state statute.
Next Steps - Should this project proceed, the next City Council actions will be to
award a construction contract, award a storage and moving contract, approve a
contract amendment with Canyon Grille, and authorization of payment to
Ramsey County for office space rental. This is anticipated that these items will be
presented to the City Council on September 12, 2005.
As per the current specifications, construction would commence after October 2,
2005 and be completed no later than April 2, 2006.
Recommendation:
It is recommended the City Council approve the final plans and specifications
and set a bid date for the City Hall Rehabilitation Project.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
RESOLUTION NO. 6583
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND SETTING A BID
DATE FOR THE CITY HALL REHABILITATION PROJECT
WHEREAS, on April 4, 2005, the City Council, at a Work Session,
reviewed the status of the City Hall Rehabilitation Project, which included design
and development level plans; and
WHEREAS, on April 25, 2005, the City Council held a public hearing and
approved Resolution No. 6504 which ordered the project, and approved a letter
agreement with SEH for the development of detailed plans and specifications for
the City Hall Rehabilitation Project; and
WHEREAS, should the Council wish to proceed with this project, the next
steps in the public improvement process is to approve the plans and
specifications and set a bid date; and
WHEREAS, detailed plans and specifications for the City Hall
Rehabilitation Project have been completed and have been submitted for review;
and
WHEREAS, an August 24, 2005, 1:00 p.m. bid opening date will provide
ample time to provide the required notification to contractors as per state statute.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mounds View City Council
of the City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1. The final plans and specifications for the City Hall Rehabilitation
Project which were prepared pursuant to Resolution No. 6504
adopted by the City Council on April 25, 2005, are hereby approved
as the plans and specifications in accordance with which said
improvements shall be constructed.
2. That a date to receive bids for said improvements is hereby
established as August 24, 2005, at 1:00 p.m.
3. That Staff is hereby directed to cause to be published in the New
Brighton Bulletin and in the Construction Bulletin, at least three
weeks before the last day to submit bids, a notice to bidders for the
implementation of said project as required by law.
Adopted this 25th day of July 2005.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(SEAL)
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Last updated: November 1, 2004January 24, 2005 July 25, 2005
II
I. .................. Building/Community Dev. Related Fees 1-10
a. ........................................................................... Valuation Table 1
b. ................................................................................ Surcharges 1-2
c. ..................... General Construction, Home, Building Permits, Misc 2-8
Accessory Building/Shed ..........................................................................................
Addition .....................................................................................................................
Basement..................................................................................................................
Basic Floor Area .......................................................................................................
Deck ..........................................................................................................................
Door/Window Installation .........................................................................................
Driveways, Sidewalks, Parking Lots and Patios ......................................................
Electrical Work .........................................................................................................
Elevators ...................................................................................................................
Excavating, Grading, Filling ......................................................................................
Fences ......................................................................................................................
Fire Alarm System ....................................................................................................
Garages ....................................................................................................................
Garbage/Recycling Enclosure ..................................................................................
HVAC ........................................................................................................................
Mobile Homes ...........................................................................................................
Moving Buildings ......................................................................................................
Pipe Fitting ................................................................................................................
Plumbing Work .........................................................................................................
Porch ........................................................................................................................
Raising, Shoring .......................................................................................................
Refrigeration Work ...................................................................................................
Remodeling ..............................................................................................................
Reshingling ...............................................................................................................
Re-siding/Stucco ......................................................................................................
Satellite Dishes .........................................................................................................
Signs/Billboards ........................................................................................................
Sprinkling System .....................................................................................................
Stucco .......................................................................................................................
Swimming Pools .......................................................................................................
Tank (fuel, gas) Installation/Removal .......................................................................
Telecommunication Antenna Building Permit Fee ...................................................
Windows ...................................................................................................................
Wrecking ...................................................................................................................
III
d. ......................................... Other Inspections/Planning Fees 8-10
Building Inspections .................................................................................................
Code Appeal .............................................................................................................
Comprehensive Plan Amendment ...........................................................................
Conditional Use Permit .............................................................................................
Contractor Licenses .................................................................................................
Development/Site Plan Review ................................................................................
Housing Inspection Fees ..........................................................................................
Multiple Dwelling Registration/Transfer ....................................................................
Plan Review Fee ......................................................................................................
Planned Unit Development/Amendment ..................................................................
Reinspection Fees ....................................................................................................
Rezoning ...................................................................................................................
Street or Easement Vacation ...................................................................................
Subdivisions .............................................................................................................
Variance ....................................................................................................................
Wetland Alteration Permit ........................................................................................
Wetland Buffer Permit ..............................................................................................
II. ........ Miscellaneous (copies, maps, agendas, etc.) 11-12
Apartment/Multiple Dwelling List ..............................................................................
Blue Prints/Maps ......................................................................................................
Council/Planning Commission Meeting Packets .....................................................
Dog License List .......................................................................................................
Filing Fee for Public Office .......................................................................................
Insufficient Fund Checks (NSF) ...............................................................................
Mailed Agendas ........................................................................................................
Mailed Minutes..........................................................................................................
Mounds View Business List ......................................................................................
Municipal Code .........................................................................................................
Notary Public ............................................................................................................
Outdoor Sign Usage .................................................................................................
Pending Assessment Search ...................................................................................
Photocopies ..............................................................................................................
Picnic Kits .................................................................................................................
Police/Accident Report .............................................................................................
Resident List .............................................................................................................
Sales Tax ..................................................................................................................
Special Assessment Search ....................................................................................
Tree Removal ...........................................................................................................
Video Tape Copies ...................................................................................................
Zoning Code: Photocopy/CD Rom ...........................................................................
III…….……………. Police/ Administrative Offenses 12-15
IV. .................................................................... Licenses 15-17
Amusement Centers/ Devises/Rides, Carnivals, Circuses ......................................
Automobile Sales ......................................................................................................
Bowling Alley ............................................................................................................
Boxing and Wrestling Permit ....................................................................................
IV
Cigarette and Tobacco .............................................................................................
Dog Licenses ............................................................................................................
Fireworks ..................................................................................................................
Garbage and Rubbish Hauler License .....................................................................
Gasoline Station License ..........................................................................................
Kennel License .........................................................................................................
Liquor Licenses/Investigation Fee ............................................................................
Peddlers/Transient Merchant License/Investigation Fee .........................................
Recuperation of Half Way House .............................................................................
Restaurant License ..................................................................................................
Therapeutic Massage/Investigation .........................................................................
V. .............................................................. Room Rental 19-20
Mounds View Community Center……………………………………………………….
City Hall .....................................................................................................................
VI. ................................ Water, Sewer and Street Fees 20-22
Late Payment ............................................................................................................
Load Limits Fee ........................................................................................................
MIU/MXU ..................................................................................................................
Meter Testing ............................................................................................................
Park Dedication Fee .................................................................................................
Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) ..............................................................................
Sewer Charge ...........................................................................................................
Sewer Connection/Repair Permit .............................................................................
Service Restoration ..................................................................................................
Shut-of and Curb Stop ..............................................................................................
Street Light Utility ......................................................................................................
Street Opening Permit ..............................................................................................
Storm Water Management (SWM) ...........................................................................
Surface Water Management ....................................................................................
Tapping .....................................................................................................................
Unit Charge...............................................................................................................
Water Charge ...........................................................................................................
Water Connection/Repair Permit .............................................................................
Water Disconnect/Reconnect in Spring ...................................................................
Water Hydrant Deposit .............................................................................................
Water Meter ..............................................................................................................
Water Quality Testing ...............................................................................................
Utility Bill Assessment Search…………………………………………………………………….
VII. The Bridges……………………………………………………23
1
I. BUILDING/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RELATED FEES
A. VALUATION TABLE
The following Valuation Table shall be used to determine fees for those permits indicated
below and in all cases where the work is of such a nature that the permit fees cannot be
determined from the schedule established below for such work. The minimum fee for all
permits shall be $23.50 unless otherwise specified.
$1 to $500
$23.50 for the first $500
$501 to $2,000
$23.50 plus $3.05 for each additional $100 or fraction
thereof, to and including $2,000
$2,001 to $25,000
$69.25 for the first $2,000 plus $14 for each additional
$1,000 or fraction thereof, to an including $50,000
$25,001 to $50,000
$391.25 for the first $25,000 plus $10.10 for each
additional $1,000 or fraction thereof to an including
$50,000
$50,001 to $100,000
$643.75 for the first $50,000 plus $7 for each
additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including
$100,000
$101,001 to $500,000
$993.75 for the first $100,000 plus $5.60 for each
additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including
$500,000
$500,001 to $1,000,000
$3,233.75 for the first $500,000 plus $4.75 for each
additional $1,000 or fraction thereof.
$1,000,001 and up
$5608.75 for the first $1,000,000 plus $3.15 for each
additional $1,000 or fraction thereof.
2
Specific Valuations
Accessory Buildings: Garages & Sheds
Attached Garage $20.00 per sq. ft.
Detached Garages & Sheds, > 120 sq. ft. (w/ concrete
floor)
$11.00 per sq. ft.
Detached Garages & Sheds, > 120 sq. ft. (w/ wood floor) $7.00 per sq. ft.
Carport $ 10.00 per sq. ft.
Residential Additions
First Floor and basic floor area $63.55 per sq. ft.
Second Floor $44.49 per sq. ft.
Addition (mobile home) $22.30 per sq. ft.
Basement
Unfinished $12.86 per sq. ft.
Semi-finished $17.24 per sq. ft.
General Remodel $18.00 per sq. ft.
Deck
Residential $8.00 per sq. ft.
Porch
Screen only $23.50 per sq. ft.
Three-Season (wood frame/windows/doors Not Heated) $42.58 per sq. ft.
Swimming Pools (See Chapter 1009)
Above ground $6.00 per sq. ft.
Below ground $20.00 per sq. ft.
3
B. SURCHARGES
Building Surcharge: Where the fee for the permit is based upon valuation, the surcharge is as follows:
1. Building Surcharge
(For valuation-based permits, the surcharge is as follows)
Valuation of Work Surcharge Computation
$1,000,000 or less
.0005 x valuation
$1,000,000 to $2,000,000
$500 + .0004 x (Value - $1,000,000)
$2,000,000 to $3,000,000
$900 + .0003 x (Value - $2,000,000)
$3,000,000 to $4,000,000
$1,200 + .0002 x (Value - $3,000,000)
$4,000,000 to $5,000,000
$1,400 + .0001 x (Value - $4,000,000)
Greater than $5,000,000
$1,500 + .00005 x (Value - $5,000,000)
For fixed-fee permits, the surcharge shall be $.50 per permit (or .0005 of the permit
fee if fee exceeds $1,000).
2. Heating Surcharge
Residential
$.50 per permit (or .0005 of the permit fee if fee
exceeds $1,000).
Commercial
Use the above table
3. Plumbing Surcharge
$.50 per permit (or .0005 of the permit fee if fee exceeds $1,000).
4
C. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION, HOME, MISCELLANEOUS BUILDING
PERMITS.
(Note: Surcharges Not Included in All Figures Listed below -- See Surcharge Section in
Chapter 1006 for More Information)
Accessory Buildings Use for valuation table
Residential Additions Use valuation table
Residential Remodels Use valuation table
Deck 30” and under $25 (no surcharge)
Demolition and Wrecking $20 plus $2.00 per 1,000 cubic feet or fraction
thereof over 2,000 cubic feet plus $.50
surcharge
Door or Window Installation
Change Opening Use valuation table $40 for first windows/door
plus $12.50 for each additional window/door
(plus $.50 surcharge)
Use Existing Rough opening $20 for first window/door plus $2.50 for each
additional window/door (plus $.50 surcharge)
Egress Basement Window $50 for first window $25 for each additional
window (plus $.50 surcharge)
Driveways, Sidewalks, Parking Lots, Patios; New Installation or Overlay (No Surcharge)
Residential
R-1 or R-2 Overlay or Seal Coating
with no expansion, no permit
needed.
Concrete/Asphalt/Brick: $20 for first 500
square feet plus $2 for each additional 100
square feet or fraction thereof (no surcharge)
New Gravel*: $20 (no surcharge)
* See zoning code for gravel limitations.
Commercial
Use valuation table
Electrical Work -- Same as established in the Minnesota State Board of Electricians,
March 1, 1972 Edition of Laws and Regulations Licensing
Electricians and Inspections of Electrical Installations as Amended.
Electrical Inspector
Bob Clauson (651)777-7885 Kim Sparrow: 763-
464-3023
5
Blank Electrical Request Forms $1.50 each
Elevators Use valuation table
Excavating, grading, filling $20, or $4 per 1,000 square feet or fraction
thereof, whichever is greater, plus $.50
surcharge
(*Applicant may be responsible for any City
engineering costs)
Fences (See Chapter 1103) $25 per installation (no surcharge)
Fire Alarm Systems $50
Fire Permits
Temporary Tent $50
Fireplaces
Wood burning Stove (building
Permit
$25 plus .50 surcharge
Gas Fireplace (mechanical Permit) $25 plus .50 surcharge
HVAC (Plus Surcharge)
Commercial HVAC (4 units & up) 1.5% of contract price plus surcharge at .0005
times contract price
Residential Air Conditioning $20 plus $3.00 per ton or fraction thereof$30 per
unit
Furnaces and Air Exchangers $25 plus $5 per 100,000 BTU per hour or
fraction thereof$40 per unit – New
$30 - Replacement
Air Exchanger $25 per unit
Sheet Metal / Duct Work $25
Ventilation Systems $10 for the first fan plus $4 for each additional
Gas fireplace $25 (includes incidental piping)
Gas, oil piping $20 $25 per unit
Gas Meter, Regulator Upgrade $25
6
Steam, hot water heating $30 plus $5 per 100,000 BTU per hour or
fraction thereof over 200,000 BTU per $40 per
unit
Irrigation Systems (landscaping) $27.00 (plus .50 surcharge)
7
Mobile Homes (See Chapter 1110)
Installation $50 per installation (plus $.50 surcharge)
Mechanical (Gas hook up) $25 (plus $.50 surcharge)
Moving Buildings (See Chapter 1007)
Principal Structure $110 $175 per building (plus $.50
surcharge)
Accessory Structure (larger than 120 sq. ft.) $50 per building (plus $.50
surcharge)
Accessory Structure (120 sq. ft. or less) $25
Plumbing Work - Residential and Commercial (plus $.50 surcharge) (Chapter 1004)
Plumbing fixture, devices, Connections
Fixture Replacement (same opening) or Repair
$20 plus $7.00 per fixture, device and
connection
$15 or 5% of value whichever is
greater up to $27
Porch Use valuation table
Raising, shoring Use valuation table
Re-shingling
Residential
• Buildings under 120 square feet do
not require a permit
$20 for this first 500 square feet plus $3
for each additional 100 square feet or
fraction thereof (plus .50
surcharge)Overlay: $40 for first 1,000
square feet plus $2 for each additional
100 square feet or fraction thereof (plus
.50 surcharge)
Commercial Use Valuation Table
Re-siding / Stucco
Residential
• Building under 120 square feet do not
require a permit
• Soffit/Fascia only (fee not required if
included with siding permit)
$40 for first 1,000 $20 for the first 500
square feet plus $3 for each additional
100 square feet or fraction thereof (plus
.50 surcharge)
Soffit/Fascia: $25 per installation
Re-siding / Stucco
8
Commercial Use Valuation Table
9
Satellite Dishes (See Chapter 1103.18)
• (no permit required for mini dish systems)
$25 per installation (plus $.50
surcharge)
Sheds (120 square feet and less) $ 25 (no surcharge)
Signs, Billboards (See Chapter 1008) -- No Surcharge
Signs up to 100 sq ft. $50 for the first 24 square feet plus $5.00 for
each additional 25 square feet or fraction thereof
up to 100 square
Signs 100 sq. ft. and over $75 for the first 100 square feet plus $10 for
each additional 100 square feet or fraction
thereof
Signs refacing or altering $25 per installation
Temporary Signs $30 per 21 day period (Limit 3 permits per year)
Billboards $200 per billboard
Sprinkling Systems (Fire Suppression)
Sprinkler; Residential $30 plus $4.50 for each ten sprinkler heads or
fraction thereof over the ten heads, plus $.50
Sprinkler; Commercial 1.5% of the contract price plus surcharge at
.0005 times the contract price
Swimming Pools Use valuation table
Tank Installation (fuel, oil, gas, etc.) $100 per tank (no surcharge)
Tank Removal (fuel, oil, gas, etc.) $50 per tank (no surcharge)
Telecommunication Antenna
(Building Permit Fee, see also
Chapter 11261124)
$750 plus $.50 surcharge per system installation.
