HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2005/09/12
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
Monday, September 12, 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
7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. 7:05 pm: Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6613 Approving a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an Oversized Garage at 7069 Pleasant View Drive
B. Continued Public Hearing from August 22, 2005 for Resolution 6600 A Transfer of
Ownership of an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Jake’s Sports Café located
at 2400 Highway 10. Transfer of Ownership is from Mounds View Jake’s Inc., to
Thomas Stuart. (This Item to be continued until Monday, September 26, 2005 City
Council Meeting)
C. Resolution 6614 Supporting Awarding of Bid for Purchase of Fire Engine Pumpers
D. Resolution 6615 Establishing a Preliminary 2006 Budget and Levy
E. Resolution 6616 Awarding a Construction Contract, Awarding a Moving and Storage
Contract, and Approving a Letter Agreement with SEH for the City Hall Rehabilitation
Project
F. Resolution 6617 Appointing Nate Behlen to a Vacancy in the Sanitary Sewer Division
of the Public Works Department.
G. Resolution 6618 Authorizing Insurance Policies for the Year July 2005 through June
2006.
H. Consideration of Fire Personnel Deployment to Louisiana
I. Resolution 6620 Approving Step Increase for City Administrator Kurt Ulrich
J. Resolution 6622 Accepting Proposal for Auction Services
9. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Licenses for Approval
B. Resolution 6619 Authorizing the Closing of City Hall to Prepare to move Temporarily
to the Mounds View Community Center.
City Council Agenda
September 12, 2005
Page 2
9. CONSENT AGENDA (continued)
C. Resolution 6621 Approving Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release of Claims
with Innovative Images Marketing and Management, LLC.
D. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, September 26, 2005, 7:05 pm, to Consider the
Sysco Second Addition Preliminary Plat
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. August 8, 2005 City Council Meeting Minutes
B. August 22, 2005 City Council Meeting Minutes
C. August 22, 2005 Executive Session
D. September 6, 2005 Executive Session
11. REPORTS
A. Reports of Mayor and Council
B. Reports of Staff
1. Library Town Meetings
C. Reports of City Attorney
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, October 3, 2005 @7pm
Next Council Meeting: Monday, September, 26, 2005 @7pm
Item No: 8A
Meeting Date: September 12, 2005
Type of Business: PH & CB
Administrator Review: ____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Conditional Use
Permit for an Oversized Garage at 7069 Pleasant View
Drive; Planning Case No. CU2005-006
Introduction:
The applicant, Tom Hansen, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to construct
an oversized garage associated with the new home planned for 7069 Pleasant View Drive.
The new home, replacing a home that was recently demolished, will have a footprint of 2,000
square feet with approximately 3,200 square feet of finished living area. The basement of the
new home will be left unfinished initially.
The building plans submitted with the building permit application indicate a garage area in
excess of what is allowed by Code. Accessory buildings, attached or detached, are limited to
952 square feet. Anything beyond 952 square feet must go through a condition use permit
application process. The garage proposed for 7069 Pleasant View Drive is 1,082 square
feet, of which about 140 square feet is a designated workshop yet still considered “accessory
space” as it is not accessible directly from the home.
Requirements:
Section 1106.03, Subd. 1: This part of the Code limits the height of an accessory building,
the number of accessory buildings and the backyard coverage ratio of accessory buildings.
A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for garages exceeding 952 square feet.
Section 1106.04, Subd. 6: This part of the Code enumerates the conditions for garages
exceeding 952 square feet, which are that the garage be permanent, be uniform in
appearance with the home, not exceed 35 feet in width, and not exceed 1,800 square feet of
total accessory building area on the lot.
Section 1125.01, Subd. 1: The Planning Commission is required to review the possible
adverse effects of the requested conditional use.
Discussion:
The request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct the 1,082 square foot garage satisfies
the requirements as stated in Section 1106.03 and 1106.04, Subdivision 6 of the Mounds
View Zoning Code. The garage is 35 feet wide, the maximum allowed with a conditional use
permit. All setback and dimensional requirements would be satisfied with this request
Hansen CUP Request
Sept 12, 2005
Page 2
The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas
so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential
property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 7069 Pleasant View
Drive, as low-density residential.
CUP Considerations:
Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code requires that the City review and address any potential
adverse effects which include, but are not limited to, relationship with the Comprehensive
Plan, geographical area involved, potential depreciation, the character of the surrounding
area and the demonstrated need for such a use. Each of these potential adverse effects is
addressed below.
Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. As previously stated, the Comprehensive Plan
encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the
quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general.
The new home to be constructed will be a benefit to the neighborhood.
The Geographical Area Involved. The home is located on Pleasant View Drive. The proposed
oversized garage would not be out of place for this area and the size of the applicants lot
would accommodate the larger garage.
Depreciation. The proposed garage would benefit the subject property both in a practical sense
by providing additional on site, indoor parking and storage area and a workshop, as well as in
an economic sense, as the construction would increase the “value” of the property. Increased
property values are of course a benefit to everyone.
The Character of the Surrounding Area. This part of the City is strictly residential; strictly
single family dwellings. Most of the homes were constructed between 1940 and 1970.
Several properties in the area have completed garage expansions to allow for additional
storage. The proposed garage would not be out of character in this area.
The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. The applicant is proposing a three car garage with a
workshop. Without the workshop, the garage would not require a conditional use permit
however because it is not considered living space the CUP becomes necessary.
Public Comment
Notices were mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. Staff received
only two inquiries regarding the request, one which was positive, the other concerned about
potential change of grade on the site which could direct more runoff onto neighbors lots. Staff is
investigating whether there have been grading or elevation changes on the site. If there are
problems with the grading, it would be a separate matter from the CUP application.
Hansen CUP Request
Sept 12, 2005
Page 3
Summary:
All zoning and code issues are satisfied with this request, and there does not appear to be any
adverse effects associated with the request. The Planning Commission has recommended
approval of the request and their resolution (Resolution 809-05) is attached for the Council’s
reference.
Recommendations:
After taking testimony from staff and the property owner, the Council can take one of the
following actions related to the request:
1. Approve the conditional use permit. Resolution 6613 is available for your consideration.
2. Deny the conditional use permit. If the Council selects this option, Staff would need to be
directed to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the
denial.
3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered
or if more discussion is needed, the Council can simply move to table the request until
such information has been provided. Because of 60-day requirements, the Council
would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an
inadvertent approval.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Ericson
Community Development Director
Attachments:
1. Planning Application
2. Zoning Map
3. Location Map
4. Site Plan
5. Photographic Documentation
6. Planning Commission Resolution 809-05
7. Council Resolution 6613
ZONING MAP
SITE PLAN
WORKSHOP
Three Car Garage
N
Photographic Documentation
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 809-05
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW FOR A 1,082 SQUARE-FOOT GARAGE AT 7069 PLEASANT VIEW
DRIVE; PLANNING CASE NO CU2005-006
WHEREAS, property owner Thomas Hansen has applied for a conditional use
permit to construct a 1,082 square foot garage attached to the new home to be built at
7069 Pleasant View Drive; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is
legally described as follows:
Lot 65, Knollwood Park
Ramsey County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows garages in excess
of 952 square feet in area with a maximum accessory building area not to exceed 1,800
square feet; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed garage would be 1,082 square feet, thus necessitating
application of a conditional use permit; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents
regarding this proposal:
a. Planning Application
b. Zoning Map
c. Location Map
d. Site Plan
e. Photographic Documentation
f. Staff Report
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing regarding
the conditional use permit request on Wednesday, August 17, 2005.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission makes the following findings of fact related to the conditional use permit
request:
1. The proposed oversized 1,082 square foot garage satisfies the dimensional
requirements as outlined in Chapters 1104 and 1106 the Zoning Code.
Resolution 809-05 Page 2 2. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. 3. The proposed garage would not be out of place given the character and geography of the surrounding area involved.
4. The proposed garage would not depreciate the neighborhood.
5. The applicants have sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed
oversized garage.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the 1,082 square foot
garage, with conditions as follows:
1. The garage shall not be used for commercial purposes or other uses not allowed
within the R-1 Single-Family Residential district or by the Zoning Code. Should the
use change for which the permit was granted; the conditional use permit shall be
considered null and void.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs
staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 17th day of August, 2005.
_____________________________________
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
____________________________________
James Ericson,
Community Development Director
(SEAL)
RESOLUTION NO. 6613
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
1,082 SQUARE-FOOT GARAGE AT 7069 PLEASANT VIEW DRIVE;
PLANNING CASE NO CU2005-006
WHEREAS, property owner Thomas Hansen has applied for a conditional use
permit to construct a 1,082 square foot garage attached to the new home to be built at
7069 Pleasant View Drive; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is
legally described as follows:
Lot 65, Knollwood Park
Ramsey County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows garages in excess
of 952 square feet in area with a maximum accessory building area not to exceed 1,800
square feet; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed garage would be 1,082 square feet, thus necessitating
application of a conditional use permit; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding this
proposal:
a. Planning Application
b. Zoning Map
c. Location Map
d. Site Plan
e. Photographic Documentation
f. Staff Report
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the
conditional use permit request on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 and recommended
approval of the CUP to the City Council as outlined in their Resolution 809-05; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council held a public hearing regarding the
conditional use permit request on Monday, September 12, 2005.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council makes
the following findings of fact related to the conditional use permit request:
1. The proposed oversized 1,082 square foot garage satisfies the dimensional
requirements as outlined in Chapters 1104 and 1106 the Zoning Code.
Resolution 6613 Page 2 2. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. 3. The proposed garage would not be out of place given the character and geography of the surrounding area involved.
4. The proposed garage would not depreciate the neighborhood.
5. The applicants have sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed
oversized garage.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View City
Council approves the conditional use permit for the 1,082 square foot garage, with
conditions as follows:
1. The garage shall not be used for commercial purposes or other uses not allowed
within the R-1 Single-Family Residential district or by the Zoning Code. Should
the use change for which the permit was granted; the conditional use permit
shall be considered null and void.
Adopted this 12th day of September, 2005.
_____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk / Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No. 08B
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: Desaree Crane, Administrative Assistant
Item Title/Subject: Continuation of Public Hearing for Resolution
6600, A Transfer of Ownership of an On-Sale
Intoxicating Liquor License for Jake’s Sports Café
located at 2400 Highway 10. Transfer of
Ownership is from Mounds View Jake’s, Inc. to
Thomas Stuart. – This Public Hearing will be
continued to September 26, 2005.
Meeting Date: September 12, 2005
This Public Hearing needs to be continued because the closing of sale on the
property has been postponed. This public hearing will be continued to the
September 26, 2005, City Council Meeting. An opportunity for Public Comment
was made at the August 22, 2005, City Council Meeting.
Recommendation:
Recommend announcing that this Public Hearing will be continued until
September 26, 2005 City Council Meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree Crane
Item No. 08C
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: Chief Nyle Zikmund, SBM Fire Department
Item Title/Subject: Resolution No. 6614 Supporting the Awarding of a Bid
for Purchase of Fire Engine and Loose Equipment
Meeting Date: September 12, 2005
Background:
As a component of the Fire Department Capital Improvement Plan funded by the sale of
Capital Improvement Bonds scheduled for sale December of 2005, two fire fully
equipped fire engines were approved by the three partner city councils. A budget of
$450,000 per fully equipped truck was established ($900,000 total).
Engine One at Station One, a 1991 1250gpm Toyne and Engine Two at Station Two, a
1986 1250gpm Pierce are scheduled to be replaced with new equipment.
The Blaine Council approved the letting of bids for the equipment at their June 2, 2005
meeting. Advertisements were placed in the official Blaine newspaper, “The Blaine
Life,” and in the Construction Bulletin.
Specifications were made available on June 24, 2005, and one addendum was issued
on July 13, 2005. The specifications and addendum were sent to the following
companies who requested them; American LaFrance, Clarey’s Safety Equipment,
Custom Fire Apparatus, and General Safety Fire Apparatus. A prebid conference was
held on July 11, 2005 and was attended by representatives of all the manufactures
listed, except for American LaFrance. Proposals were due to Blaine City Hall on or
before 10:00 AM on August 18, 2005 and the bid opening was held at that time.
Proposals Received and Recommendations:
Fire Apparatus
Three fire apparatus manufacturers (Clarey’s Safety Equipment, Custom Fire
Apparatus, and General Safety Fire Apparatus) submitted five separate proposals in
response to the bid request. All proposals were found to have substantially met the
requirements of the production specifications.
Manufacturer Bid/truck with Options & Incentives Extension
Custom Fire $370,751 $741,502
General Safety $350,452 $700,904
Pierce $396,622 $793,244
We find that the proposal from General Safety Equipment is the lowest of the bids
received and that it does meet the specifications for the proposed apparatus. We
recommend that General Safety Equipment be awarded the contract to build the two fire
engines/pumpers.
Appendix A – Bullard Thermal Imager
Vendor Bid with options & Incentives Extension
Heiman $13,768 $27,536
The three thermal imagers currently used by the department are from Bullard, and for
consistency of training and use, we recommend that Bullard T3 Max Thermal Imagers
be purchased and installed on the new engines.
Appendix B – Motorola XTL 5000 800 MHz
Vendor Bid with options & Incentives Extension
Ancom $3,555.52 $6,711.04
One bid was received from Ancom Communications. We find Ancom’s bid does meet
the specifications, and recommend Ancom to supply said radios.
Appendix C – Rescue Equipment (Extrication tools and air bags)
Vendor Bid with options & Incentives Extension
Alex Air $28,285.62 $56,571.24
One bid, submitted by Alex Air Apparatus, was received meeting the exact
specifications of the bid request. Another bid was received from Jefferson Fire and
Safety that proposed to supply Holmatro rescue equipment. We recommend that the
specified brands (Centaur and Vetter), which are the same as or compatible with the
equipment currently used by the department, be purchased from Alex Air Apparatus.
Appendix D – Loose Equipment (hose, nozzles, fittings, misc.)
Vendor Bid with options & Incentives Extension
Clarey’s $26,690.05 $53,380.01
Jefferson $27,193.75 $54,387.50
Metro Fire $24,078.10 $48,156.20
Bids for “Other Equipment” (fire hose, nozzles, fittings, miscellaneous loose equipment)
in Appendix D were submitted by Clarey’s Safety Equipment, Jefferson Fire and Safety,
and Metro Fire. Metro Fire submitted the lowest aggregate price based on the
quantities of each item listed in the bid request, and we recommend the equipment in
Appendix D be purchased from them.
Total of low bids
Engines $700,904
Appendix A (Thermal Imager) $27,536
Appendix B (Radio’s) $6,711.04
Appendix C (Rescue Equipment) $56,571.24
Appendix D (Loose Equipment) $48,156.20
Grand Total $839,878.48
Respectfully submitted,
Fire Chief Nyle Zikmund
RESOLUTION NO. 6614
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ACCEPT BID
FOR PURCHASE OF TWO FIRE ENGINE APPARTUS
AND ACCOMPANYING APPENDIXES
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Council Resolution of a Capital Improvement Plan
for the Spring Lake Park Fire Department Inc. that included two replacement fire
apparatus including equipment and said bids were received on August 18, 2005,
opened and tabulated according to law, and the following lowest bids were received
complying with the advertisement:
Custom Fire $741,502
General Safety $700,904
Pierce Manufacturing $793,244
WHEREAS, General Fire Safety of Wyoming, Minnesota is the lowest
responsible bidder.