For installations on-city property, fee is 7% of
yearly rent to city (plus .50 surcharge)
Temporary Office (Mobile home) $50 ($10 annual renewal)
Windows See Door/Window Installation
Wood burning Stove $25 (plus $.50 surcharge)
10
D. OTHER INSPECTIONS / PLANNING FEES
Applicants are responsible for all costs incurred associated with the filing, review and
processing of development applications. Such fees are to be paid in escrow up front or upon
receipt of statement from the City of Mounds View. Fees may include but are not limited to
costs for consultants retained by the City, consultant planning services, attorney, and
engineer fees. A deposit may also be required to cover costs of public notices, materials
and staff time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this
application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of
the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be
refunded to the applicant within 30 days after consideration of the application is completed.
Payment of park dedication fees is required with subdivision applications. Application fees
are not refundable.
Building Inspections
Inspections conducted outside of
normal business hours
$47/hr. (Minimum charge two hours)
Inspections for which no fee is
specifically indicated
$47/hr. (Minimum charge - one half hour)
Reinspection Fees $47/hr.
Change of Address $100 deposit
Comprehensive Plan Amendment $350
Conditional Use Permit
R-1 to R-2 $150
All other Districts $350
Contractor Licenses (See Chapter
1001)
$50 per Year State License
Contractors License Verification
Fee
$5 per permit (See building procedures)
Development/Site Plan Review $125/acre, minimum $125, maximum $750.
Housing Inspection Fees (See Chapter 1005 1012)
Initial and Follow up Inspection No charge
Each Additional Inspection $25/inspection
Investigation Fee Equivalent to permit fee (when work
commences without an approved permit)
11
Park Dedication Fee (See Ord 745) Up to 10% of fair market land value
Plan Review Fee
* Refund Policy: No plan
review fee may be refunded
after review has been
completed.
Plan Review Fee, “Similar”
65 percent of permit fee for all commercial
permits and for residential permits for new
dwellings, dwelling additions, garages, garage
additions, decks, sheds over 216 square feet,
and major remodeling. Additional Plan Review
Fee required by changes, additions or revisions
to plans $47/ hr. (Minimum charge one half hour)
Plan review for outside consultants for plan
checking and inspections, or both. Actual costs
including administrative and overhead costs.
Where all units are the same or similar, each unit
after first shall be 25% of original fee.
Planned Unit Development (PUD
(See Chapter 1120)
$750
PUD Amendment $350
Refund Policy All but $40 of the permit fee can be refunded
within 100 days of application if work has not
commenced.
Rezoning $500
Street or Easement Vacation $250
Subdivisions
Minor Subdivision $250
Major Subdivision $500
Text Amendment, Zoning Code $200
Text Amendment, Other City Code $150
Variance
R-1, R-2 (Administrative) $75 (additional $100 if formal variance is
required)
R-1 and R-2 (Formal) $150
All Other Districts $350
12
Wetland Buffer Permit
R-1 and R-2 $25
All Other Districts $100
Wetland Alteration Permit
R-1 and R-2 $150
All Other Districts $300
Zoning Letter $25
13
II. MISCELLANEOUS FEES (Copies, Agendas, Maps, Minutes, etc.)
Annual Financial Report $25
Adopted Annual Budget $25
Apartment/Multiple Dwelling List $5
Blue Prints / Maps, Up to 11 x 17
Blue Line $2
Colored map $5
Blue Prints / Maps, Up to 24 x 36
Blue line $5
Colored map $10
Capital Improvement Plan $25
Certified Copies $5 plus photocopy fee of .25 per page
Dog License List $.25 per page
Filing Fee for Public Office See Mounds View City Charter
Insufficient Funds (NSF) checks
(returned or NSF checks)
$30
Long Term Financial Plan $25
Mailed / Faxed Agendas
City Council $60/year
Planning Commission $54/year
Special Meeting $25/year
Work Session $45/year
Mailed Minutes
City Council $150/year
Planning Commission $144/year
14
Mailed Meeting Packets
City Council $250/year
Planning Commission $175/year
Work Session $200/year
Mounds View Business List $.25 per page
Municipal Code $200
Notary Public $1 plus copy charge
Outdoor Sign Usage (City Hall) $25 (2 week maximum)
Photocopies $2.00 for the first page and $.25 each additional
sheetper sheet
Sales Tax 6.5%, maps, copies
Sign Code Chapter $5
Special Assessments Search $10
Tree Removal See City Forester
Video Tape Copies $13
Zoning Code Photocopy $50
Zoning Code CD Rom $15
15
III. POLICE/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSES
Crime Free Multi Housing Participant No charge
Driver License Record (MN) Resident: No charge
Non-Resident: $3
Driver License Record (Out of state) $6
Fingerprint Cards $15 for first card/$5 for each add’l card
Police/Accident Reports $2/page for the first page & .25 for each
additional page
Police Reports Research $50/hr for research, plus $2 for the first
page and .25 for additional pages
Certified Copy of Report $5 for certification and $2/page for the
first page & .25 for additional pageseach
page
Color Printed Copy $2.00/page
35mm Standard Photos $1.00/print
Cassette or Video tape $25.00
Electronic copies to Digital Media $15.00 per disc
Impound Vehicle Storage Fee $15.00 per day
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSES
30'’ Stop Sign $15
Alcohol in public $50
Animals $25
Bldg. And Fire Code $100
Blocking Driveways $100
Expired Plates/Registration $25
Fire hydrant $25
Fire Lane $25
Fireworks $100
16
Garbage Dumping $100
Handicap Zone $200
House Numbers $25
Housing Code/Streets $100
Junk Vehicles $50
Junk & Debris $50
Keys in Ignition $20
Loads limits $100
Loitering $25
Other Illegal Parking $15
Park Ordinance $25
Plate/Tab missing $20
Public Nuisances $100
Regulated Business Activity (Zoning) $100
Seat Belts $25
Signs $100
Snowbirds $25
Snowmobiles $25
Speed, Stop Sign, Semaphore or
unsafe lane use violations
$40
Loud Parties/Noise
Mufflers, Stereos and other Violations
of State and City Noise Codes
$50
Tobacco Penalties, Sale to Minors: Administrative Penalties for Businesses
1st Offense $150
2nd Offense within 24 months $400
3rd Offense within 24 months $500
17
IV. IV. LICENSES (All licenses subject to a 10% late fee where
applicable.)
Amusement Devices and Centers (Chapter
506)
$15 per location plus $15 per machine
(MN Stat. 449.15)
Automobile Sales (Chapter 510) $150/year
Amusement Rides, Carnivals, Circuses
(Chapter 506)
$125 for first day plus $20 for each
additional day
Bowling Alleys (Chapter 507) $20/alley/year
Boxing and Wrestling Processing Fee Regulated by the State of Minnesota
Cigarette and Tobacco License Fee (Chapter
512)
$150/year
Dog Licenses (decreased by 50% after one year)
Spayed or neutered $7/2 years
Unspayed or Unneutered $13/2 years
Duplicate tags $2
Fireworks Sales License $350 (business selling only fireworks)
$750$100 (business selling fireworks
and other retail)
Garbage and Rubbish Hauler (Chapter 603) $75 plus $20 per vehicle/year
Tobacco Penalties, Sale to Minors: Administrative Penalties for Individuals
1st Offense: $100
Subsequent Offenses $50 per offense
Tobacco Penalties: Possession by Minors
2nd Offense for possession or use $50
Trespass $25
Truck parking $25
Wetlands $100
Zoning $100
18
Gasoline Stations (Chapter 509) $60 plus $10 per pump
19
Kennel (Chapter 701)
Residential $30/year
Commercial $50/year
Liquor Licenses (Chapter 502, 503)
On-Sale without Cabaret $.65 per square foot for that space
which is used primarily as bar area and
$.53 per square foot for that space
which is issued primarily as dining area
with a minimum fee of $3,000 and a
maximum fee of $10,000
On-Sale with Cabaret $.65 per square foot for that space
which is used primarily as bar area and
$.53 per square foot for that space
which is issued primarily as dining area
with a minimum fee of $3,000 and a
maximum fee of $10,000 (Resolution
No. 4629)
Temporary Liquor License Fee $35/event; $10 Investigation Fee if
applicant does not hold license within
Mounds View
On-Sale Wine $800/year
Off-Sale Intoxicating $200/year
Bottle Club $330/year
On-Sale Malt Liquor/3.2 Beer $1,000/year
Off-Sale Malt Liquor/3.2 Beer $100/year
Set Ups $330/year
Club $330/year
Investigation Fee: Wine/General Liquor
Single Person $300/$350
Partnership $365/$385
Corporation $400/$450
20
Multiple Dwelling License (Chapter 10051012)
License fee discounts:
• Certification Level C
• Certification Level B
• Certification Level A
$8 per unit with minimum of $50 per
building per year.
20% fee reduction
33% fee reduction
50% fee reduction
Multiple Dwelling License Transfer $25
Pawn Shops (Chapter 515)
Non-Refundable Application Fee
(includes cost of investigation)
$500
New Manager Investigation Fee $150
Annual License $10,000
Billable Transaction Fee $1.50 per transaction
Performance Bond $10,000
Peddlers / Transient Merchants / Solicitors (Chapter 504)
Permits $60/day
$100200/month
$500/year
Investigation fee $10 investigation fee for new peddler
I.D. Card $2.505.00/person
Recuperation or Half Way House (Chapter 511)
Less than 10 beds
$33/year
10-49 beds
$55/year
50-99 beds
$82/year
Over 100 beds
$110/year
Restaurants -- Class A (occupancy load greater than 100) (Chapter 505)
Operating 16 hours/day or less $275
Operating more than16 hours/day $550
21
Restaurants -- Class B (occupancy load of 100 or less)
Operation 16 hours/day or less $165/year
Operating more than 16 hours/day $330/year
Tattoo and Body Piercing License /Investigation Fee
Enterprise License License Fee $250
Investigation Fee $100
Specialist License License Fee $100
Investigation Fee $100
Temporary License $100
Therapeutic Massage License Fee/Investigation (Chapter 514)
Enterprise License $75250
Therapist License $35100
Individual Investigation Fee $50100
Partnership / Corporation Investigation
Fee
$350
22
V. ROOM RENTAL
a. MOUNDS VIEW COMMUNITY CENTER
Mounds View Banquet and Conference Center - Basic Services
Banquet and Conference Center Rental
Full room (up to 330400 guests)
Half room (up to 150200 guests)
1/3 room (up to 75130 guests)
Break-out Room Rentals are
Available
Refer to MVBC Mgr: Mermaid Sales
and Catering 763-746-2134Canyon
Sales and Catering 763-323-9109
Damage Deposit $250 (will be returned within 48 hours
after the event)Refer to MVBC
Manager: Canyon Catering
Gym Rental Refer to MVCC Room Policies
Open Gym Refer to MVCC Room Policies
Athletic Field Rental $10 per event (YMCA and ISD #621
are exempt from this fee.
Park Shelter Rental $50 clean-up deposit and $50 key
deposit plus $20 fee for residents or
$50 fee for non-residents.
Community Room Rental $10/hr Resident
$1520/hr Non-Resident
$30/hr Corporation
$25 deposit required to bring in food.
No charge for community organization
meetings.
23
b. CITY HALL ROOM RENTAL
City Hall The following organizations are recognized by
the Mounds View City Council as being allowed
to hold organizational meetings at City Hall:
TOPS, Lions, Quilters, Sunnyside School
Reading Group, Irondale Hockey, Ramsey
County Charter Commission and Scout &
Campfire Groups. The use of space in City
Hall will be free of charge for these
organizations. All other organizations are
encouraged to contact the Mounds View
Community Center regarding room rental.
VI. WATER, SEWER, STREET AND OTHER FEES
Late Payment 10% of bill
Load Limits Permit Fee $20/entry/truck
Sewer Fees
Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) $1350 (effective 1/1/04 per Metro Waste
Control CommissionMetropolitan Council
Environmental Services - MCES).
Sewer Charge
Residential Rates
Commercial, Industrial, Public
Buildings, and Church Rates
$47per REC (Billed quarterlyService Charge
per Residential Equivalent Connection $21.58
per Quarter plus Usage Rate Based on
Metered Water Usage $1.72 per 1,000
gallons
Service charge per residential equivalent
connection $47 per quarter
Sewer Connection/Repair Permit $25 (no surcharge)
Unit Charge $100 per new structure
Service Restoration $75 between 7:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., M-
F;$100 between 3:30-5:30 p.m., M-F; No
restoration after 5:30 p.m. or on weekends or
holidays.