WHEREAS, the following bids were received on August 18, 2005, opened and
tabulated according to law, and the following lowest bids were received complying with
the advertisement for Appendix A:
Heiman $27,536
WHEREAS, Heiman Safety of Ashton, Iowa is the lowest responsible bidder.
WHEREAS, the following bids were received on August 18, 2005, opened and
tabulated according to law, and the following lowest bids were received complying with
the advertisement for Appendix B:
Ancom $6,711.04
WHEREAS, Ancom Communications of Burnsville, Minnesota is the lowest
responsible bidder.
WHEREAS, the following bids were received on August 18, 2005, opened and
tabulated according to law, and the following lowest bids were received complying with
the advertisement for Appendix C:
Alex Air $56,571.24
WHEREAS, Alex Air of Alexandria, Minnesota is the lowest responsible bidder.
WHEREAS, the following bids were received on August 18, 2005, opened and
tabulated according to law, and the following lowest bids were received complying with
the advertisement for Appendix D:
Clarey’s $53,380.01
Jefferson $54,387.50
Metro Fire $48,156.20
WHEREAS, Metro Fire of Eden Prairie, Minnesota is the lowest responsible
bidder.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mounds View adopt this resolution of support in the Blaine City Council awarding the
Engine and Appendix Bids to the lowest bidders identified.
Passed by the City Council of the City of
Mounds View this 12th day of
September 2005.
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No. 8F
Meeting Date: September 12, 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 6617 Appointing Nate Behlen to a
Vacancy in the Sanitary Sewer Division of the
Public Works Department
Background
On April 14, 2003, City Council approved Resolution 5988 hiring Marla
Manypenny as a Storm Sewer / Surface Water Maintenance employee. A month
later, on May 12, 2003, City Council approved Resolution 6008 hiring Nicholas
Fleischhacker as a Sanitary Sewer Maintenance employee.
On May 24, 2005, Marla submitted a letter of resignation to pursue her
professional and personal goals by accepting a scholarship to continue her
education. One of the many duties Marla performed was to administer the City’s
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) and insure compliance with
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s General Storm Water Permit.
On June 13, 2005 the City Council approved Resolution 6557, which authorized
appointment of Nicholas Fleischhacker to the vacancy in the Surface Water
Division of the Public Works Department and authorized Staff to advertise for
applications to fill the vacant position in the Sanitary Sewer Division.
Advertisement for applications was placed in the Star Tribune as well as the New
Brighton–Mounds View Bulletin. It was also placed on the Star-Tribune’s web site
and the City’s web site.
Discussion
The City received a total of twenty-eight (28) applications for the vacant sanitary
sewer position. The applications were pointed and interviews were scheduled
with eleven (11) applicants.
The interview committee consisted of the Public Works Director, the Public
Works Supervisor, the Public Works Administrative Assistant and Nicholas
Fleischhacker, who formerly occupied this position. First-round interviews were
held on August 3rd and 4th. The field of candidates was then narrowed to three
applicants. Second-round interviews, which included a tour of the Public Works
building and a casual meeting with all members of the Public Works Department,
were held the week of August 17th.
Staff has reviewed the credentials of the three remaining candidates and is
recommending Nate Behlen for the position. The interview committee conferred
and agreed that Nate Behlen would meet and exceed all requirements of a
Sanitary Sewer Division Employee.
Nate possesses a CDL license (a requirement of the position) and has attended
HAZMAT training classes and OSHA seminars. A major portion of this position is
computer work with the ARIES Sewer Software (recording and televising of
sewer mains) and Nate has Microsoft Office product skills and is highly capable
of operating the computer.
Nate has worked in City government with the City of Fridley in their sewer
department as a seasonal employee between May of 2000 to January of 2005.
Mr. Behlen’s duties encompassed jetting of sanitary sewer lines, repairing of
them and assisting with the sewer televising equipment. Nate also maintained
catch basins and storm water inlets/outlets, and mowed and maintained areas
around holding ponds.
Nate was employed with the Fridley Police Department from February of 2005 to
June 2005. His duties included enforcing local ordinances and state statutes to
ensure public safety.
Mr. Behlen, if hired, would be a member of the Public Works Collective
Bargaining Unit. As such, Mr. Behlen would be subject to the established job
classification system with regard to the pay scale. Based on the criteria set forth
by the Labor Agreement with the Public Works Collective Bargaining Unit, Mr.
Behlen would qualify for Level A pay scale, which is currently established at
$19.25 per hour. Progressing to Level B, then C in the future will be based on Mr.
Behlen’s ability to meet the criteria established by the Labor Agreement for these
levels.
As per the Public Works Labor Agreement, Nate Behlen would be subject to a
twelve-month probationary period. All other personnel policies will apply per the
Public Works Labor Agreement and the City’s personnel manual.
The Public Works Department is confident that Nate Behlen would be an asset to
the City and is recommending that the Council hire him for the position of Public
Works Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Employee.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Council authorize the appointment of Nate Behlen to
the vacancy in the Sanitary Sewer Division of the Public Works Department.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
RESOLUTION NO. 6617
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPOINTING NATE BEHLEN TO A V ACANCY IN THE SANITARY SEWER
DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has given direction to fill the
current vacancy in the Sanitary Sewer Division of the Public Works Department;
and
WHEREAS, the position was advertised and the City received twenty-
eight (28) applications; and
WHEREAS, Nate Behlen is qualified for the position and would begin
employment with the City on September 14, 2005; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Behlen will be a member of the Public Works Collective
Bargaining Unit, and as such, would be subject to the established job
classification system with regard to the pay scale as set forth in the Public Works
Labor Agreement, and
WHEREAS, Mr. Behlen qualifies for Level A pay scale based on the
criteria set forth by said Labor Agreement, which is currently established at
$19.25 per hour; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Behlen would be subject to a twelve month probationary
period and all other personnel policies as per the Public Works Labor Agreement
and the City’s personnel manual.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City
Council does hereby approve hiring Nate Behlen as a Full-Time Employee in the
Sanitary Sewer Division of the Public Works Department effective September 14,
2005.
Adopted this 12th day of September 2005.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(SEAL)
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item No: 8H
Meeting Date: September 12, 2005
Type of Business: Council Business
Administrator Review: ____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Review Possible Deployment of Fire Personnel to
Louisiana, Hurricane Katrina Aid
Discussion:
Attached is a report from Fire Chief Zikmund. The Minnesota Department of Public Safety,
Homeland Security Division has received a request from their counterpart in Louisiana for
three strike force teams. In turn, the SBM Fire Department was asked to provide a strike
force team. This is a readiness request, versus a deployment request.
The reason why this is being brought to the Council’s attention is that a Mounds View
employee, Jeremiah Anderson, would potentially be a part of the deployment.
Mounds View would continue to pay the employee during the two-week deployment however
it would at a future date the City would be reimbursed by FEMA for all personnel costs.
Fire Chief Zikmund will be available to address any potential workers comp or insurance
claims issues should the employee be injured in the course of his duty.
Staff is looking for the Council’s consent to permit the employee to take part in the effort
to assist in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Ericson
Community Development Director
SBM Fire Department Memorandum
To: David Hitchcock, Board President
David Johnson, Safety Services Division Director, City of Blaine
Kurt Ulrich, Mounds View City Administrator
Barb Nelson, Spring Lake Park City Administrator
From: Nyle Zikmund, Fire Chief
Date: September 5, 2005
Re: Hurricane Katrina Aid
The Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Homeland Security Division has received a
request from their counterpart in Louisiana for three strike force teams. This is a readiness
request, versus a deployment request. A Strike Force consists of the following:
A Chief Officer
Three Engine Companies with four individuals each
One Ladder Company with four individuals
Ambulance with a crew of two
Communications/Aide
SBM received a request on Sunday September 4, 2005 to provide one ladder company as
part of one of the three teams. The actual deployment request may come as early as
Wednesday morning, or it may not come at all. Ladder 12 would be utilized and shipped to
Louisiana via flatbed truck or rail car. The deployment period for personnel is fourteen
days plus travel to and from the deployment site.
No details are available as to the type of work, which may range from firefighting to search
and rescue to recovery to rebuilding. No details are available for the specific location of the
work other than the request came out of Louisiana.
We have identified the following eight individuals who are willing and able to deploy:
(four are needed)
Jeremie Baker – SBM Employee
Connie Forster – SBM Employee
*Doug Nelson – City of Blaine Employee & SBM Firefighter
*Jeremiah Anderson – City of Mounds View Employee and SBM Firefighter
*Mark Shippee – City of Blaine Employee & SBM Firefighter
Don Krueger – Deputy Chief, SBM Employee
Nyle Zikmund – Chief, SBM Employee
*Ken Martin – SBM Volunteer Employee
• = Pending employer permission.
All personnel costs/insurances are initially covered by their respective employers and
reimbursed by the Federal Government. FEMA will provide food, housing and other
essential needs while deployed. FEMA will arrange for the equipment to be shipped and
returned to SBM.
The ideal deployment would consist of two individuals who are from the south end of the
fire district (Forster, Krueger, Martin, Anderson, Zikmund) and two who are from the north
end (Baker, Nelson, Shippee). This deployment strategy will minimize the impact to our
day available response capabilities. Either Deputy Chief Krueger or Chief Zikmund will
manage emergency response overage of the fire district while under deployment on a day-
to-day basis as only one of the two of them would deploy.
This may be the first request of many and could result in equipment deployment lasting
several weeks with personnel deployments rotating over the same period. A call has also
gone out for two person teams comprised of volunteer fire personnel. We have sent this
request onto our personnel via email and asked interested parties to respond back to
command staff if interested. Assuming interest, we would limit and balance the needs in
Louisiana with needs and obligations here in Minnesota.
I will keep everyone updated via email and phone should an actual deployment occur.
Item No. 08I
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: Desaree Crane, Administrative Assistant/Acting Human
Recourses Representative
Item Title/Subject: Resolution No. 6620 Resolution Approving a Step
Increase for Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Meeting Date: September 12, 2005
Kurt Ulrich started employment with the City on July 21, 2003. On September 6,2005
an Executive Session was scheduled to discuss Mr. Ulrich’s job performance. It was
the consensus of City Council that his performance satisfies the requirements of the
position.
Recommendation:
To approve Kurt Ulrich’s step increase from STEP FOUR ($90,461.28/yr) to STEP FIVE
($95,222.40/yr), effective July 21, 2005.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree Crane
RESOLUTION NO. 6620
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A STEP ADJUSTMENT FOR KURT ULRICH,
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
WHEREAS, Kurt Ulrich is a regular full-time employee who began working for the
City of Mounds View on July 21, 2003; and
WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed his performance as it relates to the
responsibilities outlined in the job description; and
WHEREAS, City Council has determined that Mr. Ulrich has satisfactorily
performed in the capacity of City Administrator which is documented in his performance
review at the Executive Session dated September 6, 2005; and
WHEREAS, City Council recommends the approval of a wage adjustment, from
STEP FOUR to STEP FIVE, consistent with employee’s letter of hire dated June 14,
2003 and the Mounds View Personnel Manual.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does
hereby approve a wage adjustment for Kurt Ulrich, as City Administrator, from STEP
FOUR ($90,461.28/yr) to STEP FIVE ($95,222.40/yr), effective July 21, 2005.
Presented this 12th day of September, 2005.
____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No: 09A
Meeting Date: September 12, 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.
Knight Heating & Air Conditioning HVAC Renewal
Hedblum’s Concrete Cement New
Aero Mobile Home Service HVAC New
A+ Tree Service Tree Trimming/Removal New
Krinkie Heating & Air Conditiong HVAC New
Olson General Contractors General (Commercial) New
Academy Heating & Air, Inc. HVAC New
Mathey Sign & Design, Inc. Sign New
Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested.
Item No. 09B
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: Desaree Crane, Administrative Assistant to
Administration
Item Title/Subject: Resolution No. 6619 Authorizing the Closing of City Hall
to Prepare to move temporarily to the Mounds View
Community Center
Meeting Date: September 12, 2005
Professional movers are tentatively scheduled to move all furniture, files, boxes, and equipment
on Saturday, October 1st. Staff recommends that consideration be given to closing the City Hall
building on the Friday before (September 30, 2005) due to the need to have everything ready
for the movers on Saturday, to minimize potential overtime, and to avoid disruptions and
hazardous situations due to the moving.
The closing of City Hall will be announced on the City’s Voice Mail system, on Cable Television,
the Mounds View Website and posted at the front door of City Hall. In addition, a press release
will be forwarded to all newspapers and news agencies to announce the temporary move to the
Mounds Community Center and to announce closing of City Hall on Friday, September 30,
2005.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends passing Resolution 6619 to authorize the closing of City Hall on Friday,
September 30, 2005, to minimize potential overtime, and to avoid disruptions and hazardous
situations due to the moving. This resolution is pending the passing of Item 08E of this City
Council Agenda.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree Crane
RESOLUTION NO. 6619
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CLOSING OF CITY HALL ON SEPTEMBER 30,
2005 TO MOVE TEMPORARILY TO THE MOUNDS VIEW COMMUNITY CENTER
WHEREAS, the City Council passed Resolution 6616 awarding the construction
contract, which starting the process of remodeling Mounds View City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the City Council passed Resolution 6616 awarding a storage and
moving contract to move Mounds View City Hall temporarily to the Mounds View
Community Center; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends that City Hall be closed on September 30, 2005,
due to the need to have everything ready for the movers on Saturday, October 1, 2005,
to minimize potential overtime expenses, and to avoid disruptions and hazardous
situations due to the move.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council authorizes
Mounds View City Hall to be closed on Friday, September 30, 2005, to get everything
prepared for the contract movers on Saturday, October 1, 2005.
Presented this 12th day of September, 2005.
____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3
4
Regular Meeting 5
August 8, 2005 6
Mounds View City Hall 7
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 8
7:25 P.M. 9
10
11
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 12
13
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 14
15
3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Gunn, Flaherty, Stigney and Thomas 16
17
NOT PRESENT: 18
19
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 20
21
A. Monday, August 8, 2005 City Council Agenda. 22
23
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Thomas. To Approve the Monday, August 8, 2005 agenda as 24
presented. 25
26
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 27
28
5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 29
30
A. Senator Don Betzold and Representative Connie Bernardy 31
32
Senator Betzold provided the Council with a brief update on the recent Legislative Session 33
noting that the regular session ended on May 23, 2005 with a special session that followed 34
beginning on May 24, 2005 and ending July 13, 2005. He explained that the budget had to be set 35
for this year noting that they went into the budget cycle with a deficit that had to be addressed. 36
He stated that it was a tough special session noting that in the end they ended up with a good 37
funding agreement for education, which was one of the main issues. He explained that the main 38
concern was how they would pay for it and they ended up deciding that it would be paid for 39
through the use of a Cigarette Health Impact Fee. He provided the Council with an overview of 40
the adult health care changes noting that there was a brief government shutdown during this 41
period of time. He stated that some of the issues addressed included an increase in the minimum 42
wage, tightened sentences and stricter penalties for sex offenders noting that he was pleased that 43
they were able to pass the bonding bill for the North Star Rail and the Medtronic TIF bill. He 44
stated that overall it was a very good session. He indicated that proposals were considered that 45
Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
would have restored monies to government aid noting that the original formula would have put 1
back some of the funds for Mounds View but in the end it all collapsed and the monies that did 2
remain were distributed to the smaller cities. He stated that they also considered bipartisan 3
funding for a transportation bill, proposals on clean water legacy and smoking bans in restaurants 4
and public places. He indicated that another special session could be called if the Governor 5
deems that it is necessary noting that the regular session would begin next May 2006. 6
7
Representative Bernardy referenced the funding Mounds View received for the County Road J 8
improvements stating that the City should be proud of the fact that the community did receive 9
funding for the repair of their roads. She noted that one item that did not pass was the proposal 10
to close up the loopholes that would prevent businesses from diverting their funds on tax 11
payments. She indicated that the State did end up with a 4-percent annual increase for the 12
Education Fund and they tightened the sexual predator and methamphetamine laws. She stated 13
that the changes would help to restore some of the funding cut from education last year and 14
reviewed with Council. 15
16
Mayor Marty stated that Council has asked before whether they could use MSA funds for road 17
repairs and asked if this issue was discussed. 18
19
Senator Betzold stated that there was almost no bill period and when the transportation bill came 20
up for discussion they had a major amendment to consider that put funds back into fund. He 21
explained that the entire bill was basically re-written before it came over to the Senate adding 22
that the Senate concurred with the recommended changes. He stated that he did not recall any 23
specific discussions on the use of MSA funds adding that he does not see a lot happening in 24
transportation this year. 25
26
Mayor Marty asked if the City could put in a request for next year. 27
28
Representative Bernardy stated that this was something that they were going to suggest adding 29
that they could fill out the request and submit it, see what happens. 30
31
Senator Betzold stated that since the transportation funds were not passed this year they might 32
consider it for next year and urged the Council to consider putting in a request for the funds. 33
34
Representative Bernardy stated that she would also like to let the Council know how proud she is 35
to represent the Citizens of Mounds View. She stated that she is pleased to see so many 36
individuals in this City involved in the Legislative process. She stated that she has received a 37
huge response from the residents and is very proud to represent such an involved community. 38
39
Council Member Flaherty asked about the federal funding process for the transportation projects 40
and clarified that the State would not have received funding had they not passed the legal limit to 41
.08. 42
43
Representative Bernardy reviewed the federal funding process noting that this was going to be 44
the year that the State would have received a huge amount for complying with the national limits. 45
Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
1
Senator Betzold noted that the State actually passed the .08 limit last year and that it would go 2
into affect this year. 3
4
Mayor Marty pointed out that the LGA funds were cut again this year noting that Minneapolis, 5
St. Paul and some of the smaller Cities did receive some LGA funding. 6
7
Senator Betzold noted that Minneapolis and St. Paul were hit harder in 2003 and explained that a 8
couple of different formulas were used noting that one of the formulas would have helped some 9
of the inner ring suburbs. He further explained that what happened is that when they had the 10
final agreement with the Governor, he insisted on using current law or it would all go to the 11
smaller Cities. 12
13
Economic Development Coordinator Backman thanked Senator Betzold and Representative 14
Bernardy for all of the work they have done in the Legislature relative to the City of Mounds 15
View. He noted that from January to May there were ten hearings that involved the City of 16
Mounds View and he thanked them both for their efforts on behalf of the City of Mounds View. 17
18
Ron Morgan, 2656 West County Road H2 thanked Senator Betzold and Representative Bernardy 19
for attending the City Council meeting and providing their update to the City. He stated that it is 20
nice to hear that they appreciate the Mounds View citizen’s involvement and asked them to get 21
involved in the Red Oak Estates development. He expressed concerns stating that he believes 22
that his property rights have been voided as a landowner. He indicated that there was a lawsuit 23
between the City and the developer that has affected the financial value of his homestead and as a 24
homeowner, has affected his liability. He stated that this is a very big development in Mounds 25
View noting that they could possibly lose their wetlands if the development does come in to the 26
area. He expressed concerns stating that it could also impact the value of the current properties 27
adding that he is concerned about who would be responsible for the watershed and stormwater 28
issues. He referenced the special use permits noting that the original developer did not hold up 29
their end of the agreement but the good news is the permit was taken away from this developer. 30
He stated that there should be security bonds and other issues that would guaranty that what 31
happened the first time would not be repeated. 32
33
6. PUBLIC INPUT 34
35
Rick Perrozzi, 2832 Highway 10, asked if Director Ericson had updated the City Council 36
regarding his concerns and situation. 37
38
Director Ericson stated that he has not discussed Mr. Perrozzi’s concerns with the Council. He 39
noted that the project is currently underway and that there has been correspondence between Mr. 40
Perrozzi and Velmeir. 41
42
Mr. Perrozzi indicated that Velmeir was aware of what they wanted done at the time of the initial 43
development. He asked how the City would have handled this situation had a developer left the 44
property in the same condition his was left in. He asked the Council what kind of help the City 45
Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 4
would give him to resolve this problem. He explained that he would like the space to be retail 1
and indicated that there are several interested parties who would like to rent space but before he 2
feels comfortable renting space the grade level and parking lot should be corrected. He further 3
explained that he did ask the contractor to tear out the current lot and re-grade to the original 4
specifications noting that the contractor told him that they couldn’t tear out and re-grade because 5
they just completed it. He expressed concerns and frustration stating that the contractor did a 6
very poor job on the parking lot. He reviewed the issues with the grade noting that he is very 7
concerned about the stormwater flow and what would happen when the catch basin fails, and if it 8
fails, what would be done with the property. He asked the Council to visit the site adding that he 9
would be happy to give them a tour and explain what is actually happening on the site. 10
11
Mayor Marty asked if the City had received a copy of the letter and if so, to clarify the content of 12
the letter for Council. 13
14
Director Ericson confirmed that he received a letter from Velmeir, addressed to him, that 15
indicates that they are in agreement with what should be done and also agree that they should 16
provide the improvements, as promised. He stated that he, along with Economic Development 17
Coordinator Backman had a conference call with Velmeir to discuss the issues and all are in 18
agreement with what should be done at the site. 19
20
Mr. Perrozzi stated that he has not received a copy of this letter. He expressed frustration stating 21
that the lack of communication is wearing thin with his patience adding that this is not the way it 22
should be dealt with. He questioned how they could complete a project where the parking lot is 23
two and half feet higher than the entrance to the building. He clarified that the issue here is not 24
in getting the parking lot done the issue is getting the grade of the lot corrected. He explained 25
that due to the current grade, water would flow into the lot and cause flooding. He asked the 26
Council how the City would deal with this kind of an issue and is this something that the City 27
Council could help him to resolve. 28
29
Mayor Marty stated that he would direct Staff to look into this and find out what is actually 30
happening and provide Council with an update. He asked Director Ericson and City 31
Administrator Ulrich to research this issue and pull the information together for review at the 32
next City Council work session. 33
34
Mr. Perrozzi indicated that he is applying for variance to have a zero lot line. He stated that 35
when he met Velmeir at the site to review the grade issues the developer did state that if the curb 36
could be moved back to the property line they would be able to get it to work better. 37
38
Council Member Flaherty indicated that he visited the site and agreed that there is a considerable 39
decrease in the grade elevation up to the building. He agreed with Mayor Marty that Council did 40
ask Staff, at a previous meeting, to research and clarify what is happening with Velmeir and to 41
date Council has received nothing. He asked that Staff provide an update for their review at the 42
next Council work session. 43
44
Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 5
Mr. Perrozzi stated that he did ask both Director Ericson and Economic Development 1
Coordinator Backman what direction they wanted to see for this site and he was told retail. He 2
stated that this was the direction he took in remodeling the building but found it is hard for him 3
to do when he has to enter the building on the east side and step down five steps to enter the 4
building. He stated that they kept telling him the grading was fine adding that he caught the 5
problem the day they were digging the footings. 6
7
Council Member Thomas cautioned the Council and City Staff stating that they have to be 8
careful with the level of their involvement, as to the extent of what the City could do to support 9
the process, when they are not a party to the negotiations. She agreed that there are issues that 10
the Council could help with but there are also issues that the Council can’t resolve. She agreed 11
that Council should review and discuss this issue at their first work session in September and 12
then determine what kind of assistance, if any, the Council could provide. 13
14
Mr. Perrozzi asked who would be responsible for plan review and blueprint acceptance. He 15
asked if it would be the City, Velmeir or Loucks. 16
17
Mayor Marty stated that Council would review this issue at the next Council work session in 18
September. 19
20
Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated that he has some concerns regarding the draft 21
Medtronic contract he requested and received three weeks ago. He stated that the way he sees it, 22
after reviewing the contract, the way the proposal was presented there was a lot of attention made 23
to the $14.8 million that Medtronic would pay upfront to help enhance the feasibility of the 24
project, but after reading the purchasing agreement he realized that Medtronic would receive 25
repayment of that $14.8 million from the tax increments, which means that Medtronic would get 26
their investment back via a note from the City at 5-percent interest. He stated that he would like 27
to be able to get 37-percent of his property taxes back at 5-percent interest noting that he thought 28
that Medtronic stood a bit higher than that in terms of their commitments. 29
30
Mr. McCarty stated that there is also an indemnity clause included in the contract that would 31
require the City to indemnify all persons against what the contract identifies as environmentally 32
unsafe situations at the golf course property. He stated that although there is some claim that 33
there would be a $200,000.00 limit on the City, he is not sure how this would work. He asked 34
who would pick up the balance if an injured party were to sue and be granted, in court, an award 35
in excess of $200,000.00. He expressed concerns stating that this issue has not been clearly 36
outlined in the contract. He expressed his doubts that the City and Medtronic would be able to 37
contractually agree that the most they would ever pay out on a claim of harm, under these 38
conditions, would be capped at $200,000.00. 39
40
Mr. McCarty stated that much of the proposal and presentation revolved around three phases for 41
the Medtronic project. He stated that the purchase contract that is before Council that would run 42
for 25-years, very clearly only touches on or controls Phase 1. He stated that Phase 2 and Phase 3 43
were purposely left out so there is no guaranty or warranty that the City would see anything more 44
than Phase 1. He indicated that the contract recognizes this adding that Medtronic has no 45
Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 6
intention of purchasing the 72-acres with the thought of land trading or profit by selling. He 1
stated that at the same time the contract gives Medtronic a free hand to the extent that they can, 2
under certain conditions, sell the property. He stated that he knows that there are provisals that 3
the EDA would be involved in adding that there are also provisals that the EDA cannot unfairly 4
or unnecessarily withhold the approval of the sale of the property and under at least two of the 5
conditions Medtronic could sell the property. He suggested that if subdivision and sale is going 6
to be allowed the City should break it up and convey the land by section/subdivision. He stated 7
that if Phase 1 comes to be, that is fine, but Phase 2 would require renegotiation because the City 8
would still own the land and the City would gain from the increase in value. 9
10
Mr. McCarty summarized stating that the job issue very clearly shows, by testimony from 11
Medtronic, that the jobs in Phase 1 would come from two facilities in Shoreview that would be 12
closed, two facilities in Arden Hills that would be closed, and the facility in Spring Lake Park. 13
He stated that Medtronic has stricken the exclusion verbiage in the contract that excludes existing 14
jobs from the job commitment of 1500, which simply means that Medtronic is not tied to this 15
number and they are now hearing that Phase 1 would not bring very many new jobs and nothing 16
is guaranteed beyond that for Phases 2 and 3. 17
18
Mr. McCarty concluded by stating that in presenting the amount of money that Medtronic 19
claimed they would bring to the City of Mounds View, they put in $46,000.00 for administration 20
costs noting that these are TIF related administrative costs and it does nothing for the General 21
Fund. He noted that they are calculating their taxes a bit higher at $43,000.00 per year, but in the 22
face of this year’s $5.13 million dollar budget, the $43,000.00 doesn’t impress him. He stated 23
that was does impress him is Medtronic’s claim that their franchise fee would be $80,000.00 a 24
year to the City of Mounds View noting that as all of the Council knows the last Council he 25
served on tried to get rid of the hidden tax and bring it to floor so the residents would know what 26
they are getting. He stated that the last Council incorporated a provision in the last budget that 27
25-percent of this would be taken away and replaced with the property tax and over a period of 28
four years would be gone. He stated that he understands it is back to the original 4-percent and 29
expressed concerns about the future when future Councils see $80,000.00 a year in franchise fees 30
at the very start. He stated that the business community and residents should know this noting 31
that if the franchise fee is such a plum for the City then they should consider how long it would 32
lock the rest of us in for the same situation. He stated that they would never see the hidden tax 33
come into the light of day on the property taxes it should be. 34
35
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated that he would like to comment on the last speaker 36
noting that he has never seen a tax that went away in the City of Mounds View. He stated that he 37
does not understand what all the comments were about adding that he is very disappointed that 38
nothing was mentioned about all the pluses the Medtronic project would bring to the City of 39
Mounds View. He stated that only the negatives were mentioned, which he found very 40
disappointing. He indicated that a resident did come down and shared honest information with 41
the City noting that there should have been a mass mailing to the community that included the 42
true facts of this project. He expressed concerns regarding the information that is being provided 43
to the community noting that there has been considerable miscommunication from the start. He 44
expressed his doubts about signing the petition when the information on the petition is not clear 45
Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 7
or completely true. He stated that the facts have not been communicated clearly adding that 1
distribution of the pamphlet was a good move because it provided the community with the true 2
facts about the project. He stated that he is having a hard time figuring this whole thing out 3
adding that he would never sign his name to a document unless it tells the entire truth. He stated 4
that the golf course has never made money for the City adding that he is very proud of the 5
individuals who put out this pamphlet because now the people have the true facts about this 6
project. 7
8