Shut-Off and Curb Stop cost plus 10% for handling and sales tax
Street Light Utility - User Fees (Chapter 904)
24
Residential (includes single
family homes, duplexes, four-
plexes, condominium and
townhomes)
$3.25 per unit per quarter
Commercial/Industrial $16.25 per acre per quarter
Institutional/Charitable $16.25 per acre per quarter
Apartments $14.37 per acre per quarter
Street Opening Permit $20 plus $500 to $700 per opening (check
with Public Works for exact amount)
25
Storm Water Management (SWM) (Chapter 908) - New Construction
R-1 $202 per lot
R-2 989 per acre
R-3, R-4, R-0 $1,429 per acre
B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4 $1,429 per acre
I-1, PUD $1,996 per acre
Storm Water Management – Utility Fees
R1, R2 Single & Two Family Residential $5.507.50 per quarter per unit
R-3 Medium Density Residential $30.0640.99 per quarter
R-4, R-5, R0 High Density Residential
Mobile Homes and Residential Office
$36.4749.72 per quarter/acre
B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4 Neighborhood
Business Limited Business, Highway
Business, Regional Business
$46.7763.78 per quarter/acre
I-1 Industrial $36.4749.72 per quarter/acre
PUD Planned Unit Development $41.5356.39 per quarter
CRP Conservancy, Recreation and
Presentation
$5.096.94 per quarter
School/Church, Public, Private $16.7922.89 per quarter
Water Availability Charge (WAC)
Residential $275/unit
Commercial/Industrial Larger of $900/acre or $224 per
36,000 Gallons of Water
Consumption
Water Charge $1.4550 per 1,000 gallons (Effective
January 1, 1999 per Ordinance 623).
Tapping (water or sewer) City does not perform this service
26
Water Connection/Repair Permit
Inspection An after hours inspection of a water and/or
sewer connection or repair will be charged
as a callout. A callout is defined as a
minimum of two hours pay at one and one-
half (1 ½) times the employee’s base pay
rate.
Service less than 4 inches $25 (no surcharge)
Service 4 inches or greater $50 (no surcharge)
Water Disconnect or Reconnect $2525
Water Hydrant Fees
Deposit $500
Water used from hydrant: $1.451.50 per 1,000 gallons
Meter Deposit, 2- 3": $500
5/8" Meter Deposit: $100
Wrench Deposit: $100
Hose Deposit: $100 per hose
Adapters: $100 deposit
Water Meter $10090 plus tax
Meter Testing (Chapter 906) $50 (Free if meter is faulty)
MIU Telephone Remote Reading Device $105 plus tax
MXU Radio Remote Reading Device $100 plus tax
Water Quality Testing Charge $1.43 per quarter (MNC - per connection)
Water Service Line Repair Fee $4.00 per quarter
Utility Bill Assessment Search $10
27
VII. The Bridges
Green Fee (Weekday)
Green Fee (Weekend)
Juniors 17 and under
Senior 58 and older
$15
$16
$3 off
$2 off
Golf Cars
Weekdays before noon
Weekdays after noon
Weekends and Holidays (Friday
noon – Sunday)
$12
$14
$14
Pull Carts $2
Range balls
One token
Two tokens
Three tokens
$5 (small bucket)
$8 (large bucket)
$10 (jumbo bucket)
Golf instruction
45 minute lesson (Class A Pro)
30 minute lesson (Master Pro)
$50
$50
Item No.08D
Meeting Date: Monday, July 25, 2005
Type of Business: CB
City Administrator Review: ________
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree M. Crane, Admin. Assistant to Administration
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6584 Revising the 2005 Fee Schedule
Attached is a revised Fee Schedule for 2005. Changes to the fee schedule are either
underlined (additions) or stricken (deletions). The changes will appear in red or blue.
Changes were made in regard to Copies of Public data and Fireworks License Fee.
There have been changes to Chapter 13 (Data Practices) of the Minnesota Statute.
Attached is the change, which states that if 100 or fewer pages of black and white, letter
or legal size paper copies are requested, actual costs shall not be used, and instead,
the responsible authority may charge no more than .25 cents for each page copies. In
addition a change was adopted limiting a city’s ability to regulate “legal fireworks.”
Attached is a memo from the League of Minnesota Cities outlining the changes. In
particular, Minn. State. 624.20, subd 1 was amended by adding a subparagraph (d),
which reads as follows:
d) A local unit of government may impose an annual license fee for
the retail sale or items authorized under paragraph (c). The annual
license fee of each retail seller that is in the business of selling
only the items authorized under paragraph (c)may not exceed
$350, and the annual license of each other retail seller may not
exceed $100.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of Resolution 6584, making these revisions to the 2005 Fee
Schedule.
Respectfully Submitted,
Desaree M. Crane
RESOLUTION 6584
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION REVISING THE 2005 FEE SCHEDULE
WHEREAS, revisions and updated to the fee schedule are necessary; and
WHEREAS, revisions were made to photocopy costs due to changes in Chapter
13 of the Minnesota Statute in regard to Photocopy charges not to exceed .25 per copy
if under 100 pages; and
WHEREAS, revisions were made to Fireworks Permit costs due to changes in
Minnesota Statute 624.20 regulating legal fireworks charges.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Mounds View does hereby approve the revisions of the 2005 Fee Schedule, which is
attached to this resolution.
Adopted this 25th day of July, 2005.
____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No: 08E
Meeting Date: July 25, 2005
Type of Business: CB
Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Chief of Police, Mike Sommer
Item Title/Subject: Approval to Hire Peter Berling as Police
Officer
Date of Report: 7-25-05
Background:
The City Council has approved the hiring of a Police Officer for a current vacancy in the
Police Department. The Police Civil Service has certified an active eligibility list for the
position based on previously conducted testing components, which included written
testing, and interviews. The top three candidates on the list are as follows:
1. Peter Berling (Total score =81.8
2. Matthew Smith (Total score= 80.9
3. Dan Mack (Total score=80.8)
The #1 candidate, Peter Berling, has successfully completed all of the required testing
procedures, which included a background examination, physical examination,
psychological examination and physical agility testing.
The Chief of Police has personally met and interviewed Mr. Berling and recommends he
be hired to the position.
Recommendation:
Staff seeks council approval to proceed with appointing Peter Berling to the Position of
Police Officer at the step one rate of pay for the position in accordance with the Law
Enforcement Labor Services Contract, which governs the compensation for this position.
Respectfully submitted,
Mike Sommer
Chief of Police
RESOLUTION NO. 6567
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPOINTING PETER BERLING TO THE
POSITION OF POLICE OFFICER
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved the hiring of a Police Officer for a
current vacancy in the Police Department, and the Police Civil Service Commission has
approved the procedures for establishing an eligibility register to fill this vacancies, and;
WHEREAS, the approved hiring procedures consist of a competitive written
examination, resume scoring, oral interviews, background investigations, physical
examination, psychological examination, and physical agility testing, and;
WHEREAS, the Civil Service Commission has certified the eligibility list for the
opening, and Peter Berling is the top candidate standing on the eligibility register, and
his background investigation, physical, psychological, and physical agility testing have
all been successfully completed, and:
WHEREAS, the Chief of Police has met with Mr. Berling, and the Chief
recommends he be appointed to the position of Police Officer.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council
does hereby appoint Peter Berling to the position of Police Officer effective August 1,
2005 at the step one rate of pay ($17.61 / hour) as stipulated in the Law Enforcement
Labor Services contract for the position.
Adopted this 25thth day of July 2005.
______________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Kurt Ulrich
City Clerk/Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No. 08F
Meeting Date: July 25, 2005
Type of Business:CB
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Resolution 6582 Appointing a
Finance Director/Treasurer
Date of Report: July 25, 2005
Upon direction from the City Council to proceed with hiring for the Finance
Director position, staff advertised the Finance Director position and interviewed
two qualified candidates with a committee consisting of Mounds View
Department Heads and the Finance Director from Blaine. The Mayor and each
Council Member also interviewed each candidate independently.
Both candidates are qualified to fill the position. The City Council directed staff to
offer the position to Mr. Beer subject to Council ratification. Mr. Mark Beer has a
Bachelors of Science degree in accounting and Business administration with an
emphasis in finance. He also holds accreditation as a Certified Public
Accountant (CPA). He has 18 years of experience working for the Office of the
Minnesota State Auditor in a number of local government assignments.
Based on how closely Mr. Beer’s experience in the financial field and his current
salary and position at the State staff recommends that the City Council approve
hiring Mr. Beer for the position of Finance Director at a starting annual salary of
$67,246.40 (Step 2) with an increase to Step 3 (currently $71,219.20) in 6
months pending a satisfactory performance evaluation and an increase to Step 4
one year from the start date, and Step 5 two years from the start date, pending a
satisfactory performance evaluation.
Staff recommends that the Council allow Mr. Beer to accrue vacation at a rate of
three weeks annually. It is further recommended that Mr. Beer be granted leave
without pay for a previously committed vacation planned for September 8-18,
2005, subject to his utilization of any applicable leave time accumulated to that
date.
Recommendation
• Adopt Resolution 6582 Appointing Mark C. Beer as the City’s Finance
Director/Treasurer
• Authorize a starting salary $67,246.40 (step 2) with an increase to Step 3
(currently $71,219.20) in 6 months pending a satisfactory performance
evaluation and an increase to Step 4 one year from the start date, and
Step 5 two years from the start date, pending a satisfactory performance
evaluation.
• Authorize vacation accruals of three weeks annually for Mr. Beer and
authorize leave for September 8-18, 2005 for a previously scheduled
vacation as outlined.
• All other personnel policies will apply normally.
This offer of employment would be contingent upon a satisfactory reference
check and satisfactory criminal and financial background checks.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kurt Ulrich
RESOLUTION NO. 6582
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING MARK C. BEER AS THE
FINANCE DIRECTOR/TREASURER
WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View Finance Director/Treasurer
position has been vacant since May 2005; and
WHEREAS, the City has received and reviewed applications for the
position and interviewed two candidates; and
WHEREAS, Mark C. Beer’s skills and experience most closely
match the city’s needs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City
Council appoints Mark C. Beer as the City of Mounds View Finance
Director/Treasurer, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes a
starting salary of $67,246.40 (step 2) annually with an increase to Step 3
(currently $71,219.20) in 6 months pending a satisfactory performance evaluation
and an increase to Step 4 one year from the start date, and Step 5 two years
from the start date, pending a satisfactory performance evaluation, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that vacation accruals will begin at
three weeks annually for Mr. Beer and that Mr. Beer is hereby authorized leave
without pay for a previously committed vacation planned for September 8-18,
2005, subject to utilization of any applicable leave time accumulated to that date,
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this offer of employment is
contingent upon satisfactory reference, criminal and financial background
checks. Mr. Beer will begin employment with the City on (or as soon as possible
after) August 15, 2005, and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that all other personnel policies will
apply normally.
Resolution 6582
Page 2
Adopted this 25th day of July, 2005.
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No: 08G
Meeting Date: July 25, 2005
Type of Business: CB
City Administrator Review: ____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree Crane, Administrative Assistant to Administration
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6572 Approving Appointments to the Northwest
Area Library Access Task Force
Attached is a letter from Susan Nemitz, Ramsey County Library Director, outlining
a request to appoint two members from Mounds View to the Northwest Area
Library Access Task Force.
The Northwest Area Library Task Force will meet twice monthly, with the first
meeting starting on August 10, 2005 at 7pm (located to be determined). The
Library Director has indicated that the Commission is still determining the dates for
these future meetings.
The task force will be important to the future of the Mounds View Library as well as
future library service to residents. According to the Ramsey County Library
Administration Department, this task force will be planning on having public
meetings in Arden Hills, Mounds View and New Brighton to get public input.
Attached is Resolution 6572 for Council consideration. A blank space has been
left for the Council (or staff) appointment and the Mayor is indicated as making the
appointment of a resident from those residents whom expresses an interest in
serving. Attached are the Applications from interested Mounds View Residents.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree Crane
RESOLUTION NO. 6572
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING APPOINTMENTS TO THE NORTHWEST AREA LIBRARY
ACCESS TASK FORCE
WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Library is undertaking a major initiative
to evaluate services in the northwest portion of the County; and
WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Library is looking for participation from
area City Officials and residents in order to develop a consensus on providing the
best possible library service for the area; and
WHEREAS, the initiative involves developing a Northwest Area Library
Access Task Force that will examine various aspects of library services and make
a recommendation to the Ramsey County Library Board in one year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1. Council Member ________________ will service as the public
official representative to the Northwest Area Library Task Force.
2. The Mayor will appoint the Mound View citizen’s representative to
the Northwest Area Library Access Task Force. The Mayor is
appointing ____________________ as the Mounds View citizen
representing the Northwest Library Access Task Force.
Adopted this 27th day of June, 2005.
_______________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No. 9A
Meeting Date: July 25, 2005
Type of Business: CA
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City Administrator Review _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6586 Approving Plans and
Specifications for the Emergency Vehicle
Preemption (EVP) Installation Project
Background:
On April 25, 2005, the City Council approved Resolution No. 6502 accepting the
Memorandum Report from BRAA, waiving the public improvement hearing,
ordering the project, authorizing the preparations of plans and specifications,
authorizing the solicitation of quotes, and authorizing the initiation of discussions
with Ramsey County to update agreements for the Emergency Vehicle
Preemption (EVP) Installation Project.
This project entails the addition of an Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP)
system to all traffic signals along County Highway Road 10 and the traffic signal
located at County Road I and Quincy Street.
An EVP system allows emergency vehicles to utilize a specialized strobe light to
override the programming of a particular traffic signal to give the emergency
vehicle a dedicated green light from the direction of its travel and a red light to all
other approaches.
Discussion:
The plans and specifications for the Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP)
installation project have been completed. Attached is a copy of the plans for City
Council’s review.
It is recommended that the City Council approve the plans and specifications for
this project.
Should this project proceed, the next City Council actions will be to approve the
updated agreement with the County and to award a contract. It is estimated that
a possible contract award will be presented to the City Council on August 8,
2005.
Recommendation:
It is recommended the City Council approve a resolution to approve the plans
and specifications for the Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) Installation
Project.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
RESOLUTION NO. 6586
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE EMERGENCY
VEHICLE PREEMPTION (EVP) INSTALLATION PROJECT
WHEREAS, on April 25, 2005, the City Council approved Resolution No.
6502 accepting the Memorandum Report from BRAA, waiving the public
improvement hearing, ordering the project, authorizing the preparations of plans
and specifications, authorizing the solicitation of quotes, and authorizing the
initiation of discussions with Ramsey County to update agreements for the
Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) Installation Project; and
WHEREAS, the plans and specifications for the Emergency Vehicle
Preemption (EVP) installation project have been completed.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Mounds View City
Council does hereby approve the plans and specifications for the Emergency
Vehicle Preemption (EVP) installation project.
Adopted this 25th day of July 2005.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(SEAL)
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item No: 09B
Meeting Date: July 25, 2005
Type of Business: CA
City Administrator Review: ____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Barb Benesch, Administrative Assistant
Item Title/Subject: CONTRACTOR LICENSES FOR APPROVAL
Please consider the following contractor licenses for approval. All contractor licenses will
expire on December 31, 2005. All applicants have submitted appropriate fees and proof of
insurance. Those companies that are “new” include applicants that have never been licensed
with the City or they may have been licensed with the City in the past, but were not licensed in
2004. Those companies renewing their license were licensed, at a minimum, in the year 2004.
The type of license they are applying for follows the company name.
Classic Construction Masonry New
Creative Concepts, Inc. Masonry New
North Star Fence of Anoka, Inc. Fence Renewal
Prime Cut Tree Service, LLC Tree Trimming/Removal New
Westair Corporation HVAC Renewal
Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3
4
Regular Meeting 5
June 27, 2005 6
Mounds View City Hall 7
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 8
8:20 P.M. 9
10
11
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 12
13
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 14
15
Members of Girl Scout Troop 530 lead the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 16
17
3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Gunn, Flaherty, Stigney and Thomas 18
19
NOT PRESENT: 20
21
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 22
23
A. Monday, June 27, 2005 City Council Agenda. 24
25
City Administrator Ulrich had the following change to the agenda: 26
• Delete Item 8N, Resolution 6567 Approving the Hire of Peter Berling to the Position of 27
Police Officer and move to the July 25, 2005 agenda. 28
29
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Flaherty. To Approve the Monday, June 27, 2005 agenda as 30
amended. 31
32
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 33
34
5. PUBLIC INPUT 35
36
Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated that he would like Council to clarify and explain 37
two items: Mounds View City Charter 410, Section 33, clarify what supercedence means in the 38
City Charter versus State law; secondly, in terms of the City Charter, where do they invoke the 39
non-withstanding clause in Section 469. 40
41
City Attorney Riggs stated that he would research the items and provide a report that includes 42
definitions and clarification. 43
44
Mounds View City Council June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road referenced the Medtronic proposal stating that he would like 1
to thank the Council for looking everything over so well and for seeing the potential benefits this 2
proposal could bring to the City of Mounds View. He stated that he knows that once the cement 3
is in the ground and bad weather comes around, the city would still be supported. He thanked the 4
Council for all of their hard work and dedication to the City. 5
6
Mike Reed, 2208 Lois Drive, noted that the survey indicated that both the golf course and the 7
community center are not doing well. He asked if the community center is self-sufficient and if 8
not, would the Council be reviewing the feasibility of the community center in the near future. 9
He stated that he enjoys utilizing all of the city’s resources but, if these resources are not making 10
money for the city and if they are costing too much to maintain, then he guesses the city should 11
consider getting rid of them too. He asked the Council how they would determine where it 12
would stop with respect to eliminating city services that are not self-sustaining. 13
14
Council Member Thomas confirmed that Community Center has been included in their 15
discussions. She explained that it is all part of an effort to determine where the city is at in terms 16
costs and revenue. 17
18
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 19
20
NONE 21
22
7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS. 23
24
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Stigney. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as presented. 25
26
Ayes - 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 27
28
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS. 29
30
A. 7:05 Public Hearing to Consider Resolution 6545, an Off Sale Intoxicating 31
Liquor License Renewal for ABC Liquor located at 2840 Highway 10. 32
33
Administrative Assistant Crane stated that staff has investigated all aspects of the application to 34
ensure that all requirements have been met. She noted that the police inquiry investigation, the 35
utility building investigation and the fire safety report have been included for Council review. 36
She stated that all requirements have been met and staff is recommending approval. 37
38
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. 39
40
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:31 p.m. 41
42
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Flaherty. To Approve Resolution 6545 Approving an Off Sale 43
Intoxicating Liquor License Renewal for ABC Liquor located at 2840 Highway 10 and waive the 44
reading. 45
Mounds View City Council June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
1
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 2
3
B. 7:10 p.m. Public Hearing to Consider Resolution 6546, an Off Sale 4
Intoxicating Liquor License Renewal for Big Top Discount Liquor located at 5
2577 Highway 10. 6
7
Administrative Assistant Crane stated that staff has investigated all aspects of the application to 8
ensure that all requirements have been met. She noted that the police inquiry investigation, the 9
utility building investigation and the fire safety report have been included for Council review. 10
She stated that all requirements have been met and staff is recommending approval. 11
12
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:32 p.m. 13
14
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:33 p.m. 15
16
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Thomas To Approve Resolution 6546, Approving an Off Sale 17
Intoxicating Liquor License Renewal for Big Top Discount Liquor located at 2577 Highway 10 18
and waive the reading. 19
20
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 21
22
C. 7:15 p.m. Public Hearing to Consider Resolution 6547, an Off Sale 23
Intoxicating Liquor License Renewal for Vino & Stogies, located at 2345 24
County Road H2. 25
26
Administrative Assistant Crane stated that staff has investigated all aspects of the application to 27
ensure that all requirements have been met. She noted that the police inquiry investigation, the 28
utility building investigation and the fire safety report have been included for Council review. 29
She stated that all requirements have been met and staff is recommending approval. 30
31
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:34 p.m. 32
33
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:35 p.m. 34
35
MOTION/SECOND Flaherty/Gunn To Approve Resolution 6547 Approving an Off Sale 36
Intoxicating Liquor License Renewal for Vino & Stogies, located at 2345 County Road H2 and 37
waive the reading. 38
. 39
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 40
41
D. 7:20 p.m. Public Hearing to Consider Resolution 6548, an On Sale 42
Intoxicating Liquor License for Robert’s Sports Bar and Entertainment 43
located at 2400 County Road H2. 44
45
Mounds View City Council June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 4
Administrative Assistant Crane stated that staff has investigated all aspects of the application to 1
ensure that all requirements have been met. She noted that the police inquiry investigation, the 2
utility building investigation and the fire safety report have been included for Council review. 3
She stated that there was a small problem with the fire inspection noting that they did not have an 4
electrical permit or inspection. She stated that the Building Official did inspect and all 5
requirements have been met and staff is recommending approval. 6
7
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:36 p.m. 8
9
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:37 p.m. 10
11
Mayor Marty clarified that the applicant had not pulled a permit for the electrical work and asked 12
if the city would apply a fine. 13
14
Administrative Assistant Crane stated that she would have to verify and report back. 15
16
MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Thomas. To Approve Resolution 6548 Approving an Off Sale 17
Intoxicating Liquor License Renewal for Robert’s Sports Bar and Entertainment, located at 2400 18
County Road H2 and waive the reading. 19
20
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 21
22
E. 7:25 p.m. Public Hearing to Consider Resolution 6549, an On Sale 23
Intoxicating Liquor License for Jake’s Sport’s Café, located at 2400 Highway 24
10. 25
26
Administrative Assistant Crane stated that staff has investigated all aspects of the application to 27
ensure that all requirements have been met. She noted that the police inquiry investigation, the 28
utility building investigation and the fire safety report have been included for Council review. 29
She stated that there was a small issue with the utility bill noting that it was paid on Friday, June 30
24, 2005. She stated that all requirements have been met and staff is recommending approval. 31
32
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:38 p.m. 33
34
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:39 p.m. 35
36
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Flaherty. To Approve Resolution 6549 Approving an On Sale 37
Intoxicating Liquor License Renewal for Jake’s Sport’s Café, located at 2400 Highway 10 and 38
waive the reading. 39
40
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 41
42
F. 7:30 p.m. Public Hearing to Consider Resolution 6550, an On Sale 43
Intoxicating Liquor License for The Mermaid, located at 2200 Highway 10. 44
45
Mounds View City Council June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 5
Administrative Assistant Crane stated that staff has investigated all aspects of the application to 1
ensure that all requirements have been met. She noted that the police inquiry investigation, the 2
utility building investigation and the fire safety report have been included for Council review. 3
She stated that all requirements have been met and staff is recommending approval. 4
5
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. 6
7
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:41 p.m. 8
9
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Flaherty To approve Resolution 6550 Approving an On Sale 10
Intoxicating Liquor License for The Mermaid, located at 2200 Highway 10 and waive the 11
reading. 12
13
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 14
15
G. Resolution 6564 Approving the Proposed Sale of Land Comprising the 16
Bridges of Mounds Golf Course to Medtronic; and approving the 17
Development Proposal and Terms of the Purchase Agreement and Contract 18
for Private Development. 19
20
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that this resolution parallels the staff report 21
and resolution reviewed with EDA. He explained that the economic impacts would increase the 22
city tax base, leverages State dollars for roads, adds high paying jobs to the community and 23
involves a major investment, by a premier company, in our community. He stated that given the 24
positive impacts it is recommended that the Mounds View City Council adopt Resolution 6564 25
approving the proposed sale of the land comprised of The Bridges and approve the Medtronic 26
Development proposal. 27
28
Mayor Marty referenced page one of the staff report stating that he would like to make note of 29
the last paragraph, second to last line, ‘The term sheet indicated that the Mounds View EDA 30
would seek Special TIF Legislation that would permit 25-year TIF Districts at the site’. He 31
stated that he was not aware that Council had specifically asked to extend the District after the 25 32
years. 33
34
Mayor Marty referenced page 51, that ‘The Bridges AUAR authorized by the city reviewed all 35
transportation issues related to the proposed development of the site and stated that the AUAR 36
did not address the transportation issues within the City of Mounds View. 37
38
Council Member Thomas clarified that Council did not direct staff to extend to 25-years because 39
25-years was the length of the time that was discussed on the term sheet from the very beginning. 40
41
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Stigney To approve Resolution 6564 Approving the Proposed Sale 42
of Land Comprising the Bridges of Mounds Golf Course to Medtronic; and approving the 43
Development Proposal and Terms of the Purchase Agreement and Contract for Private 44
Development and waive the reading. 45
Mounds View City Council June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 6
1
Ayes-4 Nays-1 (Marty) Motion carried. 2
3
H. First Reading of Ordinance Authorizing the Sale of Land Comprising the 4
Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course to the Mounds View Economic 5
Development Authority. 6
7
Economic Development Coordinator Backman explained that to allow for the sale of the land to 8
Medtronic, the current owner, -the City of Mounds View-, would be required to convey the 9
property to the Mounds View Economic Development Authority. He indicated that several of 10
the documents necessary for the sale have been attached for their review including Ordinance 11
760, the legal description form of the Quit Claim Deed. 12
13
Council Member Thomas stated that she has had several discussions with City Administrator 14
Ulrich as to whether this should be on tonight’s agenda. She explained that the Council does not 15
want it to appear that they are rushing into things with this proposal noting that everyone is aware 16
of the timetables. She further explained that she gave considerable thought to possibly asking 17
that this item be pulled from the agenda noting that at the last minute she decided that it would be 18
counterproductive to drag it out any further. She noted that it allows steps to proceed in every 19
direction to go ahead with this and at this point there is not a lot that would be forestalled or 20
changed. She explained that she wanted to bring this up due to the concerns she had and the 21
discussions she had with Staff and Residents. She stated that it seems to help everyone involved 22
to go ahead with this resolution 23
24
Mayor Marty asked City Attorney Riggs what the advantages would be if the City transfers the 25
property to the EDA. 26
27
City Attorney Riggs explained that this is by Statute, an automatic right of reverter should the 28
development not commence. He further explained that if the land is not built on that it would 29
automatically have to come back to the EDA. He noted that the EDA, in this city, does oversee 30
the tax increment programs and because that is what this is, a development contract, it is directly 31
involved with the EDA. He noted that the main thing is the right to revert. He stated that if 32
Council feels they want the ordinance to transfer the land directly from the city to Medtronic he 33
did not think it would be a problem with Medtronic. He stated that it could be done this way if 34
that is how Council wants it done. 35
36
Mayor Marty stated that he does not believe that Medtronic would go through all of this only to 37
walk away from it and asked if the transfer to the EDA was necessary. 38
39
Council Member Gunn stated that it is her understanding that this is the process the City has 40
always used in all types of land sales. 41
42
City Attorney Riggs confirmed that this is the same process the city has used in the past for land 43
sales. 44
45
Mounds View City Council June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 7
Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated that he has a couple of questions with regards to 1
the sale of the land and the process used to convey the land to the EDA. He stated that his first 2
question is how much are they going to pay for the land and more importantly, does it fall within 3
the requirements of the City Charter. He expressed concerns stating that there has been an error 4
of judgment in the sense that the City Charter under ___________ does indeed preempt statutory 5
law unless statutory law has a not-withstanding clause that sets the Charter aside. He noted that 6
this has been very clear to him for very many years stating that they are currently waiting to see if 7
the City Attorney agrees with this or not. He expressed concerns stating that if they pass this 8
ordinance now and he is right the Council would be in trouble but, if they pass the ordinance now 9
and the City Attorney is right they would be Ok except for the amount of money the EDA would 10
have to give the City for the land under the Charter when they dispose of it as a City Council. 11
12
City Administrator Ulrich clarified that this is the first reading of the ordinance noting that it 13
would have to come back for a second reading and final hearing. He noted that it is their hope 14
that the City Attorney would have the research done at that time and all questions could be 15
answered and the item could be acted on or delayed if appropriate. 16
17
Council Member Thomas stated that it is difficult to raise this issue now, as far as their legal 18
precedent, when this is actually how they have been set up to legally interact with the EDA since 19