Ron Morgan, 2656 West County Road H2 stated that he would like to quote a sentence from the 9
court order to the City noting that it states that the construction of the 66 townhouse units must 10
comply with all of the applicable provisions of the current building and fire codes noting that this 11
becomes the mandate of the City. He stated that as they move forward they should do their job 12
and do it well noting that as he looks into the past with this development it was not done well. 13
He acknowledged that there were a lot of different reasons and there were a lot of different 14
players involved in the process and they as an association had to obtain legal help and spent 15
thousands of dollars just to get legal title to their property. He stated that they had to threaten to 16
sue noting that it was resolved before it went to court. He stated that everyone has been involved 17
and asked who the bigger losers would be. He noted that the City would gain in taxes and the 18
developer would gain but the owners within the association are taking an extreme risk with no 19
gain. He asked the Council and Staff for due diligence as they look to issue permits that the 20
permits be done through the normal protocol, that there be a planning committee in place for 21
people to go to, and that it be on a PUD basis so that regulations can be outlined and included. 22
He stated that people have sat and waited for thirty years for a promised swimming pool adding 23
that if the City doesn’t document this and include performance as part of the security bond it 24
might not get done. He stated that it is easy to cherry pick and it would be easy for the developer 25
to pull out and what could the City do. He stated that he did attend the Watershed meeting and 26
expressed concerns that he did not see any representation from Council or City Staff. He 27
suggested that someone from Staff review the meeting. He stated that he was appalled at the 28
developer when the developer complained that the City of Mounds View would not allow them 29
to dump clean fill on their land. He expressed concerns stating that they were not sure that it was 30
actually clean fill in addition to the fact that this is not the developers land. He explained that 31
this common area is association land called common land and is deeded to the association. He 32
stated that there are six homeowners that homesteaded this and one person who owns some 33
vacant property are going to profit financially. He stated that for them to not see due diligence 34
through for the people living here would be wrong and it is his hope that the City would follow 35
the rules. He stated that if this goes through the City should condemn the property noting that the 36
City has great powers and questioned how the City ever lost the lawsuit. He stated that it was 37
good that the City pulled it noting that it was a conditional special use permit and pulling it was 38
the right thing to do. He stated that the thing he believes the City should do is condemn the 39
property, take it, pay the residents for it, and do whatever they want with the property. He stated 40
that they have had several years of hardship and wrong doings here and would rather see the land 41
condemned and give it back to the developer. He stated that he believes this would be the 42
prudent way to handle this situation. 43
44
Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 8
Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated that he meant to mention when he was dealing 1
with the contractual issues that he had read in the minutes of the Council meeting where the Fire 2
Department had come in to request approval for their project to replace Stations 3 and 5 on 3
Highway 65 and the land costs for the first estimate was at $115,000.00 per acre. He noted that 4
one of the Council Member’s had moved to make that the cap in the motion and Staff quickly 5
informed that Council Member that the land in that area along Highway 65, although as 6
congested as it is during the day, goes for $150,000.00 to $170,000.00 per acre and they thought 7
that if they could make the $115,000.00 work, which is an unusual situation, but perhaps if they 8
couldn’t, then the amendment to cap it at $115,000.00 would put the City in a difficult situation. 9
He commented that considering that the golf course property is prime location and much more 10
desirable than anything else that could be produced on Highway 65, he asked why the City is 11
taking $120,000.00 for the golf course property when the prices for less desirable properties are 12
going for $150,000 to $170,000. 13
14
Council Member Stigney stated they are not discussing what is up in Blaine they are talking 15
about the appraised land value for The Bridges Golf Course. 16
17
City Administrator Ulrich confirmed stating that this was a negotiated land sale based on the 18
value of the appraisal and reflects the value of the land for this location. He added that there is 19
quite a difference between large parcels per acre value and a small retail or commercial parcel. 20
He referenced the Walgreen’s parcel, which is a smaller 1-2 acre parcel, noting that it would be 21
worth more per square foot than a 40-acre tract of land that would be used for an office building. 22
He explained that generally the parcels would be priced differently in the marketplace on a per 23
acre or square footage basis. 24
25
Mr. McCarty noted that along that line a previous speaker had pointed out eminent domain and 26
asked if three appraisals were done on this. 27
28
Mayor Marty clarified that the City only did one appraisal. He stated that he had some questions 29
regarding the development that Mr. Morgan was discussing. He stated that the developer had 30
done some soil borings noting that the City had received a copy of the plat showing that the 31
location of the borings was in the middle of the driveway area and that it was indicated at the last 32
Council work session that they received Rice Creek Watershed approval, which means that the 33
developer could begin the permit application process. He asked if the developer has started the 34
permit application process adding that because much of the development east of Greenwood is 35
located within a wetland or wetland buffer zone shouldn’t the developer provide soil borings 36
from the actual area where the pads would be placed. He asked if they should have soil borings 37
from the specific area before a developer can build in that specific area. 38
39
Director Ericson confirmed stating that before any building permits could be issued for this 40
project on an area such as this the City would be requiring an engineered soil analysis for each 41
building. He stated that soil borings would have to be conducted noting that the Rice Creek 42
Watershed approval was conditional and it is his understanding that there are a number of issues 43
that Mr. Hartstad has to resubmit back to Rice Creek Watershed District. He stated that he is not 44
sure if this has happened yet noting that he could find out when they plan to have this 45
Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 9
information back to the Rice Creek Watershed District. He stated that once the information has 1
been received and the permit is approved the City would receive a fax from Rice Creek 2
Watershed upon issuance of the permit. He assured the Council that the City would know, in 3
advance, about any activities that would be occurring on that site. 4
5
Mayor Marty asked if the Rice Creek Watershed would receive the results from the soil borings 6
for the footprints of the building locations and would the information be forwarded to Rice Creek 7
Watershed if the area is deemed to be a wetland area. 8
9
Director Ericson stated that the Rice Creek Watershed would not receive the results from the soil 10
borings because it is a City issue. He explained that the judges ruling indicated that the City’s 11
wetland zoning provisions, the alteration provisions and the buffer provisions are not applicable 12
in this case. He stated that the judges ruling looked at it from a 1972/73 perspective indicating 13
that anything adopted since then should not apply to this case, with the exception of the building 14
and fire codes. He stated that when the City receives the plans for the buildings Staff would 15
review them based on the current codes. He assured Council that Staff would review them very 16
closely to make sure they do satisfy all requirements for a building of that size. 17
18
Mayor Marty asked if the Rice Creek Watershed district would have anything to say about the 19
developer being able to build within a wetland or could the developer actually fill and build 20
within a wetland area. 21
22
Director Ericson stated that the developer provided a wetland delineation report to the Rice 23
Creek Watershed District and the Rice Creek Watershed did accept that delineation. He 24
explained that there is some mitigation that would be occurring with that site and Rice Creek 25
Watershed has approved the mitigation plan for that development. He stated that in terms of 26
finding wetland that is not going to occur because they have already identified where the wetland 27
areas are located. He noted that the soil borings could result in unsuitable land or soil and they 28
would then have to do some engineering to provide stability for the homes or they could 29
determine that it would not be cost effective to build a home due to poor soil. He stated that they 30
could opt to leave that sit rather than construct on the poor soil. 31
32
Mayor Marty stated that it was originally reported to the Council that if there were any changes to 33
the original plat that the original justification or approval would be null and void and asked if this 34
is correct. 35
36
Director Ericson stated that this was not correct and explained that if there are any changes to the 37
site plan that would relate to drainage, runoff, location of the drive aisles or anything that affects 38
the approved stormwater management plan for that site would have to go back through the Rice 39
Creek Watershed Board of Commissioners for review and approval. He stated that it would not 40
negate the permit but it would require that the Board review the changes and address any issues 41
at that time. 42
43
Council Member Thomas stated that this discussion has gone beyond the scope of public input 44
and suggested that this item be included on the agenda for the next Council work session. 45
Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 10
1
Mr. Jahnke stated that if the residents would sit down and really look at the funds the City has 2
received from all of this they would understand that no other developer would have been able to 3
help this City with projects like the County Road J improvement project. He stated that the City 4
was able to do this project because of Medtronic and they never say anything about that. He 5
stated that the City got plenty for this land for what Medtronic got for the City. 6
7
Mayor Marty asked if the Council feels that the development should be brought back for 8
discussion at a work session. 9
10
Council Member Thomas stated that she does not think it is necessary. 11
12
Council Member Flaherty stated that Council should discuss this further. He stated that he would 13
like to review the plan further before they start developing the land. 14
15
Council Member Gunn asked if they have new information that should be reviewed. 16
17
Director Ericson stated that there is no new information at this point noting that Staff would 18
provide Council with updates if they do receive any changes. He stated that this is not a project 19
that would be heard by the Planning Commission or the City Council noting that it would not be 20
rezoned or go into a PUD. He agreed that Mr. Morgan brings up a point that the City could 21
consider condemning the property but it would involve spending millions of dollars to acquire 22
the land. 23
24
City Administrator Ulrich clarified that Mr. Morgan is asking the City to purchase the existing 25
units or purchase the land for the 66 units or both. He stated that his answer would dictate 26
whether it should be discussed at a work session. 27
28
Mr. Morgan stated that he does want due diligence from the City relative to the building permits. 29
He stated that he wants it to follow normal protocol. He stated that the court order did not say 30
that it could not be a PUD, that it shouldn’t go through the Planning Commission or that it 31
should not be reviewed by City Council. He stated that this is the responsibility of the City to 32
follow the normal protocol and do the right thing to protect the problems the City has 33
experienced in the past. He stated that it has been 30-years noting that he thinks they, as owners, 34
take an extreme risk. He stated that it is his understanding that the court order states that the 35
developer has to build 66 units. He stated that just because the developer doesn’t want to, he 36
doesn’t get that vote. He stated that they sit on peat moss and there are structural problems. He 37
explained that this has nothing to do with the Watershed adding that the Watershed has told them 38
that this is a City issue. He stated that the warranty comes from the builder. He expressed 39
concerns stating that the homeowners bear the costs and the condemnation would give him a fair 40
market price for his property and it would get him out of the responsibility of bearing those 41
dollars. 42
43
City Administrator Ulrich stated that Staff could take a look at condemning the existing six units 44
on the property noting that generally the City relies on a slum and blight finding, which he 45
Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 11
doesn’t think would apply. He stated that it would probably be inappropriate to acquire the 1
properties because there would be civil issues with the development. 2
3
Mayor Marty stated that the Council would pass on discussing this further at a work session until 4
more information has been received. 5
6
7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS. 7
8
MOTION/SECOND. Flaherty/Thomas. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as presented. 9
10
Ayes - 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 11
12
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS. 13
14
A. 7:05 Public Hearing and Resolution 6593 Approving the Development 15
Agreement to provide $250,000 in Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance 16
to SYSCO Food Services of Minnesota to facilitate expansion of the business 17
located at 2400 County Road J in Mounds View. 18
19
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that SYSCO Minnesota in Mounds View 20
has outgrown its’ existing parking areas and would like to add approximately 100 parking stalls 21
for passenger vehicles and 53 for truck parking. He stated that SYSCO Minnesota has estimated 22
that the expansion project would cost approximately $1.2 million. He stated that SYSCO 23
Minnesota has requested $250,000.00 in TIF assistance to pay for redevelopment costs including 24
stormwater management and wetland mitigation. He stated that Staff recommends that Council 25
adopt Resolution No. 6593 approving the development agreement to provide $250,000 in TIF 26
assistance to SYSCO Minnesota with the two caveats discussed during the EDA. He explained 27
that instead of a three-year term it would be a two-year term at 30-percent. 28
29
Mayor Marty clarified that the EDA discussed this issue extensively and it was 30-percent and 30
was changed to 50-percent in order to cover the two-year term. 31
32
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:32 p.m. 33
34
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:33 p.m. 35
36
Council Member Stigney stated that his concerns are that SYSCO has exceeded their required 37
space and would now like to expand into the wetland, which is land they deeded to the City as 38
passive use and now want to use it as heavy industrial and use TIF money to do it. He stated that 39
if SYSCO wants to expand into a wetland and get the land back for free he doesn’t have a 40
problem with that because they gave it to us and now want three acres back but they should do it 41
themselves without asking for TIF money from the TIF District to support that operation. He 42
stated that he is sure they can do it themselves, but if they can’t and upper management doesn’t 43
think it is a good thing to do then they should do it. He stated that the City does not need another 44
53 semi-trucks coming into the City. 45
Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 12
1
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that he would like to point out one item 2
relative to the three-acres and explained that they are talking about three-acres out of the 46-acres 3
donated to the City. He stated that a good portion of the land added is not necessarily currently 4
wetlands and reviewed the locations with Council. He stated that there are wetlands located in 5
the area adding that not all three acres are in the wetland area. 6
7
Council Member Stigney clarified that he had said that SYSCO wished to build into the wetland 8
acres by 3-acres and obviously they wouldn’t be asking for money to mitigate if it wasn’t a 9
wetland area. He stated that if it were open top land they wouldn’t need the money to relocate 10
the pond and everything else out there. He stated that is the reason why he does not support this. 11
12
Mayor Marty explained that one of the reasons that SYSCO is asking for this assistance is 13
because their corporate offices capped their expenses at $1 million dollars for expansion and 14
development projects like this and the expenses for this expansion would be slightly over the 15
capped amount. He stated that he spoke with President Phil Seipp earlier today and he explained 16
that SYSCO’s money could very possibly go to another facility located in another State if this is 17
not approved. He expressed concerns stating that SYSCO has been a good neighbor to the City 18
of Mounds View and they have added business, added employees and with this expansion they 19
would have the potential to add another 100 employees. He stated that without this assistance 20
from the City this development, expansion and the new jobs would very likely not be coming to 21
the City of Mounds View. He also noted that this would be paid back to the City over a two-year 22
period and reviewed. 23
24
Council Member Stigney clarified that if SYSCO wants to cut off the expense at $1 million that 25
is a corporate decision on their part and is their decision to make. He stated that if they wish not 26
to expand here on that basis that is their decision to make and his decision is to determine 27
whether to allow them to come in and expand in a wetland and ask for TIF money to do it. He 28
noted that the residents are picking up $61,000 a year in fiscal disparities in order to keep that 29
TIF District open. 30
31
Mayor Marty clarified that this would be paid back within two years noting that SYSCO has been 32
a good neighbor and business. He explained that the reason they are expanding is to add jobs. 33
34
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Flaherty. To Approve Resolution 6593 with the two amendments 35
and to Approve the Development Agreement to provide $125,000.00 in Tax Increment Financing 36
(TIF) Assistance to SYSCO Food Services of Minnesota to facilitate the expansion of the 37
business located at 2400 County Road J in Mounds View. 38
39
Ayes-4 Nays-1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 40
41
B. Review Proposed 2006 City Budget/Preliminary Levy. 42
43
City Administrator Ulrich referenced the enclosed copy of the preliminary budget, which the 44
recommended action for this evening is to postpone for discussion at the Special Work Session 45
Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 13
scheduled for August 15, 2005. He noted that Staff is projecting an 8-percent increase in the 1
base levy based on expenditure increases of approximately the same percentage. He explained 2