the EDA was instituted. She stated that she has full confidence with the City Attorney’s 20
statements and that he would come back with the documentation on the Statute. She stated that 21
she also has full confidence in how it was set up and it is in full legal standing noting that she has 22
no issues with this. She clarified that her issues are with the timing and appearance, not anything 23
to do with process. 24
25
Mayor Marty noted that it states in the Ordinance under Section 1, Appendix D of the Mounds 26
View Municipal Code, entitled Special Ordinances that it is hereby amended to include reference 27
to the following Ordinance 760 and asked if this is a special ordinance. 28
29
City Attorney Riggs clarified that technically it is an uncodified ordinance and the city keeps 30
track of it in City Code, Section D. He stated that it does not go in anywhere else in the code 31
noting that it is specific only to that parcel and that is why it is in this section so that the city has 32
some form of record keeping showing that it was adopted. 33
34
Barbara Haake asked for clarification of the dates and the 30-day timeframe they have for 35
submitting signatures to request a petition of referendum. 36
37
City Attorney Riggs explained the process noting that the logic would appear to be the 30-days 38
after it is adopted. He explained that once it is published it takes 30-days to be effective noting 39
that this would be the window of time for the petition to come in and be considered valid. 40
41
Barbara Haake further clarified that the adoption would be effective the fourth Monday in July. 42
43
City Administrator Ulrich clarified that the final public hearing is scheduled for July 11, 2005 44
and if the ordinance is approved at that time it would have to be published. He stated that this 45
Mounds View City Council June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 8
would occur approximately a week and half after the approval on July 11th and it would be thirty 1
days after publication that the ordinance would be effective, which would be in the middle of 2
August. 3
4
Barbara Haake clarified that their timeframe for submitting signatures would be between July 5
15th and August 15, 2005. 6
7
City Administrator Ulrich confirmed. 8
9
MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Gunn. To approve the First Reading of Ordinance 760 10
Authorizing disposal by Sale of the Real Property Comprising The Bridges of Mounds View 11
Golf Course owned by the City of Mounds View to the Mounds View Economic Development 12
Authority. 13
14
Ayes-4 Nays-1 (Marty) Motion carried. 15
16
I. Resolution 6571 Approving Minnesota Statute Chapter 152, Article 2 Tax 17
Increment Financing and Requesting Approval by Ramsey County and the 18
Mounds View School District. 19
20
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that they had TIF legislation that was 21
before the Legislature during the 2005 session. He stated that Staff recommends that the City 22
formally approve the TIF Legislation by signing the certificate of approval and adopting 23
Resolution 6571, and request approval by Ramsey County and the Mounds View School District. 24
25
Council Member Thomas asked if they are actually approving Minnesota Statute or is this the 26
legal terminology that they are required to use. She asked if different wording could be used 27
noting that she was not aware that they had this kind of authority. 28
29
City Attorney Riggs clarified that the State requires their approval and confirmed that the 30
Council does have the authority. 31
32
Brian Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive stated that he has a couple of questions regarding this 33
transaction adding that he is curious as to why this has to happen this evening. He referenced the 34
June 20th public hearing stating that he had requested the Council ask the State Auditor how 35
much property, in total, a city should have in TIF. He stated that he does not know if Council 36
was ever given that answer prior to adopting additional property that is now being moved into 37
TIF. He recalled seeing two or three Council Members nodding yes, that this would be a point of 38
information the Council would like to have noting that he believes this would be critical to know 39
before adopting an acceptance to go into additional TIF. He stated that his next question is in 40
regards to boundaries noting that there is a current TIF District comprised of the SYSCO 41
property and the driving range that is currently situated with the golf course. He indicated that 42
this is TIF District 3, which expires in 2013 or 2014. He stated that he asked how a TIF District 43
could be created on top of a TIF District. He noted that Ehlers had tried to explain that one 44
district would be tax exempt and one would not be. He stated that he thinks the legislation in 45
Mounds View City Council June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 9
469.101 talks about boundaries of districts being contiguous not overlapping. He expressed 1
concerns stating that there could be a conflict unless part of the district is decertified prior to 2
accepting a new district with new boundaries. He noted that he feels very strongly that 3
Medtronic is strong-arming and that this is an inappropriate use of TIF. He clarified his 4
understanding stating in 469.174, Subdivision 10, it has specific requirements for the type of land 5
placed into TIF. He asked the City Attorney if the legislation sets aside 469.174 noting that it 6
does have some specific rules that it adds, some rules that it changes, but it did not say that it set 7
aside 469.174. He stated that these are questions he thought the Council would be interested in 8
and would like to have them added for their conversation. 9
10
City Administrator Ulrich stated that he spoke with Kurt Mueller from the State Auditors office 11
and he indicated that they do not have standards or guidelines in terms of the percentage of tax 12
base within TIF. He stated that they do not have any other standards beyond what is allowable by 13
State Law. 14
15
Council Member Thomas stated that she had also discussed Mr. Amundsen’s question in regards 16
to the special legislation that was passed regarding the TIF district. She stated that she has not 17
gotten an answer yet noting that their tax staff at the house is a bit occupied at the moment. She 18
stated that it is her hope that she would hear from them soon. 19
20
Council Member Flaherty stated that he would like some clarification on the overlapping of 21
districts. 22
23
City Administrator Ulrich explained that there would be a de-certification of that portion of TIF 24
District 3, which currently is located on golf course land. He assured Council that it would not 25
be overlapping districts. He stated that there would be a concurrent de-certification and then a 26
creation of the new district that would contain Medtronic. He stated that this would be the new 27
25-year district. He explained that the new district would then be TIF District 5. He further 28
explained that TIF District 3 is the SYSCO District, which includes the western portion of the 29
golf course and would be taken out. 30
31
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road stated that he would like to thank Economic Development 32
Coordinator Backman for all of his work noting that he has done a tremendous job. He stated 33
that he feels bad when they say Medtronic is strong-arming. He stated that Medtronic is not that 34
type of a company noting that he has heard all these terms throughout this process and wanted to 35
express his concerns. He asked if there was a clear understanding of the term noting that it is not 36
a good term to use for such an outstanding company. 37
38
Dan Hall, 2200 Highway 10, stated that he would like to hear the views of each Council Member 39
as to how it has been to deal with Medtronic. He asked Council if they believed Medtronic is 40
strong-arming or are they an upstanding company. He stated that he truly believes this would be 41
the best thing for the city noting that then the city could then use TIF in a different way. He 42
suggested the possibility that the city might be able to purchase old housing stock, demolishing 43
and selling to developers in order to keep upgrading Mounds View and make it into a premier 44
city. 45
Mounds View City Council June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 10
1
Mayor Marty explained that they have this program in place for the present time noting that they 2
have certified a number of parcels throughout the city as being TIF eligible for housing 3
replacement. He further explained that they would not be taking anyone’s property. He stated 4
that this is only if the property owners deemed to sell it to the city. He stated that a number of 5
these properties are in disrepair and in order to sell the property to an outside buyer they would 6
have to be brought up to city code, but to sell the property to the city, using TIF funds, they could 7
sell the house outright without repairing. He noted that the Medtronic TIF proposal is setup 8
differently than the current TIF proposals being used over the years. He explained that 9
Medtronic’s proposal is a pay as you go process and it would not generate any extra TIF pool or 10
funds that the city could use. 11
12
Mr. Hall clarified that he did not ask if they were creating a larger TIF pool. He further clarified 13
that he is encouraging them to look at ways to keep increasing the quality of Mounds View. He 14
stated that it would be a nice process for the city to be able purchase properties before they 15
become ransacked. He stated that by having a company like Medtronic come into the city it 16
provides an opportunity for Mounds View to continue to upgrade the community. 17
18
Mayor Marty stated that it takes money for the city to be able to afford to purchase properties 19
noting that presently the city is able to use some of the funds from a TIF pool captured by other 20
districts noting that once these districts are de-certified and are no more, the city would not have 21
this source of revenue funds. He stated that the city would not have the capital to invest in 22
buying without using tax dollars. 23
24
Mr. Hall noted that city does not have the money right now noting that if the city doesn’t deal 25
with Medtronic there would be no future dollars for this city and taxes would increase. 26
27
Stacy Kvilvang, Ehlers and Associates stated that essentially the Council’s goals for this tax 28
increment-financing district is to pay it off as soon as possible. She explained that any excess 29
TIF generated would go to pay off the note early so that they can shut the district down. 30
31
Cindy Sebesta, 2146 Hillview Road, stated that her home is listed in TIF district noting that she 32
did not know this and was never notified until everything was passed. She indicated that many 33
low-income and fixed-income people are also affected and did not know. She explained that it is 34
not that she does not want to improve her home it is a matter of affordability. She further 35
explained that she is a single mother with six children, noting that her job was cut and she has 36
spent the last three years going back to school to improve her life. She stated that she resents the 37
way she has been treated by this entire thing and to make a comment that her home should be 38
destroyed. She expressed frustrations stating that she has worked very hard to keep things going 39
noting that she has a large number of things to deal with including a child-support situation with 40
her ex-husband along with trying to maintain her home. She stated that does not feel that the city 41
has helped her out by placing her home into a TIF District. She stated that she did not get a 1/3 42
reduction in her property taxes like what is proposed for Medtronic. She stated that this is a very 43
unfair deal especially when it comes to homeowners when you take our largest asset and put at 44
risk. She stated that this is the one piece of property she owns that’s going to be her ticket to a 45
Mounds View City Council June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 11
better life. She stated that this definitely should be considered rather than expending energy to 1
make homeowners comply with certain code or to make improvements, or penalize them and use 2
it in a punitive manner. She asked why they couldn’t use this same energy to make those 3
improvements or ask what they could do to help out rather than imposing fees and fines. She 4
stated it is the same amount of energy that could be used to be negative or it could be used in a 5
positive way. 6
7
Economic Development Coordinator Backman clarified that Ms Sebesta’s house is not in a TIF 8
District. He explained that the city has not added parcels to a TIF District in over two years 9
noting that this is a voluntary program and they choose to participate. 10
11
Council Member Gunn further clarified that the city would only purchase one of the homes if the 12
owner comes to the city. She assured the residents that the city is not going to take any homes 13
from anyone noting that if a homeowner is having difficulty selling their property they can then 14
come to the city and the city could then purchase it. She stated that the city is not going to take 15
anyone’s home. 16
17
Council Member Thomas added that the city has turned down several homes. She stated that she 18
does not believe that this is the proper business for the city to be in. She stated that homeowners 19
have rights to their homes and she believes in a free market when it comes to a residential home 20
and the city should not be involved. 21
22
Council Member Gunn explained that in order for the city to be able to purchase a home from a 23
resident the city had to develop the Comprehensive Plan. 24
25
Economic Development Coordinator Backman confirmed and further explained that in order to 26
participate in the program they have to have designated parcels. He stated that Director Ericson 27
drove throughout the city, talked with various people and put together a list of parcels. He stated 28
that the parcels are not in TIF Districts they are only designated as potential participants in a 29
voluntary program. 30
31
Council Member Flaherty noted to Mr. Hall that he has met with Medtronic officials three or four 32
times and has had nothing but polite, honest discussion with them. He assured him that no one 33
has strong-armed or made inappropriate offers of any kind. He stated that everything has been 34
strictly above board noting that he appreciates their candor. He stated that Mr. McCombs has 35
answered all of his questions about the development and he can unequivocally say that he has 36
dealt with professionals in all of his discussions. 37
38
Council Member Gunn agreed stating that in the meetings she has had with Medtronic as an 39
individual and as a Council Member, they have been willing to listen and have been very open to 40
discussion on all of the issues. She stated that they have been above board and honest noting that 41
if Medtronic did not like something they would let the city know and if the city didn’t like 42
something Medtronic was willing to listen. 43
44
Council Member Thomas stated that she has had the greatest opportunity to watch Medtronic’s 45
Mounds View City Council June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 12
workings as she has dealt with them outside of this issue and can honestly say that she would be 1
more than happy to be working with Medtronic again. She stated that they do their job to stand 2
up for their company and to do the deal they need to do in order to do good business. She stated 3
that this is the type of company she would like in Mounds View that makes good business 4
decisions. She stated that she feels Medtronic has dealt with the city extremely fairly and 5
extremely above board. 6
7
Council Member Stigney agreed stating that no one strong-armed him or coerced him in any 8
manner. He stated that all he saw was a very upstanding company presenting options that they 9
were willing or capable of doing. He stated that they have bent over backwards recalling that 10
Medtronic only asked for 40-percent of the TIF they qualify for. He stated that Medtronic is a 11
very above-board and outstanding company. He stated that it is his hope that everyone has the 12
opportunity to work with company like this. 13
14
Mayor Marty stated that he has gotten to know Mr. McCombs the best noting that he has been 15
very impressed and Mr. McCombs has his respect. He stated that he has no problems with any of 16
the individuals he has spoken with. He assured the residents that no one has tried to strong-arm 17
him noting that everything has been totally honorable and above board. 18
19
Barbara Haake, 3024 County Road I, referenced Ms. Sebesta’s concerns regarding her house 20
being in a TIF District and clarified that when Director Ericson drove through the community to 21
identify parcels it was with the intent to identify parcels that would be eligible for purchase by 22
the city and if the resident chose to sell their home to the city they would use the excess TIF 23
funds to purchase the parcel. She further clarified that the TIF funds would be available for the 24
city to use if Ms. Sebesta or any other resident in a TIF District were to ever choose to sell their 25
home to the city. 26
27
Mayor Marty clarified that if a property owner was not able to sell their home and they 28
approached the city and it was determined that the home was not on the list it could take up to a 29
year to qualify the property for purchase. He stated that the city was only trying to streamline the 30
process. He explained that the city has been approached in the past by homeowners and the city 31
has either not had the time to certify the property or the city has decided not to purchase the 32
property. 33
34
Council Member Thomas further clarified that this list is just for the Comprehensive Plan and the 35
only thing this list does is that it allows the city to use TIF dollars instead of the General Fund. 36
She stated that it is only the difference in how it is financed noting that the Metropolitan Council 37
requires the city to use the list if using TIF funds. 38
39
Brian Amundsen, 3048 Wooddale, stated that he had asked if the City Attorney would address 40
the issues of 469.174, Subdivision 10, which has three specific criteria about when a 41