that the goal Staff had in developing this budget, in terms of the impact to the general levy, is to 3
keep it at less than 10-percent. He stated that this is also consistent with past Council comments 4
and citizen surveys where it was indicated that the desire was to keep the levy low. He stated 5
that this is a starting point, open for discussion adding that the LGA cuts of $122, 217.00 brings 6
the City down to a zero amount received for local government aid from the State of Minnesota. 7
He stated that in order to make up that amount it would mean a 3-percent increase in the base 8
levy if the City were to choose to levy for it. He noted that there are no levy limits in place for 9
2006. 10
11
City Administrator Ulrich stated that there are two major personnel changes proposed, the first 12
involves upgrading the Administrative Assistant to an Assistant to the City Administrator and 13
adding communications coordination duties to the City Receptionist position; and the second 14
involves adding Code Enforcement personnel and staff in the Community Development 15
Department. He referenced the wages stating that 3-percent across the board was used to 16
determine the increase in wages; he indicated that the health insurance would be an issue this 17
year noting that the contract, approved last year, was capped in the second year, by the provider, 18
at 18-percent and the City’s portion of that is an increase in the family insurance of 13.6-percent. 19
He stated that at this point the preliminary budget has to be to the County by September 15, 2005. 20
He explained that it generally follows a budget process time for the City Council where a 21
preliminary levy is established and that means that the City Council can levy no more than that 22
amount, but the levy can be reduced between that time and December when a final levy has to be 23
certified to the County. He further explained that the preliminary levy is establishing the ceiling 24
for the levy by September 15, 2005. 25
26
City Administrator Ulrich stated that it is important to note on the proposed budget that a lot of 27
the base levy impact was reduced by placing a fair burden on the vehicle and equipment fund 28
adding that the fund would have to be reviewed in detail to determine how the fund would be 29
replenished. He stated that $259,000 was spent out of this fund last year noting that the current 30
balance is $1.5 million and $622,000.00 of that balance is currently proposed for this year’s 31
vehicle and equipment expenditures. He indicated that the City budgets an annual contribution 32
of $90,000.00 to this fund and Staff plans to review the details of this fund as a part of this 33
process. He stated that if they have questions or would like to see modifications made prior to 34
the meeting on the 15th that could be done based on tonight’s discussion. 35
36
Council Member Stigney referenced the $122,217.00 LGA loss and asked what the percentage 37
increase would be to the current 8-percent base levy if the City were to levy that amount to offset 38
the loss. 39
40
City Administrator Ulrich explained that the 8-percent includes the increase to make up for the 41
LGA loss. He further explained that the LGA alone is 3-percent, which is included in the 8-42
percent base levy. 43
44
Mayor Marty clarified that they are only considering a preliminary levy at this time of 8-percent. 45
Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 14
1
City Administrator Ulrich confirmed noting that last year the City lost nearly three times as much 2
in local government aid and the City also experienced significant increases in the health 3
insurance. 4
5
Council Member Flaherty stated that the City knew that the LGA loss of $122,217.00 was 6
coming adding that the 8-percent is way overboard as far as he is concerned with a levy. He 7
stated that this is one of the reasons why he ran for the Council. He asked the City Administrator 8
and Staff to look for ways that would reduce this before they get to the roundtable. He stated that 9
he would not back an 8-percent levy. 10
11
Council Member Gunn agreed stating that they go through this every year and keep asking Staff 12
to find more ways to cut from the budget. She expressed concerns stating that she is not sure that 13
there is anything more that can be cut. 14
15
Council Member Flaherty noted that he is probably not saying anything new but everyone is very 16
tired of what the levies have been in this City. He stated that if they need to be tough that is what 17
they have to do. 18
19
Council Member Thomas stated that she would hold off on any comments until next week. She 20
stated that she is planning to spend the next week to review this information adding that this is 21
giving Council a starting point to begin their discussions on the budget. 22
23
Mayor Marty referenced the personnel allocations on page two of the Staff report noting that due 24
to the concerns about allocations of the salaries to the EDA fund, salaries for the City 25
Administrator, Finance Director and Community Director have been relocated to the General 26
Fund and in 2006 the General Fund will cover an additional 5-percent of the City Administrator 27
and Finance Director salaries and 10-percent of the Community Director’s salary. He stated that 28
the reason some of these were allocated out of the TIF pool is because some of their 29
responsibilities were related to TIF and in overseeing TIF and asked if any of the time and 30
amounts could be allocated to the TIF pool. He asked Staff to look at this more closely noting 31
that they might not get the percentages that are going to be allocated back into the General Fund 32
but if they could keep any of this out of the General Fund and paid for out of TIF they would like 33
to see that happen. 34
35
Mayor Marty referenced the franchise tax noting that the last paragraph reads that City Council 36
has the option to increase the percentage going to the General Fund. This would hold down the 37
General Fund’s tax increase in 2006 but increase debt service taxes in the future. He clarified 38
that the debt services taxes are probably related to street improvements. He stated that it is up to 39
Council to review this information and identify areas where they could cut. He stated that he has 40
highlighted areas that he would like further clarification noting that he would direct his 41
comments later in the week and asked Staff to clarify. 42
43
Council Member Thomas stated that it is her understanding that the TIF changes, as far as 44
personnel allocations, was not done out of a finance reason but out of concern for the 45
Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 15
interpretation of where they were putting the funds. She stated that they have more than enough 1
of the funding issues available to cover it and could leave it in the TIF funds if they wanted to 2
and at this point this would be a good direction for Staff if paying this is a legitimate concern. 3
4
City Administrator Ulrich explained that it had become an accounting problem with respect to 5
the time spent over the last couple of years. 6
7
Mayor Marty confirmed noting that the more they could transfer under that, as it was pointed out 8
to them earlier, that with the amount in the TIF pool, if this keeps building the City might have to 9
start paying some out. 10
11
Council Member Thomas stated that this is not enough of a concern to her to justify moving that 12
to the General Fund. She stated that she believes these are legitimate expenses in the TIF 13
District, which is why they have administrative fees with TIF Districts. She stated that she 14
believes it is entirely appropriate to leave those personnel costs, for the moment, within the TIF 15
funds. 16
17
Mayor Marty explained that when he spoke with Mr. Hansen about the funds, one of his concerns 18
was with the accountability in reporting, which is where this probably came from. 19
20
Council Member Gunn explained that her concern with this is that as they go through 21
decertifying the TIF Districts, the City does not get hit all of a sudden with three salaries that 22
would have to come completely out of the General Fund. She suggested gradually working 23
through this little by little so that the City is not hit with the entire amount all at once. 24
25
Mayor Marty acknowledged her concerns and suggested discussing this issue as part of next 26
year’s budget discussion. He noted that the Council has a special work session scheduled for 27
next Monday at 7:00 p.m. to specifically discuss these issues. 28
29
C. Resolution 6585 Approving a Severance Package for Regular Full-time Golf 30
Course Employees. 31
32
City Administrator Ulrich stated that this item was discussed at the City Council Special Work 33
Session on July 5, 2005 and at that time it was the consensus of the Council to allow the normal 34
vacation, sick leave payouts in accordance with City policy and to allow accumulated flex time to 35
be paid out, over time, to each of the golf course employees impacted. He stated that currently 36
there are three fulltime, permanent employees at the golf course. He explained that flex time was 37
the vehicle used to account for the overtime hours the employees work during the summer that 38
are carried over into the winter. He explained that the employees normally work extra hours 39
during the summer and are paid, via flextime, during the winter months in order to remain on the 40
payroll as full-time, year-round employees. He stated that currently the City does not have any 41
special severance pay provisions for economic layoff noting that the last time this was discussed 42
he had proposed a one-week, per year of service severance provision and the Council, at the time, 43
wanted more time to consider the proposal. He stated that the Resolution, as presented, outlines 44
the severance package and consists of the normal severance provisions of sick leave and vacation 45
Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 16
severance as well as allowing the employees to utilize accumulated sick time and flex time 1
noting that each employee would be given an additional severance payment that would consist of 2
one week of pay for each complete year of service. He stated that as of January 1, 2006 one 3
employee would have nine years of completed service and the other two employees would have 4
three years of completed service. 5
6
City Administrator Ulrich provided the Council with a packet of information for each employee 7
noting that Staff had $50,000.00 budgeted in the proforma for the Medtronic project to cover the 8
severance packages. He explained that he had tried to project this as a ‘most cost’ situation in 9
terms of the most the City could expect to pay. He further explained that based on historical 10
records the flex-time for these employees tends to extend until approximately March 1st adding 11
that the overall total payout, based on the vacation, the flex-time severance payout, the 50-12
percent sick time payout up to a maximum of 960 hours, and a one week/per year of service 13
payout, for all three employees would be $54,956.00. He noted that the current numbers are 14
based on the employees working until December 31, 2005 and indicated that this amount could 15
be reduced if the severance date is adjusted to either October or November 1st. He stated that an 16
actual end date has not been determined yet noting that he anticipates the need to keep the 17
employees on through the shutdown process, as they would need their help to resolve the 18
disposition of the equipment and in closing the books. He stated that this would be the ‘most 19
cost’ scenario that could be envisioned based upon the resolution presented to Council this 20
evening and recommended its’ consideration and approval. 21
22
Council Member Flaherty asked what the City’s policy is for carryover of vacation time. 23
24
City Administrator Ulrich stated that there is a maximum carryover limit of two weeks over the 25
accrual rate. He stated that some of the carryover would have to be used by the end of the year. 26
27
Mayor Marty clarified that this is not the actual highest rate and asked if it could end up lower 28
than what is proposed. 29
30
City Administrator Ulrich confirmed stating that it would depend on the actual termination date 31
adding that as things wind down there would be fewer hours accrued during that time period. 32
33
Council Member Thomas stated that her biggest concern is the payout of one week per year of 34
service on what the City is actually doing. She stated that this would be approximately five 35
months of paid severance time in addition to the cash out. She expressed concerns stating that 36
they are talking about a lot of time, a total of 15 weeks. She stated that her point is the City 37
paying severance to people who might have another job. 38
39
City Administrator Ulrich noted that the sick time and vacation time would still be paid out 40
whether they left tomorrow to go to another golf course or through this process. 41
42
Council Member Gunn stated that this is the same kind of severance package that was used 43
during the layoffs that occurred during her time at UNISYS. She stated that this is a basically 44
normal type of package if based on industry standards. 45
Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 17
1
Council Member Stigney agreed that this is a typical package based on industry standards and 2
noted that this is not a private industry. He stated that they have had layoffs in the Park and 3
Recreation department in addition to the displacement of a Building Inspector. He stated that the 4
Human Resources Committee is currently reviewing some of these items and he is surprised to 5
see some of this included in the package being recommended for approval. He stated that he 6
would prefer to see this more clearly defined before taking action on it. He stated that the listing 7
showing dollars amounts does not show the amount of flex time accumulated by these 8
individuals and he would like to know that number. He explained that the way he understands 9
the resolution the termination date for each employee would be established based on their flex 10
time balance, which means that the employee would not be terminated until all of their flex time 11
has been used. He expressed concerns stating that it is his belief that the termination date should 12
be the actual date that the employee is laid off. He stated that if the City wants to pay the 13
employee for their flex time then the City should consider that as a separate item but the 14
termination date should be reflected as the actual last date the employee worked. He stated that if 15
the City wants to ask someone to stay on to complete a certain amount of work then that could be 16
addressed at that time noting that their end date would be the actual date of termination. 17
18
Council Member Flaherty stated that he comes from the private sector and was very surprised at 19
all of this noting that he had no idea of the dollars involved in something like this. He stated that 20
this does not include the flextime. 21
22
City Administrator Ulrich stated that the numbers actually does include the flextime because it 23
carries the employees out to March 1st. 24
25
Council Member Stigney stated that they should not carry anyone to March 1st, the City should 26
only carry them to the day of termination noting that if the City wants to pay them for their flex-27
time address it as a separate item. 28
29
City Administrator Ulrich referenced the accrual of vacations and confirmed that it is true that 30
the employees would continue to accrue vacation and sick leave during the period of time that 31
they would be kept on to complete the shutdown process. 32
33
Council Member Stigney stated that it would also continue to accrue time that would help to pay 34
their health insurance for a longer period of time. He stated that he firmly believes that an 35
employees’ termination date should be the final date worked. 36
37
Golf Course Manager acknowledged Council’s concerns noting that it does look like a large 38
number adding that Staff did put in all of the hours with the benefits attached to the hours they 39
worked for their health care insurance and if it is cutoff they would actually get less earning and 40
should get the time paid back to them as paid time off. She assured the Council that they did 41
work the hours and it is not like the Council is giving the employees something they haven’t 42
earned. She stated that they have put in the effort and time adding that they would be paying 43
them less for the time they have earned and to give them less that what they have earned would 44
not be right. 45
Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 18
1
Council Member Thomas indicated that the Council has already discussed this, which is one of 2
the reasons why she supports allowing them to use the flextime at the end of the season. She 3
agreed that it would be unfair to cut them off on something they have been deliberately using and 4
setting up their job schedule to utilize and hold the days for that specific purpose. She explained 5
that normally it is an unusual situation to payout flextime noting that in this case it is called for 6
due to the odd nature of the schedule. She stated that the issue is in trying to determine if they 7
would use the flex plus the one-week or is there a trade-off where they use the flextime or take 8
the one-week per year. She stated that she definitely believes that the employees should be 9
allowed to use up the flextime that they have already earned noting that she is not sure on the 10
payout of one week per year. 11
12
Council Member Flaherty agreed with Council Member Thomas noting that he has no issues 13
with the flextime. He stated that he is concerned about the one-week pay per year of service 14
noting that he can’t get past the amount of vacation time the employees have accrued. 15
16
Mary Burg, Golf Course Manager clarified to Council that most of the employees do take the 17
majority of their vacation time and reviewed the carryover process with Council. She agreed that 18
it is a large number in comparison to the private sector adding that typically people who work at 19
a golf course tend to work longer hours in the summer. She stated that these employees do give 20
an awful lot when it comes to the hours they actually work adding that it is a labor of love by the 21
people who are employed there and they work very hard for the City to make the golf course a 22
good operation. She also noted that in Ken Manthis’s case, from what she can gather, this is the 23
only golf course that does not pay him for the time he spends giving customers a golf lesson. She 24
stated that he gives lessons all the time and he never tells a customer that he cannot give them a 25
lesson and he doesn’t get any monetary value for it. She stated that Ken has put in a lot of effort 26
and time and has brought in a lot of the income for the City. She stated that she is willing to turn 27
her money over to Ken. 28
29
Council Member Thomas stated that this was a kind offer but it is not set up in the system to be 30
able to accommodate that request. She asked what the hiring window is for golf courses and 31
when are they looking to hire new people. She asked what options the employees would have if 32
they were kept on the payroll until March 1st and would the timeframe end up being too late for 33
any of them to find a job with a different golf course. 34
35
Manager Burg stated that it is her belief that some people are already looking for jobs noting that 36
some may have already found a new position. She stated that there is always a big shift 37
throughout the winter months noting that they usually want to have people in place by February. 38
39
Council Member Thomas stated that one of the things she wants to be sure of is that there is 40
coverage for these employees during this window of time noting that they do work very hard and 41
this is something that the City should be covering them on. 42
43