redevelopment district can be declared and whether the City Attorney felt that the legislation set 42
aside the three criteria for some reason when it was not specifically stated. He stated that he 43
would also like to comment that for anyone to think that a company that says they have 3000 44
employees they want to keep in Minnesota and if they can’t keep them in Minnesota would then 45
Mounds View City Council June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 13
go to Eau Claire to present a bid, if this isn’t strong-arming the State Legislature, then he does 1
not know what strong-arming is at a political level. 2
3
City Attorney Riggs stated that in essence this is special legislation and it does remove many of 4
the requirements that are necessary for the creation of an economic development district, which 5
is what is being created here. He confirmed that it does set aside some of the requirements, 6
which is what the legislation was intended to do. 7
8
Stan Haugen, 8339 Knollwood Drive, asked Council Member Gunn noting that she spoke about 9
times she and Council have met with Medtronic and she said that they are very well informed 10
about the issues and asked if anyone spoke with Medtronic about not using TIF dollars and how 11
did Medtronic respond. 12
13
Council Member Gunn confirmed that it was discussed as a whole and the 25-year TIF District 14
was the result of the discussion. 15
16
Mayor Marty added that the Council did ask for it to be reduced to 15-years but Medtronic was 17
not willing. 18
19
Mr. Haugen noted that the golf course does make money and has made money every year for the 20
last ten years. He explained that all it has to pay is the cost for constructing it noting that the cost 21
of construction has nothing to do with the golf course itself. He stated that it does make money 22
every year and will make money for twenty-five years. He stated that they should keep the golf 23
course because it is a moneymaker and Medtronic will not make money for another twenty-five 24
years. 25
26
Mayor Marty noted that this is another point where if they had the Springsted Study they would 27
be able to see where the money is going. He noted that he is referencing the study done in 2000. 28
29
Council Member Thomas stated that before they go to far in discussing Springsted, this is what 30
they have Ehlers for. She stated that Springsted was not a partisan or on behalf of one particular 31
group noting that Ehlers was hired by the city, as their consultant, as the third party to run these 32
numbers for the city. She stated that she feels she now has to stand up and defend the contractor 33
they hired to do the numbers and she shouldn’t have to do this. She stated that there is a reason 34
why she wouldn’t second Mayor Marty’s motion, she has no problem with running numbers but 35
the city hired Ehlers to do a job and she is not in a position where she feels the need to second 36
guess their numbers. 37
38
Mayor Marty clarified that he is not casting any disparities on Ehlers itself. 39
40
Council Member Thomas stated that the suggestion does, noting that she does not want to debate 41
this; that every time they bring up Springsted it does cast disparities. 42
43
Mr. Jahnke expressed frustration noting that the gentleman before him stated that the golf course 44
makes money and he does not understand where they have the idea that the golf course is making 45
Mounds View City Council June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 14
money. He stated that he received a copy of the financial statement and it clearly shows that the 1
golf course is losing money every year. He suggested showing residents the financial statements. 2
3
Mayor Marty stated that again this is why he is suggesting that they review the 2000 Springsted 4
Study. 5
6
City Administrator Ulrich pointed out that an important part of the negotiation was the TIF 7
District noting that the concession made by Medtronic was to cap the TIF amount at $14.8 8
million because there was $24 million at the time and close to $30 million in TIF eligible 9
expenditures that Medtronic was initially asking for. He stated that Medtronic initially asked the 10
city for $24 million in TIF eligible expenditures as part of the deal and part of the negotiation 11
process involved bringing that amount down. He stated that could potentially limit the number 12
of years the TIF District would run as it would be paid off that much sooner. 13
14
Council Member Gunn stated that there is a spelling correction in the title. She noted that the 15
word ‘increment’ is spelled wrong. 16
17
Mayor Marty noted that it states this is a program modification and asked for clarification. 18
19
Ms. Kvilvang explained that the action before Council is on special legislation noting that the 20
future item on the Consent is to call for a public hearing on the creation of a Tax Increment 21
Financing District and modification of a redevelopment district in the community. She further 22
explained that this is the technical aspect of creating a Tax Increment Financing District and plan 23
in which they have to do some re-modifying to state what parcels would be included in the 24
development area and what portions would be within the TIF District. 25
26
Mayor Marty referenced Resolution 6571 noting that they have two copies of Resolution 6571 27
and they are different. 28
29
City Attorney Riggs clarified that the issue of Resolution 6571 should be the approving of the 30
2005 laws, Minnesota Chapter 152, Article 2, Section 26. He stated that the other copy was 31
numbered inappropriately noting that this resolution is actually Item 9F in the Consent that calls 32
for the public hearing. He stated that Economic Development Coordinator Backman did modify 33
the staff report and this is what he was explaining. He stated that the last line referencing the 34
public hearing is actually Item 9F. 35
36
City Administrator Ulrich stated that it is his understanding that a public hearing can only be set 37
by a motion adding that if that is incorrect they would have to re-assign the resolution number. 38
39
Mayor Marty explained that he wanted to make sure that the duplication of resolution numbers is 40
totally stricken from the first one included in the packet. 41
42
Council Member Flaherty stated that when TIF first entered the discussion his initial question 43
was how rare or common is this. He stated that he did some checking noting that Best Buy in 44
Richfield and the Veritos Building in Roseville are both in TIF Districts and the new Twins 45
Mounds View City Council June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 15
Stadium would also be TIF financed. He stated that he also checked on the Guidant building in 1
Arden Hills noting that this building is not in a TIF district because they purchased the building. 2
He stated that everyone is looking at this as a rare occurrence that an organization is offered with 3
TIF and with his findings he has found that this is not out of the norm for a project of this size for 4
TIF to be requested by the developer. 5
6
MOTION/SECOND Thomas/Gunn To Approve the Resolution 6571 Approving Minnesota 7
Statute Chapter 152, Article 2, Tax Increment Financing and Requesting Approval by Ramsey 8
County and the Mounds View School District, as amended and waive the reading. 9
10
Ayes-4 Nays-1 (Marty) Motion carried. 11
12
J. Resolution 6566 Accepting the appropriation of a $5,000,000 grant to the 13
City of Mounds View for County Road J Reconstruction and other public 14
improvements necessary for the Medtronic Project. 15
16
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that Medtronic is proposing Phase 1 to 17
construct an 820,000 square foot office complex that would house approximately 3000-plus 18
employees at the new complex. He stated that the Traffic Impact Study that was done as a part of 19
the AUAR indicated that the main access road, County Road J, would need to be reconstructed 20
and upgraded. He explained that the City of Mounds View and Medtronic pursued funding for 21
the necessary road improvements and the Minnesota Legislature approved $20.5 million 22
including $5 million in a Minnesota Employment and Economic Development or deed 23
redevelopment account, which refers to the agency. He stated that Governor Pawlenty signed the 24
bonding bill on April 11, 2005 noting that Ramsey County would be the lead governmental body 25
overseeing the specified road improvements and issued an RFP to engineering companies for the 26
pre-design and final design activities. He noted that Ken Haider, County Engineer for Ramsey 27
County is present and can speak to their processes. He stated that Minnesota DEED, the grantor, 28
requires that the City of Mounds View provide information and adopt a resolution accepting the 29
State appropriation of a $5 million grant to the city for public improvements. He stated that staff 30
recommends that the Mounds View City Council accept the State appropriation for the $5 31
million grant to the City of Mounds View for County Road J reconstruction and other 32
improvements necessary for the Medtronic project and authorize staff to develop a cooperative 33
agreement between the City of Mounds View and Ramsey County regarding the road project. 34
35
Ken Haider, Ramsey County Engineer, stated that the process is quick noting that they are under 36
the worst timeframe of anyone because there is an expectation that all of this construction work 37
gets done within a certain timeframe. He noted that with Minnesota weather, timing is a big 38
factor. He stated that what they are looking at is the means by which they can get started on the 39
design phase of the road improvement project. He stated that the resolution before Council 40
tonight would be taken down to their Board tomorrow and award the contract to the engineering 41
consultant to begin the work. 42
43
Barbara Haake, County Road I, expressed concerns noting that if Mr. Haider is taking this to 44
Ramsey County for approval and they do go for a referendum, get the 900 signatures and this is 45
Mounds View City Council June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 16
put to a vote and is turned down by the public, how would the city pay for the $5 million grant if 1
Medtronic does not come to Mounds View. 2
3
Economic Development Coordinator Backman explained that if somebody gives you $5 million 4
there are expectations that go along with that. He explained that from a process standpoint in the 5
discussions with the State of Minnesota it is his understanding that they are trying to hold 6
Ramsey County harmless so that if they are incurring obligations with an entity, those obligations 7
are paid for. He stated that they have had discussions with DEED, the State Economic 8
Development Agency, and they have agreed to advance the City of Mounds View $1.6 million so 9
that they are held harmless. 10
11
Barbara Haake stated that this does not answer her question because when this happens and they 12
advance the funds to hold us harmless and Medtronic does not go through, how would it be paid 13
for. 14
15
Economic Development Coordinator Backman responded that in discussions with DEED about 16
this, the worst case scenario discussed is that if everything is approved and for some reason the 17
Medtronic project doesn’t materialize and there are still continued expenses, in essence the State 18
would be at risk and the State would in turn ask the city if they plan to pursue another 19
development project. He noted that this is a lot of assumption. 20
21
Ms Haake noted that if they did pursue another development possibility, it wouldn’t happen for 22
three to four years, again, who would be held responsible. She asked if the city would pay and 23
would it come out of TIF funds. 24
25
City Administrator Ulrich explained that the city would not be held responsible for this portion 26
of money that is being expended. He further explained that if the project did not go through the 27
design monies spent would come from State monies not local monies. 28
29
Mayor Marty noted that it states that Ramsey County has already issued RFPs on this without 30
knowing if it was approved. 31
32
Mr. Haider explained that the timelines on this project are absolutely ridiculous and had to get 33
some of this started. He further explained that the RFP is just a request for proposal and assured 34
Council that Ramsey County has not entered into any contractual agreements at this time. 35
36
City Administrator Ulrich clarified that this was done at the County’s expense and this is not part 37
of the city’s administrative fees. 38
39
Mayor Marty noted that the AUAR did not look into the internal Mounds View traffic issues and 40
it states that this was covered in the AUAR. He noted that the numbers appear to have changed 41
again in the staff report noting that it shows 3300 employees and it was his understanding that it 42
was 3200 employees. He noted that the resolution was also changed to reflect 3300 employees 43
and expressed concerns stating that he thought this would have been confirmed by now. He 44
asked what are the plans and the scope for the County Road J reconstruction that Council is 45
Mounds View City Council June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 17
approving. He asked if this is in Mounds View and if it isn’t, why are they approving this. He 1
asked if the money is just passing through. 2
3
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that the best estimate he has is that 4
approximately 25-percent of the road is in the City of Mounds View. He explained that one of 5
the challenges for redevelopment of this particular road is the fact that it is bounded by three 6
cities, two counties and the State is part of the mix. He noted that there are portions of this road 7
also in Blaine, Shoreview, in both Anoka and Ramsey counties, noting that one of the elements 8
that has been involved is that all of the transportation stakeholders have held meetings so that all 9
parties understand the needs. He stated that at this point there is not a final design, which is the 10
point of doing the design. 11
12
Mayor Marty noted that all transportation stakeholders have been involved in this and asked who 13
is looking out for Mounds View’s transportation concerns. 14
15
MOTION/SECOND Stigney/Flaherty To Approve the Resolution 6566 Accepting the 16
appropriation of a $5,000,000 grant to the City of Mounds View for County Road J 17
Reconstruction and other public improvements necessary for the Medtronic Project in Mounds 18
View and waive the reading. 19
20
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Marty) Motion carried. 21
22
K. Resolution 6489 Approving Expenditure of Funds to Repair Roof Top Unit 23
No. 7 at the Community Center. 24
25
Public Works Director Lee explained that this was brought to the Council on March 28, 2005 26
stating that at that time it was referred to as Roof Top Unit. No. 4 noting that Council Member 27
Thomas was correct at that time that Roof Top Unit No. 4 had already been worked on. He 28
reviewed issues brought up at the March 28th meeting noting that Roof Top Unit No. 7 is seven 29
years old and the warranty is five years old. He stated that staff researched the possibility of 30
extending the warranty with the manufacturer and vendor noting that neither is willing to extend 31
the warranty. He stated that the cost to replace the unit is approximately $40,000.00. He 32
referenced Council’s suggestion to review all other units noting that the cost to do this would be 33
approximately $1200.00. He stated that this could be done if Council wishes to do so. He 34
referenced the city’s relationship with UHL noting that the clerk would review the city’s 35
relationship with UHL. He stated that staff is presenting a proposal to repair Roof Top Unit No. 36
7, not to exceed $8100.00. He noted that this is the high-end estimate to do the work and could 37
end up being as low as $5000.00. He stated that they were unable to get completely accurate 38
numbers, as they were not sure what the extent of the work would be that has to be done. 39
40
Council Member Flaherty stated that he met with Mr. Dazenski on the roof to take a look at it. 41
He explained that he questioned the amount of labor and expenditure on that piece of equipment 42
noting that Mr. Dazenski thought that the quote would come in at approximately $5,000.00. He 43
stated that he is not satisfied with the verbiage ‘not to exceed $8100.00’ and moved to table this 44
item until the city could receive re-quote from UHL that would be more accurate. 45
Mounds View City Council June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 18
1
Council Member Stigney called a point of order stating that a motion to table is not in order but a 2
postponement would be. He asked if the resolution would include the $300.00 for the additional 3
five-year warranty. 4
Public Works Director Lee confirmed that the $300.00 would be included noting that he has two 5
additional points to add to the resolution: one would be the $300.00 to extend the warranty and 6
the other would be the $1200.00 to go through the other roof top units to make sure none of the 7
others are in the same condition. 8
9
Mayor M arty asked if Public Works Director Lee could bring this back to Council after he has 10
spoken with them on the estimate. He asked if this is a time sensitive issue noting that they are 11
getting to the hottest time of the year. 12
13
Public Works Director Lee confirmed that it is getting time sensitive at this point. He stated that 14
UHL has said they could work on it right away, as soon as they get the approval from Council. 15
He stated that they could postpone the decision on this until July 11th but it would get pretty tight 16
time wise if they go beyond that timeframe. 17
18
Council Member Thomas asked if they are willing to do a refit and new pricing. 19
20
Public Works Director Less stated that they could go back and discuss this with UHL noting that 21
he is anticipating that they would come back stating that there are a lot of unknowns in doing this 22
kind of work, which is why they gave the city this quote. He noted that the original quote did go 23
from $5000 to $8000 for two days of work. He stated that the safest thing to do would be to 24
approve this and possibly put a cap of $5500 to $5800.00. He stated that after they tear it apart to 25