Council Member Flaherty clarified that he does not have a problem with paying out for the 44
vacation time because this is something the employee accrues. He stated that he also agrees with 45
Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 19
the sick leave payout adding that typically one week of pay for each year of service is usually 1
reserved for a department head. He sated that in his view the only department head is Manager 2
Burg and would have no problem with her receiving this severance package but for the other two 3
this package would not be appropriate. 4
5
Council Member Stigney stated that severance, however it is accrued and paid to who should be 6
balanced with the flextime. He stated that they should do one or the other adding that his bigger 7
problem is the termination pay. He stated that he does not believe the City should be carrying 8
people on the payroll, accumulating vacation and benefits until March 1st. He stated that when 9
an employee is terminated they are no longer an employee and have been laid off effective on 10
their last date worked. He stated that if the City wishes to pay either severance or flextime, it 11
should be based upon the termination date of the employee. He stated that if the City wants to 12
keep a couple of the employees on to wrap things up he has no problem with that but if they are 13
laid off they are laid off on that date, not March 1st. 14
15
Manager Burg, asked if this is a TIF eligible expense. 16
17
City Administrator Ulrich stated that he assuming that it isn’t but it is something they could look 18
into. 19
20
Mayor Marty stated that he is a little concerned about Ken noting he has been here the longest 21
and has seen the ups and downs of everything that has gone on with the golf course. He stated 22
that Ken has kept that golf course running over the years noting that the City has been through 23
several golf course managers and if it hadn’t been for Ken that golf course would have lost a lot 24
of money. He stated that he has probably put in more time than what he has been credited with 25
here and he is concerned about his future employability or future insurance. He stated that he 26
would see this as warranted noting that Medtronic has picked up a lot of the development costs 27
and maybe as a gesture of goodwill they might help to cover this cost. 28
29
Council Member Thomas stated that the City is perfectly capable of taking care of their 30
employees noting that this is not a dollar issue for her. She explained that her concern is the 31
possible precedent issue this sets for all other employee relations. She stated that the Council has 32
to take into consideration how this decision would impact all of the employees noting that if the 33
City deviates from the standard practice it could be used as a precedent on future issues. 34
35
Council Member Gunn asked what the policy is for flextime payouts. 36
37
City Administrator Ulrich stated that currently there is no specific policy addressing flextime. 38
39
Golf Course Managerexplained that there is a different provision for the golf course employees 40
with respect to their flextime adding that the policy outlines the number of hours that can be used 41
per week noting that the golf course puts their entire week of work into smaller increments and 42
periods of time. 43
44
City Administrator Ulrich clarified that currently the policy does not allow payout for flex time 45
Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 20
noting that if a golf course employee chooses to leave for other reasons there is no payout to the 1
employee for their flex-time. 2
3
Golf Course Managerstated that if the Council does decide that there would not be a payout for 4
flextime at this point she is not sure if they could manage the golf course with people trying to 5
take 16 hours off every pay period. She stated that she wouldn’t be able to do it without the 6
employees noting that they had 280 golfers one day last week, which was 20 away from the 7
maximum. She assured Council that if her staff leaves they wouldn’t get the money to pay for 8
the costs of the golf course for this year. 9
10
Council Member Gunn stated that based on whatever the termination date is and the employee is 11
given a choice of a flex-time payout or one week of pay for each year of service noting that if 12
they choose the service payout the flex-time would be mute and if they choose the flex-time 13
payout the service payout would be mute. She stated that this is not something that the Council 14
is prepared to make a decision on at this point adding that the Council needs to know the 15
flextime hours and amounts. 16
17
Golf Course Managerstated that she could provide the Council with a rough estimate of the hours 18
for their review. She indicated that she has approximately 100 hours, Dave has approximately 19
400 hours, and Ken is approximately 250 to 300 hours. She stated that it might be easier to 20
understand the dollar impact if they supply the Council with the actual hours accrued. 21
22
Mayor Marty agreed and asked that they put together the actual hours and dollars and provide to 23
Council for their review. 24
25
City Administrator Ulrich stated that he would provide each of the Council Members with a copy 26
of the standards for the flextime payout and vacation payout for their review. 27
28
Council Member Thomas asked if they are going to adapt the formulation on dollar value for flex 29
hours to reflect the appropriate accruals that they would get for other dollar values on time. She 30
stated that if they stayed on the books using that flextime they are accruing a dollar value of 31
vacation time for payout. She explained that if they take away that working time of flex time and 32
pay it out instead they are not getting the true value of those dollars unless they are accruing the 33
other benefits they would be gaining while using those flex hours. She stated that this was the 34
only reason why she said it would make more sense for them to be on the payroll using those 35
flex-hours to get true values of the time they have put in. She stated that the Council could 36
assign the dollar values for the straight hours if that is what they would prefer but this is an 37
exception in the policy that states that the flex hours should be treated differently for these people 38
because their schedule is different. She stated that this is a factor that should be brought into play 39
if they are going to determine a drop dead date on the flex hours and pay out on the flex hours, 40
then it would be appropriate to include the formulation of what the accruals would have been 41
because that was a part of the benefits of their job and it would be a piece that is being lost. 42
43
Mayor Marty noted that a lump sum payout would have an affect on their taxes adding that it 44
would behoove them to remain on the payroll and use their flextime hours. 45
Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 21
1
City Administrator Ulrich stated that it also sets the precedent for paying off the flex-hours rather 2
than having them use the hours. He stated that they would have the same issue with any of the 3
administrative staff who also accumulate flex-hours and the City has not compensated those 4
upon termination. 5
6
Council Member Thomas stated that the least amount of deviation was to let them to work out 7
the flex hours because it was actually mentioned in the personnel manual as an exception 8
whereas nothing else they have discussed is. 9
10
Council Member Stigney stated that with this being an exception the exception should be that the 11
City should pay the flextime based on the date of termination. 12
13
Mayor Marty suggested getting copies of the documentation on the flextime from the manual and 14
an update of the actual hours and include for discussion at the next Council meeting. 15
16
D. Resolution 6595 Approving the 2005 Festival in the Park Contract. 17
18
Administrative Assistant Crane stated that at the August 1, 2005 Special Work Session the City 19
Council discussed and reviewed the Festival in the Park of Mounds View contract. She 20
explained that the Festival in the Park of Mounds View contract authorizes the Mayor and the 21
City Administrator to execute the 2005 Festival agreement. 22
23
Mayor Marty clarified that this is the same contract that the City has used for the last four years. 24
25
Council Member Gunn confirmed noting that Administrative Assistant Crane also has a copy of 26
their insurance contract and the insurance contract from Melrose Pyrotechnics. She assured the 27
Council that everything was current. 28
29
City Administrator Ulrich noted that later on the agenda they have the discussion for the 30
distribution of the Bethlehem Baptist Church funds in the amount of $2,500.00, which is 31
projected to go towards the Festival in the Park and it is his understanding that this would be in 32
addition to the $4,000.00 that the City would contribute. He stated that he does not want any 33
misunderstanding noting that there would be the $4,000.00 plus the $2,500.00 going through the 34
City for the Festival in the Park. 35
36
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Stigney. To approve Resolution 6595 Approving the 2005 37
Festival in the Park Contract and waive the reading. 38
39
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 40
41
E. Resolution 6596 Approving a Step Increase for Sergeant Mike Kampa, 42
Mounds View Police Department 43
44
Administrative Assistant Crane explained that Sergeant Mike Kampa is a current employee of the 45
Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 22
City of Mounds View and the Mounds View Police department noting that his supervisor has 1
reviewed his performance as it relates to the responsibilities outlined in the job description. She 2
stated that it was determined that Sergeant Kampa has more than satisfactorily performed in the 3
capacity of his position and therefore the step increase wage adjustment is consistent with the 4
personnel manual and the labor agreements. She stated that he would go from Step 4, $31.93 an 5
hour to Step 5, $33.61 an hour, effective August 2, 2005. She stated that Staff recommends 6
approval. 7
8
Mayor Marty clarified that the date of his current position started February 2, 2004 and asked if 9
this would mean that Sergeant Kampa is no longer on probation. 10
11
Administrative Assistant Crane confirmed that he is in his 18th month and is no longer on 12
probation. 13
14
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Flaherty To Approve Resolution 6596 Approving a Step Increase 15
for Sergeant Mike Kampa, Mounds View Police Department. 16
17
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 18
19
F. Resolution 6597 Approving a Gasoline and Tobacco License for Mounds 20
View BP, Inc., located at 2155 Highway 10. 21
22
Administrative Assistant Crane stated that the applicant, Mr. Simon and his business corporation, 23
Mounds View BP, Inc., is requesting a tobacco and gasoline license for the business located at 24
2155 Highway 10. She stated that Oasis Market #355, which is owned by Twin Cities Stores, 25
Inc., currently owns it and Twin Cities Stores, Inc. would be transferring ownership to Mr. Simon 26
upon approval of this resolution. She stated that all appropriate materials, fees and proof of 27
workmen’s compensation insurance have been submitted. She stated that a fire inspection was 28
done with minor code violations noting that the transfer of ownership to the new owner has 30-29
days to correct the fire code violations. She stated that Twin Cities Stores has submitted a final 30
request for the water bill adding that the license period would be from August 9, 2005 to June 30, 31
2006. 32
33
Mayor Marty stated that the only question he has is with respect to the fire code violations noting 34
that they just granted a license on July 1st to the other owner and expressed concerns that they 35
already have a fire code violation. 36
37
Administrative Assistant Crane explained that they have corrected some of the problems noting 38
that they did not have time to correct all of the violations prior to the transfer to the new owner. 39
She assured Council that an effort has been made to correct all of the violations noting that some 40
are still in the process of being worked out. 41
42
MOTION/SECOND Stigney/Thomas To approve Resolution 6597 Approving a Gasoline and 43
Tobacco License for Mounds View BP, Inc., located at 2155 Highway 10 and waive the reading. 44
45
Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 23
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 1
2
G. Resolution 6589 Approving a Minor Subdivision of 2812 Sherwood Road and 3
8084 Fairchild Avenue. 4
5
Director Ericson stated that the property owners of 8084 Fairchild Avenue are requesting the 6
approval of a minor subdivision noting that it would include the back one-third of the property 7
located at 2812 Sherwood, which is adjacent to the Fairchild property. He explained that 8
currently there are two lots involved in this subdivision and it would create a third lot and the 9
third lot would be fronting Fairchild Avenue. He stated that all of the properties involved are 10
zoned R-1 Single-Family residential and they are designated low-density residential on the City’s 11
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. He stated that the minor subdivision would be 12
consistent with the subdivision regulations, zoning regulations and all other requirements of the 13
City of Mounds View. He stated that this request has been reviewed by the Planning 14
Commission noting that couple of the issues discussed included Park Dedication requirements 15
noting that they did some research on in previous minor subdivisions of land prior to the City 16
code changes. He stated that they had previously accessed a 5-percent valuation on the park 17
dedication and that is now open-ended and up to the Council’s discretion to determine what 18
would be an appropriate designation for a subdivision. He stated that if they utilize the 5-percent 19
park dedication fee for this property based on the per square foot value for the lot to be created it 20
would be a fee of $2,835.00, which is substantially more than previous minor subdivision park 21
dedication fees. He explained that it does reflect the fact that as the years progress land values 22
are increasing and there is evidence that Ramsey County is catching up on property values as 23
well. He noted that they are not looking at a dollar per square foot as they have seen in the past 24
adding that it is closer to $4.00 per foot, which is why they have a larger park dedication fee. He 25
stated that originally they had indicated that it could be as high as $5,000.00 based on the 10-26
percent valuation adding that there has to be some reasonable relationship between the 27
subdivision and the intensification of the land use. He stated that with the park dedication fee 28
Staff felt that a recommendation for a 5-percent park dedication fee would be appropriate for this 29
case and is included in the resolution. 30
31
Director Ericson stated that easements would be dedicated associated with this subdivision and 32
reviewed with Council. He stated that there is an easement that runs through the property and is 33
identified as Tract B noting that it would be the larger of the two properties located on Fairchild 34
Avenue. He stated that there would be a five foot easement towards the back of the property that 35
would have to be vacated and would be done by ordinance subsequent to Council’s action this 36
evening. He stated that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the request and there 37
is some research on park dedication fees that goes back to the year 2000 that should be helpful in 38
making a decision about this subdivision. He stated that Staff is recommending approval noting 39
that a house would remain on the property and would be close to the lot line. He explained that 40
they intend to eventually remove the house and replace it with two new homes but would like to 41
keep the house located on the property so that they can maintain services on the property. He 42
stated that the Planning Commission felt that it was reasonable to grant them a one-year 43
extension in demolishing the home until the first new home is constructed. He stated that it is a 44
minor subdivision and does not require a public hearing but they did send notices to the property 45
Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 24
owners in the immediate area in an effort to maintain good communication with the residents so 1
that they are aware of what is happening within the community. 2
3
Mayor Marty stated that he thought it was a bit odd noting that he had never seen Ordinance 745 4
Park Dedication Fees ever included in their packets before and asked if it had already been 5
questioned at the Planning Commission level with the intent to appeal the fee. 6
7
Director Ericson explained that it was pointed out to the applicants that they could appeal and it 8
is an ability that they have by virtue of recent statutory changes. He stated that in communicating 9
the 5-percent fee the applicants agreed that this would be much more reasonable. He explained 10
that the ordinance was provided along with the research as additional information for Council to 11
review. 12
13
Mayor Marty noted that in the past it was always 10-percent and asked if this is the first one that 14
would not be 10-percent. 15
16
Director Ericson confirmed that this is the first minor subdivision that could be open to whatever 17
Council felt would be appropriate up to 10-percent. He stated that in previous years the City 18
code indicated that a minor subdivision that is less than one-acre would be 5-percent adding that 19
there is no longer any such delineation as to the level of park dedication fee, it just needs to be 20
appropriate and reasonable based on the City Council’s determination. 21
22
Council Member Stigney referenced the list provided on the park dedication and asked how it 23
differs from the top one on the list, which had minor subdivision into two lots from three and 24
now they are going one into three and they were paying $5,670 at 10-percent. 25
26
Director Ericson stated that the 10-percent park dedication fee is what was originally done and 27
they are now recommending to Council that it be a 5-percent dedication fee consistent with all of 28
the previous minor subdivisions approved by the City. 29
30
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Gunn To Approve Resolution 6589 Approving a Minor 31
Subdivision of 2812 Sherwood Road and 8084 Fairchild Avenue and waive the reading. 32
33
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 34
35
H. Resolution 6599 Approving a Charitable Gambling Permit to conduct 36
excluded Bingo for the 2005 Festival in the Park in Mounds View. 37
38
Administrative Assistant Crane stated this is to request approval of the charitable gambling 39
permit to conduct excluded bingo for the 2005 Festival in the Park in Mounds View. She 40
indicated that she had provided the Council with a copy of the request for their review noting that 41
Staff is recommending approval of Resolution 6599. 42
43
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Stigney. To Approve Resolution 6599 Approving a Charitable 44
Gambling Permit to conduct excluded Bingo for the 2005 Festival in the Park in Mounds View 45
Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 25
and waive the reading. 1
2
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 3
4
9. CONSENT AGENDA 5
6
A. Licenses for Approval. 7
B. Set a Public Hearing for 7:05 p.m., Monday, August 22, 2005 to Consider the 8
PUD Amendment for SYSCO Minnesota to Expand their Facility. 9
C. Set a Public Hearing for 7:10 p.m., Monday, August 22, 2005, to Consider the 10
Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the SYSCO Minnesota Facility 11
Expansion. 12
D. Set a Public Hearing for 7:15 p.m., Monday, August 22, 2005. to Consider the 13
General Concept Plan of the Medtronic PUD. 14
E. Resolution 6598 Accepting and Approving the Donation and Distribution of 15
Bethlehem Baptist Church Community Donation. 16
F. Set a Public Hearing for 7:20 p.m., Monday, August 22, 2005, to Consider 17
Resolution 6594, A Resolution Approving the Removal of Certain Parcels 18
from the EDA’s Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 and Approving the 19
Tax Increment Financing Plan Establishing Tax Increment Finance (TIF) 20
District No. 5, a Special-Legislation Economic Development District, within 21
the Redevelopment Project Area. 22
G. Set a Public Hearing for 7:25 p.m., Monday, August 22, 2005, to Consider 23
Resolution 6600, a Transfer of Ownership of an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor 24
License for Jake’s Sports Café located at 2400 Highway 10 due to a Transfer 25
of Ownership from Mounds View Jake’s Inc., to Stuart Thomas. 26
H. Set a Special Work Session for Monday, August 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. to 27
Discuss the City Budget and Set an Executive Session immediately after the 28
August 22nd Special Work Session to discuss the City Administrator’s 29
Annual Performance Review. 30
31
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Flaherty To Approve the Consent Agenda as presented. 32
33
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 34
35
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. 36
37
A. Minutes for the July 11th and July 25, 2005 City Council meetings will be 38
approved at the next City Council Meeting. 39
40
11. REPORTS 41
42
A. Reports of Mayor and Council 43
44
Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 26
Council Member Gunn reviewed the Festival in the Park schedule with the Council. She stated 1
that the golf tournament is scheduled for August 20, 2005 and anyone interested in signing up 2
can do so at the golf course. She stated that Bingo is scheduled to begin at noon adding that they 3
would also have strolling jugglers wandering the park throughout the day. She noted that the 4
jugglers would also be involved in the parade and would be offering lessons to anyone interested 5
in learning the art of juggling. She stated that a Battle of the Bands is also scheduled and 6
encouraged teens with bands to sign up for the competition. She stated that the band scheduled 7
for the evening entertainment would be the Rocking Daddy and the Rough Cuts, which was the 8
blues band that played last year. She stated that Saturn of St. Paul in Mounds View would be 9
sponsoring the dance. She stated that there would be plenty of food vendors and the Bethlehem 10
Baptist Church is bringing in a lot of items of the children to play on noting that the fireworks 11
would be sponsored by Medtronic and is scheduled to begin at 10:00 p.m. She stated that local 12
businesses have really stepped up to the plate this year in their support of the festival and thanked 13
them for all of their support. She stated that the parade is scheduled to begin at 3:00 p.m. adding 14
that the route would begin along Bronson, go up Edgewood, east on County Road I, south on 15
Quincy and ending again on Bronson. She stated that they have a lot of fun events planned this 16
year and encouraged everyone to come out and join in the fun. 17
18
Council Member Gunn stated that she watched the last Planning Commission meeting and was 19
quite upset with one of the Planning Commissioners for insulting City Staff and calling the City 20
Council and Staff lazy. She stated that this is totally unacceptable as the Planning Commission 21
represents the City and should show more respect and support. She acknowledged that everyone 22
has a right to their opinion but there is a time and a place for expressing their opinions and this 23
was not one of those times. She stated that staff works very hard adding that she is very proud of 24
the work they do. She stated that she felt that something should be done or said, as this was 25
totally uncalled for. 26
27
Council Member Stigney stated that he also watched the meeting and expressed his agreement 28
with Council Member Gunn. He stated that the attack on City Staff is uncalled for and to take it 29
further, they were basing their votes on a personal belief rather than on a charter of what they 30
were hired to do. He stated that if they don’t know their duty and the tasks they are assigned to 31
handle then they should be covered on the expectations of their position with the Commission. 32
He stated that Director Ericson did a good job of explaining noting that it fell on deaf ears or they 33
just had a Planning Commission that did not want to hear what he had to say. He stated that their 34
actions should be based on something other than their own personal views. 35
36
Council Member Thomas agreed stating that she too was very disappointed. She stated that she 37
has been one to go publicly on the record each time they have had a question and she has 38
ultimately supported the recommendations of our Commissions because that is what they are 39
there for, noting that there were so many public statements made at that meeting that were 40
blatantly in opposition to the topic at hand and it does color for her how she will accept a 41
recommendation from them. She stated that it does change how she views their 42
recommendation. 43
44
Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 27
Mayor Marty stated that he would like to thank the Planning Commission noting that they do a 1
lot of work for the City and saved the City Council countless hours. He stated that these are 2
dedicated individuals who do this on a volunteer basis. He noted that there was one comment 3
concerning TIF that Staff likes it because it lets them be lazy. He stated that the comment didn’t 4
make sense to him and he did not understand where the comment came from. He agreed that 5
people are entitled to their opinion but the Council does ask that if they do serve on a 6
Commission that they try to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of that Commission. He stated 7
that any citizen is welcome to come before the Council to speak on any issue at any time. He 8
stated that the Council has an open forum at the beginning of every Council meeting and work 9
session and asked them not to use their position on a Commission to try and pass on personal 10
views. He stated that all citizens are welcome to attend a Council meeting to express their views. 11
He stated that he thought Director Ericson’s explanation was very good as to the duties and 12
responsibilities of the Commission. He noted that there have been times on the Council where 13
particular votes have not gone the way everyone would have liked stating that they are charged 14
with working for the City and working for the Citizens and you play with the hand you are dealt. 15
He stated that there is a time and place to get up on your soap box adding that he would like all 16
of the volunteers throughout the City who serve on Commissions to try and keep this in 17
perspective and serve the Commission you on with truth. 18
19
Council Member Flaherty agreed with the Mayor and Council Members. He asked Staff to 20
provide Council with an update on what is going to be happening with respect to the upgrades 21
and improvements for the filling station located on Highway 10 and County Road H2. He stated 22
that he has also had several requests from citizens at the senior citizen’s home regarding the 23
installation of a crosswalk near the senior home. He noted that it is a County Road adding that 24
Tim Pittman checked on the possibilities of the County doing the job and found out that the 25
project is not even on their radar. He asked if the City would want to go ahead with the 26
expenditures and install the crosswalks. He stated that the City has identified the need for four 27
crosswalks along County Road I noting that there is a large group of senior citizens that use these 28
crosswalks and the question was asked if the City would be interested in going ahead and doing 29
the crosswalks for the safety of the citizens. 30
31
Mayor Marty stated that this is a good question noting that often times through the year the City 32
has various organizations that would be interested in working on a project like this. He stated 33
that if anyone is watching and would like to volunteer the time, the City could block off the area 34
and provide the paint. 35
36
Council Member Flaherty stated that the templates are ready to go as they have been out working 37
on other street improvements and crosswalks. 38
39
Mayor Marty thanked everyone attending the Neighborhood Night Out celebrations last Tuesday. 40
He stated that it was a huge success noting that he was able to get to several of the block parties. 41
He stated that all of the parties he attended were a big success and commended everyone in the 42
City for participating. 43
44
Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 28
Council Member Gunn thanked the Fire Department and the Police Department for their 1
participation in the celebrations and she also thanked the Fire Department for bringing out their 2
trucks as a part of the celebration. She stated that the citizens really enjoyed it. 3
4
Mayor Marty stated that he and City Administrator Ulrich attended the Quad Cities Mayor’s 5
Organization meeting held in Arden Hills. He explained that the various Cities provided reports 6
on what was going on in their respective Cities noting that everyone wanted to know about 7
Medtronic. He stated that they also discussed the TCAAP property in Arden Hills, Lexington 8
Avenue improvements in Shoreview and New Brighton wants to move along with getting 9
Highway 96 repaired at Old Highway 8 noting that they are still in negotiations with the asphalt 10
plant. He stated that the Post Office that serves Mounds View is moving to 35W and County 11
Road D. He stated that it would be a 24-hour facility, which would be automated and open 24-12
hours. 13
14
City Administrator Ulrich further clarified that it would be more of a retail store noting that 15
currently there is a trucking operation located there that would be moved to a site further south in 16
New Brighton. He stated that Shoreview is going to the single-source recycling for their entire 17
City with Waste Management. He stated that jointly the four communities are looking at doing a 18
single garbage contract for all of the municipal buildings. He explained that they are considering 19
bidding it out as a contract for all four cities that would service the City Halls, Community 20
Centers, Police and Fire Departments, noting that it might save the Cities a little bit of money. 21
22
City Administrator Ulrich stated that they also discussed the consolidated dispatch issues. He 23
explained that a group of City Managers in suburban Ramsey County got together and drafted a 24
letter that went to Mayor Gertz in St. Anthony who is working with the Policy Committee on 25
consolidated dispatch. He explained that the letter outlines the position for the suburban 26
communities noting that the big issue is the fact that St. Paul is able to move off much of their 27
costs through a County levy and the County taxpayer ends up paying a lot more. He stated that 28
St. Paul has approximately 70-percent of the combined dispatch calls for the combined service 29
and they are only paying for approximately 45-percent of the costs. He explained that what they 30
did was outlined the principles about consolidating dispatch and acknowledged that they agree 31
with the principles but the funding formula does need some work. He stated that they reviewed a 32
formula based on calls for service as well as tax base and the ability to pay. He stated that they 33
are trying to work this together so that there is more equity in how the funding is arrived at and 34
hopefully the County Commissioners will heed their suggestions and come up with a better 35
formula. 36
37
B. Staff 38
39
City Administrator Ulrich stated that a letter from Innovative Images was included for their 40
review noting that it would be forwarded to the City Attorney for his response. He asked the 41
Council for their feedback noting that the City’s response is due back by September 5th adding 42
that it would be brought to the next City Council meeting for consideration and approval. 43
44
Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 29
City Administrator Ulrich stated that the City of New Brighton has agreed to allow the City of 1
Mounds View to hold their City Council and Commission meetings at the New Brighton City 2
Hall beginning in October. He stated that Staff would work out the details and update Council. 3
4
Mayor Marty noted that there might be a couple of conflicts with the schedules. He stated that he 5
had contacted Steve Larson, the Mayor of New Brighton, to talk to him about the stop light at 6
County Road H and Silver Lake Road. He stated that they were going to try and talk to the 7
County to determine if they would need a letter from the Council or a resolution to try and get the 8
stoplight included back into their budget. He stated that it was also suggested to possibly use TIF 9
funds with them paying the City back in a year or two. He stated that Mayor Larson agreed that 10
it was good idea to try and get the light installed noting that he was also going to meet with 11
Commissioner Jan Weisner this week and would also mention it to her. 12
13
Director Ericson stated that he is happy to announce that the Mounds View City Codes are now 14
available on the City website. He stated that it is not interactive and does have some limitations 15
but it is broken out with enough detail that a reasonable search can be done. 16
17
Director Ericson provided the Council with an update on the Planning Associate position noting 18
that they received twenty applications and the period end date was Friday. He stated that Staff 19
plans to review the applications and set up the respective interviews for next week. He stated 20
that he does not think that they would have anyone ready for Council consideration at the August 21
meetings but they do plan to have something ready in time for the first meeting in September. 22
23
Director Ericson referenced the Snyder’s development noting that the Gas for Less building is 24
gone and it is going to be a nice change of pace. He noted that during the course of their work on 25
the site it was discovered that they had parked their construction trailer on City land. He stated 26
that the City has indicated that the construction trailer cannot be located there and they did stop 27
in today and asked him to ask Council if it would be ok for them to park their construction trailer 28
there for a period of three months. He explained that they do plan on restoring the ground and 29
there wouldn’t be any issues with the condition of the site once they pull the trailer out. He 30
stated that they could live with the trailer being on their location but it would necessitate several 31
moves as they develop different areas within the site. He stated that this would be much more 32
convenient for them and it could be written into the development agreement that the City is held 33
harmless, there is no liability, they assume all risks and responsibility, the re-vegetate the site and 34
restore it to it’s original condition. He stated that if Council is not in agreement with this he 35
would communicate it to them tomorrow that they would have to remove their trailer. 36
37
Mayor Marty asked City Administrator Ulrich for his opinion on this. 38
39
City Administration Ulrich stated that he does not see any problems with it as long as they can 40
cover the development agreement so that they can get the restoration done. 41
42
Council Member Gunn stated that one of the concerns is because the irrigation lines run through 43
the area. 44
45
Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 30
Council Member Thomas agreed stating that she does have some significant concerns on both of 1
the scores and asked that it being included. 2
3
C. Reports of City Attorney 4
5
None. 6
7
12. Next Council Work Session: Special, August 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. 8
Next Council Meeting: Monday, August 22, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. 9
10
13. ADJOURNMENT 11
12
MOTION/SECOND. Adjourn the City Council Meeting of August 8, 2005, by consensus at 13
10:25 p.m. 14
15
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 16
17
Transcribed and recorded by: 18
19
20
Bonnie Sullivan 21
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 22
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3
4
Regular Meeting 5
August 22, 2005 6
Mounds View City Hall 7
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 8
7:53 P.M. 9
10
11
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 12
13
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 14
15
3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, and Thomas 16
17
NOT PRESENT: 18
19
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 20
21
A. Monday, August 22, 2005 City Council Agenda 22
23
Mayor Marty requested to delete Agenda Item 9.F.2. and to reschedule it to a different meeting 24
since the review forms were received just today. 25
26
Mayor Marty asked about Agenda Item 9.F.1. to hold an executive session to discuss threatened 27
lawsuit and demand letter. City Attorney Riggs suggested this issue be discussed at that time. 28
29
Mayor Marty moved Agenda Item 6A to be considered immediately following Agenda Item 4 30
since they have already been in attendance for over an hour waiting for this meeting to start. 31
32
Mayor Marty noted there are a lot of people in attendance to speak and advised that each speaker 33
will be allowed three minutes minus time spent by staff or Council to provide answers. 34
35
Mayor Marty asked about rearranging other agenda items to address matters for which 36
consultants need to be in attendance. 37
38
Commissioner Thomas requested to move Agenda Item 7, Just and Correct Claims, to be 39
considered after Agenda Item 8, Council Business 40
41
With regard to Council Business Item 8E, City Administrator Ulrich advised that the property 42
transfer has not yet taken place on that property. He explained that staff will recommend 43
opening the public hearing and then continuing it to the next meeting for action. He also 44
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
recommended that Consent Agenda Item 9E, Licensing for City Tavern, be deleted from the 1
agenda. 2
3
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Approve the Monday, August 22, 2005 agenda as 4
amended. 5
6
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 7
8
5. PUBLIC INPUT 9
10
This item was considered following Agenda Item 6. 11
12
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 13
14
A. Presentation by Northwest Youth and Family Services to discuss their 15
services offered 16
17
Kay Andrews, Director of Northwest Youth and Family Services, and Mary Sue Hanson, 18
Suburban Ramsey Family Collaborative, provided presentations advising of the services 19
provided, gaps in services, funding sources, and desire to work with the City of Mounds View to 20
assure that no youth or family remain at risk. 21
22
Mayor Marty stated he is familiar with Northwest Youth and Family Services and pointed out 23
that over the years, when looking at the budget and the amount of aid that Mounds View receives 24
in comparison with all other cities, he believes that Mounds View far out receives any of the 25
other cities in the coalition. He stated he has always maintained this is one of the best 26
investments in Mounds View. 27
28
Ms. Andrews advised that the thrift store in Mounds View Square has been reconfigured. The 29
Grand Reopening is scheduled for September 8, 2005, from 4-7 p.m. She invited all to attend to 30
see the reconfigured store and enjoy the entertainment. She also encouraged people to drop off 31
their surplus items so they can be recycled, noting that youth do the work. 32
33
Mayor Marty pointed out that for many of the kids, this is their first job and used as a training 34