see what actually should be done and he could then come back on July 11th to update Council 26
noting that they are basically committed at that point. 27
28
Council Member Thomas stated that the problem with that is if they have a team here working 29
and they pull the team off the job and then have to bring them back again to complete the work 30
that it would cost the city even more money. She expressed concerns stating that she does not 31
like the numbers and feels that the quote is too high. 32
33
Mayor Marty agreed stating that it is getting to be the most critical time of the year to have air 34
conditioning noting that he received several comments from people at the public hearing last 35
week. He clarified with Public Director Lee that he has worked with UHL before and that they 36
provided this quote because they weren’t really sure what they are getting into. 37
38
Public Works Director Lee stated that the city has had a long relationship with UHL and he does 39
have a lot of trust with UHL based on the work they have done for the city in the past. He noted 40
that another vendor could have come in with a lower quote and go over the quote. He explained 41
that UHL was trying to give the bigger picture noting that they have been very honest and upfront 42
with this quote and with the work they have done for the city in the past. 43
44
Council Member Stigney stated that if Public Works Director has a comfort level with UHL then 45
Mounds View City Council June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 19
maybe the postponement would not be necessary. He stated that he would like other things but it 1
appears that the city is in a position where it has to be done. 2
3
Public Works Director Lee assured the Council that UHL is aware of Council’s concern 4
regarding the high estimate for costs. He stated that UHL would do their best to keep the costs 5
down. 6
7
Mayor Marty stated that he agrees with Council Member Stigney noting that $300.00 for an 8
extended warranty is well worth the cost and asked that this be included in the agreement. 9
10
MOTION/SECOND Flaherty/Marty To Postpone Approval for the Resolution 6489 11
Approving Expenditure of Funds to Repair Roof Top Unit No. 7 at the Community Center. 12
13
Ayes – 1 Nays-4 (Gunn, Marty, Thomas, Stigney) Motion denied. 14
15
MOTION/SECOND Thomas/Marty To Approve Resolution 6489 Approving Expenditure of 16
Funds to Repair Roof Top Unit No. 7 at the Community Center in an amount not to exceed 17
$8100.00 and to include additional amendments for the extended warranty for $300.00 and a 18
review of all remaining Roof Top Units for $1200.00 and waive the reading. 19
20
Aye-4 Nay-1 (Flaherty) Motion carried. 21
22
L. Resolution 6563 Approving the Purchase of the SCADA Upgrade. 23
24
Public Works Director Lee stated that the city’s SCADA system stands for Supervisory Control 25
and Data Acquisition System. He explained that this system controls and monitors the city’s six 26
wells, the three water treatment plants, the water tower and ground water reservoir elevations and 27
two of the city’s sanitary lift stations. He stated that this is a very important piece of equipment 28
in terms of monitoring and controlling the city’s water system. He stated that it was installed in 29
1989 and was upgraded in 1998 in preparation for Y2K. He stated that the city would gain the 30
ability to monitor the city’s water and sanitary sewer system on a 24-hour basis. He stated that 31
Public Works has been gearing up for this and has a position ready for this so that someone 32
would be monitoring the city systems on a 24-hour basis noting that the only downfall to the plan 33
is that they do not have a computer system to support this. He stated that Ray would do it now 34
but the old system continues to crash and the tech has to come in and reset the systems. He 35
stated that the upgrade would correct this problem adding that there would be additional monitors 36
installed to allow underground monitoring of the ground water elevation and wells. He stated 37
that in the past they have had problems when they had to pump them down and the monitoring 38
would allow them to control the pumping levels. He stated that in summary this upgrade would 39
allow them to monitor the utility systems on a 24-hour basis and utilize it at its fullest capacity. 40
He stated that staff is recommending the upgrade at an estimated cost of $18,000.00. He noted 41
that this is a budgeted item. 42
43
Council Member Stigney referenced PC Anywhere, OEM Version 10.0, OEM original 44
equipment manufacturer of the software, and asked if this means that the software is only tied 45
Mounds View City Council June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 20
into this company and no one else and that only this company could do anything with the system. 1
He asked if this would be a problem. 2
3
Public Works Director Lee confirmed that the software is proprietary noting that it isn’t a 4
problem for them. He explained that it does limit their flexibility to go to other companies. He 5
stated that they have had great success with it for the last 15-years with no issues. 6
7
MOTION/SECOND Gunn/Flaherty To Approve Resolution 6563 Approving the Purchase of 8
the SCADA Upgrade and waive the reading. 9
10
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 11
12
M. Resolution 6565 Approving the Migration to IP Telephony (City Hall 13
Renovation Project). 14
15
Public Works Director Lee stated that this proposal is to convert the phone system at City Hall 16
from the current standard system and go to IP Telephony, which is an Internet protocol. He 17
stated that this is a system that many cities have converted to noting that they discovered that this 18
is one of the City Hall renovation soft costs SEH has been talking about. He explained that the 19
first step is to setup an IT system at whatever location the staff is relocating to. He stated that 20
they contacted Acticor to determine the costs to move the phone system and they were told that it 21
would cost a considerable amount of money and would be extremely difficult to move an 22
antiquated phone system from one location to another and back again. He stated that staff 23
reviewed other alternatives and Acticor also offered to switch the city over to the IP Telephony. 24
He explained that switching over to this system would allow the city to take their phones to any 25
site, plug in the phones and you are up and running with the same phone numbers. He stated that 26
at this point it would make sense for the city to switch over to this new system in conjunction 27
with the City Hall Renovation Project. He stated that staff is recommending approval and 28
authorizing the conversion to IP Telephony and enter into agreement with the City of Roseville. 29
30
Council Member Thomas asked who Roseville’s provider is. 31
32
Public Works Director Lee stated that he does not know who their provider is noting that the 33
Roseville representative was going to be here this evening to answer questions and was not able 34
to attend due to a personal situation. He indicated that this is very time sensitive noting that in 35
talking with Roseville they had wished they had come to them a month ago considering the 36
timeframes. He explained that it would take them one or two months to set this up. 37
38
Council Member Thomas noted that there are a lot of different providers and their services do 39
vary. She expressed concerns stating that she would prefer to wait until they have more 40
information before entering into a joint powers agreement. 41
42
Public Works Director Lee explained that the city already has a contract with Roseville for all 43
other IT items and this would be an add-on to this contract. 44
45
Mounds View City Council June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 21
Council Member Stigney referenced the comment regarding the ‘antiquated’ phone system 1
noting that the system actually hasn’t been in place all that long. He clarified that the system was 2
completely replaced in 1999 and asked if it is already shot after six years. 3
4
Public Works Director Lee stated that in talking with Acticor they would not recommend 5
switching it over and coming back to the old system. He stated that it would not be cost effective 6
to do that noting that they recommended the city switch over to IP Telephony if they are 7
relocating staff outside the building and then coming back. He stated that they did try to get a 8
quote so that they could compare the costs but Acticor would not give them a quote, they just 9
stated that it would not be cost effective. 10
11
Council Member Stigney stated that he just wanted to clarify the costs and reasons noting that the 12
system installed in 1999 cost the city a lot of money 13
14
City Administrator Ulrich pointed out that the city did spend a lot of time with Roseville. He 15
stated that they were able to try the phones and they did ask about the level of service and quality 16
noting that they were very satisfied with their system and the provider. 17
18
Mayor Marty asked if they would be able to gut out the old phone lines when redoing City Hall. 19
20
Public Director Lee stated that this would be part of the package because there are a lot of dead 21
wires that should be removed. 22
23
Council Member Gunn stated that this would make it a lot easier when they start fixing up this 24
building, as the phones could be moved to each location without having to redo anything. 25
26
Council Member Thomas stated that they must absolutely have a redundant analog system as a 27
backup if this is done because if they lose power they would lose access to everything. She 28
stated that a process would have to be created that outlines what they would do if the power does 29
go out. 30
31
Public Director Lee stated that Roseville did state that they do have several backup systems for 32
their power noting that as part of the City Hall renovation they are proposing to create a port that 33
would allow them to tap into a generator site currently located at there well site and used as a 34
backup for city hall in the event of an emergency. 35
36
Mayor Marty acknowledged that this is a time sensitive issue and would like to get this going as 37
soon as possible. He stated that he would like the problems addressed as quickly as possible 38
because if departments are cutoff with no communication they would definitely have a serious 39
situation. He stated that this does sound like it would be more cost effective as far as to move 40
somewhere else, have phone service and be able to transfer back. He asked if they should have 41
some of the questions answered first or should they go ahead and get the process going. 42
43
Council Member Thomas stated that this is not what the resolution says adding that at this point 44
there are too many unanswered questions and she cannot agree to switching to a service when she 45
Mounds View City Council June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 22
has no idea what the service is. She apologized to Public Director Lee stating that she did not 1
have a chance to get to this item and contact him to ask her questions. She stated that she 2
couldn’t agree to changing the phone service without knowing more about what they are 3
switching to. She stated that she wants to know what they are looking at first. 4
5
Mayor Marty asked if Roseville has a number for them to call if they do have any problems. 6
7
Council Member Thomas stated that it would be great to say ‘who’ but that doesn’t give any idea 8
what the system is or who the provider is. She expressed concerns stating that they do not know 9
what they are signing up for. She stated that she understands the technology but that doesn’t tell 10
her anything about the service provider. 11
12
Council Member Gunn asked what would happen if this is postponed. 13
14
Public Works Director Lee stated that if this request is postponed to July 11th it would push back 15
the City Hall renovation by a month. He stated that right now they are looking at a mid-16
September start and this would push it into mid-October. He apologized noting that they are 17
limited staff here and in areas they are not experts in adding that they are trying to move this 18
along and bring these items to Council as soon as they can. 19
20
Council Member Flaherty asked if this is part of renovation budget. 21
22
Public Works Director Less confirmed that this is part of the soft costs involved in the City Hall 23
Renovation Project. 24
25
Council Member Gunn clarified that Roseville has had this system for a while now and asked if 26
they are satisfied with the system. She asked if there are other cities connected with this type of 27
service. 28
29
Public Works Director Lee confirmed that they have been on the system for a while and 30
absolutely love it. He noted that there are several other cities on this system and have not had 31
any problems. 32
33
Council Member Gunn stated that she is going to go with her gut instinct noting that if Roseville 34
is doing great and other cities have also committed with Roseville and they are not having 35
problems, she noted that because of the time constraints she is going to go with this proposal. 36
37
Council Member Stigney stated that he is in agreement with Council Member Thomas. He 38
expressed concerns stating that they don’t even know what kind of a phone system they have here 39
and now they are asking Council to approve a new system. He stated that there are too many 40
unanswered questions adding that he cannot support the installation of a new phone system at 41
this time. 42
43
Council Member Thomas clarified that she does not expect anyone’s service to fail. She stated 44
that she understands that this is a good quality service and in some cases better than analog 45
Mounds View City Council June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 23
service. She explained that her concern is that she is being asked to approve a joint powers 1
agreement to which she has no details on what they would get for the money. She stated that she 2
is concerned about approving a contract to enter into a joint powers agreement and she has no 3
clue what is in the agreement. 4
5
Public Works Director Lee noted that a big portion of the cost is to upgrade the phones 6
themselves and suggested finding a way that they could contract with Roseville. 7
8
Council Member Thomas stated that the phones would come from the service provider so the city 9
would have to decide on the service provider and a service agreement before any upgrades can be 10
done. She stated that Roseville couldn’t do any work until the Council agrees to the joint powers 11
agreement to do work on their behalf. She stated that he is still asking her to approve a joint 12
powers agreement with Roseville to use whatever they’ve got and she doesn’t know what they 13
have. 14
15
Council Member Stigney referenced the estimated costs included in the resolution is changed to 16
$25,000.00, not including the network switch adding that if this is a quote why isn’t the 17
statement ‘not to exceed’ included in the verbiage. He stated that he does have problems with 18
the wording of the resolution. 19
20
Mayor Marty agreed that they do need to move forward with the City Hall project adding that he 21
has to concur. He stated that the Council does need to know more and expressed concerns that 22
this would delay the renovation process. He stated that the Council does need more information 23
before the Council can vote on it. 24
25
Council Member Stigney asked if they could get some hard figures and detail to review. 26
27
Public Works Director Lee stated that he would have Roseville present at the next Council 28
meeting or work session. 29
30
Council Member Thomas stated that she would be willing to call to order a special meeting at the 31
work session to review this issue if Roseville could be available. She asked Public Works 32
Director Lee to put together the details for the types of service and the contract. She stated that 33
she would also like to have Roseville at the next meeting. 34
35
MOTION/SECOND Gunn/Marty To Approve Resolution 6565 Approving the migration to 36
IP Telephony (City Hall Renovation Project) and waive the reading. 37
38
Ayes–0 Nays – 5 Motion failed. 39
40
N. Moved to July 25, 2005 City Council Agenda - Resolution 6567 Approving 41
the Hire of Peter Berling to the position of Police Officer. 42
43
O. Resolution 6568 Approving the Promotion of Steve Menard to the position of 44
Sergeant. 45
Mounds View City Council June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 24
1
Police Chief Sommer stated that this resolution concerns the current job opening for a police 2
sergeant position due to a retirement. He stated that they have three candidates that are on the 3
Civil Service Eligibility list for this position and at this time staff is recommending that Officer 4
Steve Menard be promoted to the position of Police Sergeant. He stated that he has met with the 5
Police Civil Service regarding the promotion and they are in support of promoting Officer 6
Menard to the position of Sergeant. He stated that Officer Menard has been with the force for 7
nine years and has taken various additional responsibilities over that time including the Safe and 8
Sober Program and recently completed his Bachelors Degree and has also taken on the 9
responsibility of the setup of the new squad cars. He stated that at this time staff is 10
recommending the promotion to Sergeant. 11
12
Mayor Marty stated that he does a good job with community relations noting that he has 13
observed Officer Menard working out in the community. He stated that he is a good steward for 14
the community and it is a good recommendation. 15
16
Council Member Stigney stated that he is all for appointing Officer Menard adding that he has a 17
question with step 3. He stated that Officer Menard is not coming in as a new hire, this is a 18
promotion and asked if it is valid to have Officer Menard start at step 3 and progress to step 4 in 19
six months. He noted that it also states that this is consistent with past practice and asked for 20
further clarification. 21
22
Mayor Marty asked if this is in the personnel policy and suggested that if it isn’t then they could 23
possibly do it in twelve-month increments. 24
25
City Administrator Ulrich explained that this would have to be covered by the Sergeant Labor 26
contract and asked if the contract has this specific language included. 27
28
Mayor Marty referenced the last two Sergeants that were promoted and expressed concerns that 29
this would place him back into a probationary period. 30
31
Chief Sommer referenced the last two promotions noting that they followed the same pattern. He 32
stated that there is a six-month probationary period for this position. 33
34
Mayor Marty agreed that with promotions they would have to remain consistent. 35
36
Council Member Stigney asked staff to verify the language in the contract. 37
38
Mayor Marty referenced the article on the front page of the Focus News regarding the Mounds 39
View/New Brighton team up for enforcement stating that while he has the Fire Chief available he 40
would like to commended the Fire Chief and Public Safety Director Jacobson with the City of 41
New Brighton for their great work on this issue. 42
43
Chief Sommer stated that they are also planning a spot enforcement program with the assistance 44
of State Patrol in residential areas very soon. He explained that they would have ten troopers 45
Mounds View City Council June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 25
assigned to assist officers in one or two spots within the city. He stated that he received some of 1
the data from the spot recorder and provided the Council with an update. He stated that in the 2
85th percentile there was a total of 8000 vehicles recorded on that section of County Road J 3
noting that the average speed was 35 miles per hour and only 15-percent of the vehicles were 4
over 41 miles an hour on that section of County Road J. He stated that the radar is accurate 5
within one or two miles per hour. 6
7
Chief Sommer stated that the pay system for the last two promotions was designed like this 8
recommendation. 9
10
City Administrator Ulrich explained that they have a five-step program noting that the first step 11
is starting, step two is at six months, step three is at 12 months, step four at 24 months, and step 12
five is at 36 months. He stated that the probationary period is listed at six months but it does not 13
address the promotion issue noting that it would probably fall back to past practice. 14
15
Mayor Marty stated that this is a good item for HR to review. He suggested that this be 16
addressed for future promotions. 17
18
City Attorney Riggs stated that the contract is correct and it would appear that it would be a past 19
practice situation. 20
21
Chief Sommer explained that the reason they are starting him at step three is because step two 22
would not be a pay increase. 23
24
Council Member Stigney asked if ‘past practices’ means that it could never be changed because 25
it is ‘past practice’. 26
27
MOTION/SECOND Thomas/Gunn To Approve Resolution 6568 Approving the promotion 28
of Steve Menard to the position of Sergeant. 29
30
Ayes–5 Nays–0 Motion carried. 31
32
P. Resolution 6569, Authorizing Severance Payments to Kristin Prososki. 33
34
Administrative Assistant Crane stated that Kristin Prososki resigned effective June 14, 2005. 35
She stated that according to Section 4.35d of the City Personnel Manual, the employee would be 36
compensated for accrued vacation time. She stated that Ms. Prososki does not qualify for sick 37
leave severance pay noting that according to Section 4.35d of the personnel manual an employee 38
who leaves in good standing would receive a sick leave severance of 50-percent of unused sick 39
leave. She stated that due to her being a member of the union the contract states that the 40
employee has to be with the city for ten years in order to qualify. She stated that her start date 41
was October 21, 2003, which disqualifies her for the sick leave severance. She stated that staff is 42
recommending approval for Ms. Prososki’s vacation time for a payout of $1037.58. She stated 43
that this was calculated as 52.14 of crude vacation time times her hourly rate of $19.90. 44
45
Mounds View City Council June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 26
Council Member Flaherty asked what the policy is on vacation and are the employees allowed to 1
take vacation on an hourly increment. 2
3
Administrative Assistant Crane stated that this is not specified. 4
5
Council Member Flaherty asked that this be referred to HR for further review and clarification. 6
7
MOTION/SECOND Gunn/Thomas To Approve Resolution 6569 Authorizing Severance 8
Payment to Kristin Prososki and waive the reading. 9
10
Ayes–5 Nays–0 Motion carried. 11
12
Q. Resolution 6572 Approve Appointments to the Northwest Area Library 13
Access Task Force. 14
15
City Administrator Ulrich stated that the city received a request from the Ramsey County Library 16
Director, Susan Nemitz who is hoping to form a task force to study area library needs. He stated 17
that they are looking for an elected or appointed official and a resident. He stated that they way 18
he drafted the resolution a Council Member would be named and the Mayor would be 19
responsible for appointing a citizen representative once they have advertised for the position. He 20
stated that the task force would meet twice a month beginning in July and would analyze the 21
library services in the northwest suburban area of Ramsey County in order to provide a 22
recommendation of three to five options to the Ramsey County Library Board. He noted that the 23
Arden Hills and Mounds View libraries are rather small in comparison to the regional libraries 24
being built today. He stated that New Brighton currently has a proposal for a regional library 25
noting that there are community interests that staff would like to protect on behalf of the 26
residents in Mounds View. 27
28
Mayor Marty noted that the letter is dated June 7th and expressed concerns that they are asking 29
for their appointments to be in place by July 5th. He stated that this does not give them much 30
time to identify a member. He stated that he would like to change line two of the resolution 31
where it states that the Mayor would appoint the Mounds View citizen representative, add at the 32
end of that statement ‘with the consensus of the Council’. 33
34
Council Member Gunn asked if the citizen representative could be a library employee and 35
citizen. 36
37
Mayor Marty stated that could be a conflict of interest. 38
39
Council Member Stigney asked if the citizen would have to be a resident. 40
41
Council Member Thomas stated that she has one concern noting that they basically already have 42
a plan and the frustration going into this are they going to close the Arden Hills and Mounds 43
View library. She stated that this has been discussed for a very long time noting that she does not 44
want to say no to this, as it would shut them out of the process. She asked what kind of results 45
Mounds View City Council June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 27
are they are expecting from this task force, how closely do we think it’s going to be rided and 1
what reassurance does the city have from Ramsey County that the result of this board is the result 2
of what they go with. She asked if they have heard from Ramsey County Board on any of the 3
assurances. 4
5
City Administrator Ulrich explained that there isn’t any assurance on an advisory board like this. 6
He further explained that they make the recommendation to elect a body and they are charged 7
with making a decision. He stated that there are no obligations that he is aware of. 8
Mayor Marty stated that this could be similar to their Airport Advisory Committee where the 9
representatives would attend the meetings and report back to Council with updates. He stated 10
that if this is the process they could report back and Council could respond by passing a 11
resolution, which would carry some weight. He stated that they were given very short notice to 12
do this. 13
14
Council Member Thomas asked how quickly they could have this advertised. 15
16
City Administrator Ulrich stated that they could have it to the newspaper by mid-week in 17
addition to utilizing the City website and Cable TV. He stated that they could have the 18
candidates identified for consideration in time for the July 11th City Council meeting. 19
20
9. CONSENT AGENDA 21
22
Council Member Thomas asked to pull Item 9F 23
24
Mayor Marty asked to pull Item 9C and Item 9E. 25
26
A. Licenses for approval. 27
B. Resolution 6554 Approving the 2005 Business Licenses. 28
C. Pulled for separate vote - Resolution 6573 Extending the City Attorney 29
Contract. 30
D. Resolution 6570 Approving an Agreement with Ms. Kristin Prososki to 31
Provide Interim Planning Services. 32
E. Pulled for separate vote - Set a Public Hearing for July 11, 2005, 7:05 p.m. 33
for the Second Reading and Adoption of Authorizing the Sale of Land 34
Comprising the Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course to the Mounds View 35
Economic Development Authority. 36
F. Pulled for separate vote - Set a Public Hearing for August 22, 2005 for the 37
Proposed Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 (A special 38
Legislation Economic Development District). 39
40
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Stigney To Approve Items 9a, 9b and 9d of the Consent Agenda as 41
amended. 42
43
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 44
45
Mounds View City Council June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 28
1. Item 9c – Resolution 6573 Extending the City Attorney Contract. 1
2
Mayor Marty noted that in light of the actions taken he is not going to remove it from the 3
Consent and asked for a motion. 4
5
MOTION/SECOND Marty/Stigney To Approve Resolution 6573 Extending the City Attorney 6
Contract. 7
8
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 9
10
2. Item 9e – Set a Public Hearing for July 11, 2005, 7:05 p.m. for the Second Reading and 11
Adoption of Authorizing the Sale of Land Comprising the Bridges of Mounds View Golf 12
Course to the Mounds View Economic Development Authority. 13
14
Mayor Marty noted that they discussed this earlier noting that he is questioning whether they 15
have to or need to do this. 16
17
MOTION/SECOND Thomas/Gunn To Authorize Staff to set a Public Hearing for July 11, 18
2005, 7:05 p.m. for the Second Reading and Adoption of Authorizing the Sale of Land 19
Comprising The Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course to the Mounds View Economic 20
Development Authority. 21
22
Ayes-4 Nays-1 (Marty) Motion carried. 23
24
3. Item 9f – Set a Public Hearing for August 22, 2005 for the Proposed Establishment of 25
Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 (A special Legislation Economic Development 26
District). 27
28
Council Member Thomas asked why this needs a resolution. 29
30
City Attorney Riggs stated it doesn’t need to be a resolution and explained that they were 31
renumbered by accident in the packet. He explained that some cities use resolutions to call a 32
hearing and some don’t adding that it is up the each city. He further explained that it helps to 33
build a record noting that the motions and resolutions, in essence are the same thing and that is 34
how courts in Minnesota interpret them. 35
36
MOTION/SECOND Thomas/Stigney To Approve Resolution 6575, To Authorize Staff to set 37
a Public Hearing for August 22, 2005 for the Proposed Establishment of Tax Increment 38
Financing District No. 5 (A special Legislation Economic Development District) and waive the 39
reading. 40
41
Ayes-4 Nays-1 (Marty) Motion carried. 42
43
Mounds View City Council June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 29
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. 1
2
A. June 20, 2005 Special City Council Meeting Minutes 3
4
Council Member Gunn had the following corrections: 5
• Page 16, line 12 and 13, reads: ‘when he indicated new Bright was going to put townhomes 6
on the dump.’; should read: ‘when he indicated New Brighton was going to put townhomes 7
on the dump.’ 8
9
Council Member Thomas had the following corrections: 10
• Page 4, line 19 should read Phil Seipp, President SYSCO 11
• Page 17, line 23, reads Bill Fokles, should read Bill Folkes 12
13
Mayor Marty had the following corrections: 14
• Page 3, line 28, reads ‘joint’ the open bidding at that time; should read ‘join’ the opening 15
bidding at that time. 16
• Page 3, line 42, reads schools ‘was’ running; should read schools ‘were’ running 17
• Page 6, line 27, reads he wanted the golf ‘courses’ to remain; should read he wanted the golf 18
‘course’ to remain 19
• Page 6, line 36 reads: ‘other City pay the cost for Medtronic.’; should read: ‘other City ‘to’ 20
pay the cost for Medtronic.’ 21
• Page 8, line 29, reads ‘air plains’; should read: ‘airplanes’ 22
• Page 8, line 34, reads: ‘some ‘questioned ‘ asked’; should read: ‘some ‘questions’ asked’ 23
• Page 11, line 11, reads: ‘Medtronic would what was best’; should read: ‘Medtronic would 24
‘want’ what was best’ 25
• Page 13, line 18, change the sentence to read: ‘Mayor Marty stated that he would have been 26
more than happy to answer and respond and staff was because it was the consensus of the rest 27
of the Council that for this meeting tonight, staff and Ehlers and Associates would answer the 28
questions to get their expertise out.’ 29
• Page 13, line 9, reads ‘EDA’ District; should read ‘TIF’ District 30
• Page 13, line 43, reads ‘Charter’ Commission, should read ‘Planning’ Commission 31
• Page 15, line 5, reads ‘2626 Louisiana Avenue’; should read: ‘2626 Louisa Avenue’ 32
33
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Flaherty To Approve the June 20, 2005 Special City Council 34
Meeting Minutes as amended. 35
36
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 37
38
B. The June 13, 2005 City Council Minutes will be presented at the July 11, 2005 39
meeting. 40
41
11. REPORTS 42
43
A. Reports of Mayor and Council 44
Mounds View City Council June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 30
1
Council Member Stigney stated that in reading the report on the cable problems the city is having 2
at the community center for a report it didn’t impact a lot of knowledge but there was a lot of 3
buck passing. He stated that if there was anything remised it should have been checked out first 4
instead of pointing fingers. He stated that he received a number of comments from residents 5
stating that the cable company never told anyone that it wasn’t going to be broadcasted; it just 6
kept doing the same thing. He stated that the cable tech should have put something up on the 7
screen that said they were having technical difficulties. 8
9
City Administrator Ulrich explained that he also posed this question and the response he received 10
was that they were set up at the community center to do a live broadcast and had all of the techs 11
at the community center doing the taped broadcast. He stated that the tech would have had to 12
come back to City Hall to put up the broadcast notice and they were too short-handed to do it. 13
14
Mayor Marty referenced the City Hall renovation and asked if they would be able to use cable 15
funds for the cable room, the rooftop air conditioner and other items being done in that room. 16
17
City Administrator Ulrich stated that this was brought up before and has been listed as a revenue 18
source for the project. 19
20
B. Staff 21
1. City Administrator Ulrich - Finance Director Position 22
23
City Administrator Ulrich stated that they have interviewed two candidates for the Finance 24
Director position. He noted that staff would schedule interviews next week with Council and 25
also perform the background checks, with the intent to present the results to Council for 26
consideration at the July 11, 2005 meeting. 27
28
Mayor Marty noted that in one of the interviews today he asked one of the candidates about 29
looking into software noting that Mr. Hansen had indicated that the software the city is using is 30
antiquated and not user friendly. He stated that this candidate stated that he was involved in 31
getting new software at his current job and also expressed that they had gone through the City of 32
Roseville using their providers. He stated that the candidate indicated that it was a tremendous 33
cost savings but would have to get the licensing. He stated that he knew they would be 34
discussing the IP telephone system noting that it would be a possibility for getting a software 35
program that would save the city a lot of money. He stated that he thought this was interesting 36
noting that the candidate was relatively knowledgeable about it. He noted that the candidate 37
indicated that the City of Roseville is doing other cities with this and was wondering how much 38
more Roseville could take on noting that one of the really good cost benefits was that if they had 39
a problem Roseville’s rates would be much more affordable than an outside support group. He 40
suggested looking into Roseville as a potential possibility. 41
42
C. Reports of City Attorney 43
44
1. Innovative Images Report 45
Mounds View City Council June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 31
1
City Attorney Riggs referenced the report stating that it is fairly self-explanatory noting that it 2
touches on what is there, what potentially may be there, what some of the background issues are 3
and issues that may need to be looked at in the future or based on the information the city has 4
can’t be answered with the suggested recommendation. He stated that basically nothing has 5
changed and they are back to the fifth time where a different number would be presented to City 6
Council with the options. 7
8
Mayor Marty clarified that the City has not heard anything more back from them. 9
10
City Administrator Ulrich stated that they did invite Mr. Linke but he was not able to attend. He 11
indicated that Mr. Linke asked that they go ahead with the report to Council. 12
13
12. Next Council Work Session: Tuesday, July 5, 2005 at 7 p.m. 14
Next Council Meeting: Monday, July 11, 2005 at 7 p.m. 15
16
Mayor Marty stated that the Mounds View City Offices would be closed on July 4, 2005 17
18
13. ADJOURNMENT 19
20
Moved by consensus to adjourn the meeting at 11:05. 21
22
MOTION/SECOND. The Council agreed by consensus to adjourn the City Council Meeting of 23
June 27, 2005 at 11:05 p.m. 24
25
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 26
27
Transcribed and recorded by: 28
29
30
Bonnie Sullivan 31
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 32