facility for marketing and using a cash register so they are able to get a job somewhere else. 35
36
Councilmember Thomas stated she has visited the store several times and greatly respects the 37
program because the kids learn not only business skills but also interpersonal skills on how to 38
compliment and be critical while still being supportive of individuals. It also teaches the kids 39
how to speak up for themselves and interact with others. Councilmember Thomas stated this 40
program changes their perspective and gives them a new environment. 41
42
Mayor Marty noted they are also open for adult volunteers. Ms. Andrews stated that is correct 43
and announced they are open Tuesday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. and on Saturday 44
from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
1
5. PUBLIC INPUT 2
3
Barbara Haake, 3024 County Road I, stated she wanted to address the Festival in the Park that 4
was held yesterday. She stated this Festival has been held for many years and noted the letter 5
from Medtronic that was an invitation from them to come to Festival in the Park. She read a 6
portion of the letter that indicated: “We’ve arranged to sponsor the fireworks of the grand finale 7
of the Mounds View Festival in the Park on the evening of August 21st and it is our hope that the 8
fireworks will capture our excitement of becoming part of the community. Please consider this 9
your personal invitation to attend.” She asked how Medtronic can write a letter to invite 10
residents to a Festival that is already theirs. She stated she is annoyed that Medtronic took over 11
the Festival, had a booth, and put their sign next to the music stage, which may lead one to 12
assume they also, perhaps, sponsored the music as well. She asked if this is what we want to 13
look like and expressed concern that the “M” in Mounds View will stand for Medtronic. Ms. 14
Haake stated that getting free balloons and free fireworks should not win over votes for their 15
project. 16
17
Ms. Haake stated she, along with many others, has been working on the Medtronic proposal for 18
five months and what is driving her is principal. She wants to get a fair deal for the citizens of 19
Mounds View and that is important for economics of Mounds View. She stated she dealt with 20
principals in the Legislature and may have lost some friends but felt she did her best. She stated 21
she wants this project to be the best it can be. She noted there are many viewpoints that will be 22
expressed in the meeting tonight and maybe concerns will be answered. 23
24
Councilmember Gunn responded by saying that she takes offense at Ms. Haake’s statements. 25
She explained that the Festival committee members talk to each business, asking for money to 26
put on the Festival. She stated that she asked, they gave, just like Bethlehem Baptist who had the 27
whole field. She asked if Ms. Haake had pointed out that there were Bethlehem Baptist blue t-28
shirts all over the place. Councilmember Gunn stated Medtronic sponsored the fireworks and 29
Saturn sponsored the music but forgot their sign so she allowed Medtronic to put their sign on 30
the fence. She noted that the sign was taken down when it was time for the fireworks so no one’s 31
view would be blocked. Councilmember Gunn stated the Medtronic sign was a good one, and 32
the saying on it was her idea. She stated the Festival received money from Bethlehem Baptist, 33
Saturn, and Medtronic. They are the three main sponsors and it is not a Medtronic festival but a 34
Mounds View Festival and Medtronic donated just like the rest of the people. 35
36
Mayor Marty noted that the City is currently in contract negotiations with Medtronic and asked if 37
there is a conflict since Councilmember Gunn is the Chairperson of the Festival. 38
39
Councilmember Gunn asked the audience not to “boo” her. She then excused herself from the 40
Council chambers for a few minutes. 41
42
Councilmember Thomas clarified that the City is not under contract negotiations. The 43
negotiations are done, it was voted on, and the City is now in the development process. She 44
cautioned Mayor Marty to be careful of his question and how it is worded. 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 4
1
Mayor Marty asked if Medtronic had paid the Festival sponsorship prior to the negotiations. 2
3
Mary Scotch, 7806 Gloria Circle, said no one is putting anyone on the spot but the question is, 4
did Medtronic sponsor in the previous years before now. Councilmember Thomas stated she is 5
not on the committee and does not know. 6
7
Ms. Scotch stated that is a fair question. Councilmember Thomas stated that was not the 8
Mayor’s question and that is why she urged caution. 9
10
Mr. Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated that Medtronic has not been a sponsor in the 11
past. He stated the community is hurt when put head-to-head with neighbors in a negative way 12
and he is begging the Council to take a stand, sit down with Medtronic, and talk this out. He 13
stated he does not think the contract has been signed, noting City Administrator Ulrich stated it 14
was just finalized from the July 8th draft. Mr. McCarty asked all to go back to their roots, noting 15
Mounds View is full of nice people, as is Medtronic. He stated when driving someone out as 16
sweet as Councilmember Sherry Gunn, then that is the wrong thing to do. He asked for a standby 17
for two weeks and stated he will be happy to debate Mr. McCombs and search what their project 18
really means. Mr. McCarty stated Mounds View is an involved community and residents care 19
very deeply. Residents support a continuum of recreational programs and the golf course if a part 20
of that. He stated he thinks the City can put that together with Medtronic and again asked the 21
Council to give residents two weeks to sort it out in calm and civil manner. 22
23
Councilmember Stigney stated this is a “cheap shot” on Medtronic by Ms. Haake and personally 24
thanked Medtronic for their contribution to the Festival in the Park for the fireworks. He stated 25
he hopes Medtronic also contributes in the future. If it was their first contribution, he welcomes 26
it and thinks Ms. Haake’s attack was out of line. 27
28
Councilmember Thomas stated she works very hard to stay calm, rational, keep working 29
relationships with people, and not let things get into personal attacks. In response to Mr. 30
McCarty’s request, she stated that two weeks will not do anything because the Council has 31
looked at those options and made the decision. Councilmember Thomas stated she will not go 32
back and do it again. The Council is done with the negotiations and the matter was voted on so 33
there is no negotiating anymore or participating in negotiations. She stated that whether this can 34
be talked out as rational adults and everyone stay calm, that is the stage where we are at. The 35
decision is made 36
37
Councilmember Flaherty stated that no one took more time on this and no one has had more 38
compassion than him and all worked very hard to look at all the variables so everything was 39
taken care of when the Council took the vote. 40
41
Mayor Marty stated he also did a lot of work, as did Councilmember Flaherty. He stated even 42
when he met with Roger McCombs he was trying to negotiate. But that is the consensus. 43
44
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 5
Ken Glidden, 5240 Edgewood Drive, stated he has now heard that “negotiations are completed, 1
the contract is in place, and that is the end of the story.” He stated he was not aware that was the 2
case and believes there are other matters before the Council that need to be dealt with before that 3
statement can be made. He stated it was published several times that Medtronic will make a one 4
time donation of $100,000 to School District 621 which has an annual budget of slightly under 5
$100 million a year for 2005 an 2006. Given the estimated property tax of $46,000 a year under 6
TIF, if they paid their normal estimate property tax of $563,000 a year without TIF, the school 7
district would receive roughly $160,000 a year. He asked Medtronic to pay their fair share 8
because the school district would benefit far more than from a one-time contribution of 9
$100,000. Mr. Glidden stated that is just the impact to the school district but there may be 10
additional funds for the City and the Northwest Youth and Family Services. 11
12
Councilmember Thomas explained that part of the TIF process is that the school district has to 13
approve any new TIF and the school district enthusiastically supported the development, 14
knowing that this and future tax base would not happen without this project. 15
16
Mr. Glidden asked if they knew the amount of taxes they were giving up. Councilmember 17
Thomas stated they knew the figures and that this would not happen without the project. 18
19
Mr. Glidden asked what the school district made their decision on to give up roughly $160,000 a 20
year. 21
22
Mayor Marty asked City Administrator Ulrich to respond. 23
24
City Administrator Ulrich explained the school district looked at the increase in the market value 25
for levies placed by the school district. And, even though the project is in a TIF District, it was 26
important to the school district that the increase in the market value levy (for the total value of 27
the project) go on the levy base, which will lower the taxes for everyone within the district. 28
29
Mayor Marty stated that to his knowledge he, as Mayor and President of the EDA, has not yet 30
signed a contract. City Administrator Ulrich stated the terms of the development agreement have 31
been approved by the Council but is not yet executed. He explained the document is over 100 32
pages in length and there are “I’s to dot, T’s to cross,” and pages to number 33
34
Jan Brink, 7800 Gloria Circle, gave her three minutes to Barbara Haake 35
36
Ms. Haake asked about the interest payment on $14.8 million and how the interest rate would be 37
paid. She informed the audience that there are a series of questions at the podium that anyone 38
can ask. She suggested that City Attorney Riggs had previously stated that there would be no 39
interest on the $14.8 million but then Medtronic crossed that off the July 8th contract and put in 40
5% interest. She asked how the City can not negotiate something less than 5% interest or no 41
interest whatsoever. 42
43
Sid Inman, Ehlers & Associates, stated he is not familiar with the contract draft referred to by 44
Ms. Haake that did not have interest. He stated he is also not aware of any type of contract where 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 6
a developer would install improvements and not be paid interest. He stated that a 5% interest 1
rate is probably 250 basis points lower than the current average lending rate. Most are at 650-2
675 so 5% is a lower interest rate by market standard. He stated he can provide many examples, 3
if requested by the Council, but does not have them with him this evening. 4
5
Ms. Haake stated Medtronic has agreed to pay $9.65 million for the Bridges and asked why $1 6
million of the purchase cost is relabeled as reimbursement by Medtronic, in place of sale price, 7
which in effect lowers the park dedication fee by $100,000. It also places $150,000 back on 8
trails that they get to use. 9
10
Mayor Marty stated he also has that question. 11
12
City Administrator Ulrich explained the $865,000 is based on what Medtronic is paying the City 13
of Mounds View for the property. Part of the negotiations is that a portion of the park dedication 14
($150,000) would be used to improve the adjacent land for public use that would also be 15
available to SYSCO and Medtronic employees as well as the public. 16
17
Ms. Haake stated the legislation indicated that the $1 million was to be paid in the revertor clause 18
and paid for by the City of Mounds View. She asked if Medtronic is paying $9.6 million, then 19
why is the City not getting another $100,000 from them. 20
21
Dan Hall, 2200 Highway 10, stated he was one of the first people who wants to keep things civil 22
because all are interested in what is best for the citizens of Mounds View. He stated he would 23
not like to be told over the last two months that he was not looking out for what is best for 24
Mounds View and was being duped and taken advantage of by Medtronic. Mr. Hall noted this 25
type of comment is coming from the “nice side” but he does not see the same tactics being used 26
by the proponents who want to sell the golf course to someone to make it profitable. He stated it 27
is his belief that Mr. McCarty, Ms. Haake, and Mr. Amundsen want to stall it long enough so 28
Medtronic will go to another city. He stated it is evident to him that they are “grasping at 29
straws.” He stated when you accuse people of dealing under the table and taking bribes, how can 30
you expect a civil conversation and work going back and forth. He stated he agrees with the 31
majority of the Council that due diligence has been done and the Council has done a good job. 32
33
Cindy Sobasik, 2146 Hillview Road, stated she believes that moving forward puts the residents 34
of Mounds View at risk for unwarranted and unwelcomed liability and it astounds her to think 35
that residents could be priced out of their homes. She stated that Bethlehem Baptist Church 36
made a $25,000 donation in place of tax money generated since it is in a TIF district. SYSCO, 37
who provides more jobs to residents, took a small TIF and it will be repaid in two years, which to 38
her seems reasonable. However, she is concerned with subsidizing a multi-million dollar 39
company that can afford to pay taxes and should be demonstrating good corporate citizenship, 40
which includes paying its fair share. Ms. Sobasik asked for a fair deal or no deal. She asked the 41
Council if they saw, read, and understood the contract related to redeveloping the golf course into 42
a Medtronic facility prior to voting on it. 43
44
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 7
Mayor Marty stated he did not. He stated he contacted Mr. Ericson the end of July, after the 1
second public hearing, and asked for a copy of the contract. Mr. Ericson provided him with a 2
copy, and all Councilmembers received a copy. Mayor Marty stated that is when he started to 3
look at the contract. He stated the proposed development agreement and synopsis from the City 4
Attorney was received when City Administrator Ulrich was on vacation. 5
6
Councilmember Stigney stated the Council spent a long time negotiating the contract and he feels 7
it is an exceptional contract for Mounds View, is very fair, and wished all would “open their 8
eyes” to see what is coming instead of killing it for a golf course. 9
10
Councilmember Thomas stated she looked through the draft contract beforehand, reviewed the 11
development agreement, and found it contained all the conditions. 12
13
Councilmember Flaherty stated he has had a copy for a while now. He explained that the park 14
dedication fee was negotiated, the billboard buyout was negotiated, and the Council has been in 15
constant contact with the contract from when it was first presented. In response to the question, 16
“Have I seen it” Councilmember Flaherty responded, ”Absolutely, I have before the vote.” 17
18
Mayor Marty asked when City Administrator Ulrich was on vacation. City Administrator Ulrich 19
stated he was on vacation until July 29th. 20
21
Councilmember Gunn stated she has the same information as the other Councilmembers and 22
attended the same meetings. All had the same information. 23
24
Councilmember Thomas stated the draft contract was available at City Hall and available to be 25
reviewed. 26
27
Ms. Haake stated there is a problem with the zoning of the 72 acres of the golf course and there is 28
a petition that will be certified whether or not it is sufficient. She referenced Ordinance No. 720 29
that was passed on October 13, 2003, amending the Zoning Code to make the Public Facilities 30
District into an Industrial District. Then Ordinance No. 721 made that permitted district, under I-31
1, to be golf courses. Ms. Haake stated she reviewed all of the City’s ordinances and that was the 32
only zoning change. However, the law states that when the City does a legislative action, it must 33
be by ordinance. She stated the City has done a Comprehensive Plan Amendment but the City 34
has not rezoned this property. Ms. Haake stated that will be the City’s next step. 35
36
Director Ericson stated the property is zoned Industrial and an office use is consistent with an 37
industrial zoning district. 38
39
Carol Mueller, 8343 Groveland Road, stated her heart aches at what the City is going through but 40
she believes it makes the residents stronger and she is proud of the residents and Council for 41
what they are doing and going through. She stated all will survive and be better for it. Ms. 42
Mueller stated she is concerned about the City Charter. 43
44
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 8
Ms. Mueller stated in October of 1978 the residents adopted a City Charter that protects the 1
rights of residents and is available for viewing on the City’s web site. She referenced Sections 2
5.01 and 5.02 that deal with the sale of property and stated there have been volunteers in the 3
community who have passed petitions and received enough signatures. She indicated that since 4
they carefully and successfully followed the provision of the Charter, she hopes and prays that if 5
the Council finds the petition sufficient, they will honor the City Charter, and offer this matter to 6
a referendum. 7
8
Councilmember Thomas cautioned the Mayor to not allow any derogatory remarks to City staff 9
who work hard to do what the Council has asked them to do. She urged residents to refrain from 10
those types of comments. 11
12
Kathy Olan, 8245 Spring Lake Park Road, pointed out that until recently citizens were informed 13
of one land value appraisal at the Bridges placed at $10 million by Orion Appraisers of Vadnais 14
Heights. At the July 25, 2005 meeting, staff rebuttal to a citizen statement claimed there were 15
two, not just one, commercial appraisal. She asked who did the second appraisal and what was 16
the recommended value. 17
18
Mayor Marty stated the City commissioned one appraisal. 19
20
City Administrator Ulrich explained that one appraisal was done by the State on the 40 acres and 21
indicated it was worth $3.6 million or $90,000 an acre. So, if extrapolated over the entire 22
property, it is a value of just less than what the City is getting in the offer. 23
24
Ms. Olan stated she does not think the citizens of Mounds View are getting the best deal. She 25
stated she does not support the deal and is sorry that some people are shaking their heads and 26
indicating it is a “done deal.” She stated she hopes residents will get to vote and then, at that 27
point, she will feel all right about the deal. 28
29
Ken Glidden, 5240 Edgewood Drive, stated he is speaking again in response to other questions. 30
He stated he was active in getting petition signatures but that does not put him in opposition to 31
anything because it is a provision of the City Charter and that is the option they took. He 32
suggested that calling for a referendum gives the citizens of Mounds View the opportunity to 33
vote on whether it is or is not a good deal. He stated when he was talking to residents, essentially 34
90% of them signed the petition. Mr. Glidden stated he thinks the City should be still 35
negotiating. He stated he gathered over 100 of the 1,200 signatures on the petition and urged the 36
Council to let residents vote. He asked if that is not what the soldiers are establishing in 37
Afghanistan and Iraq, to allow people the right to vote. He stated that is not opposition to 38
anything but utilizing the democratic government to weigh whether it is a good deal. He stated 39
one makes a decision when one votes. Mr. Glidden stated he knows that people do not believe it 40
is a good deal and urged the Council to please honor the democratic process. 41
42
Mary Kay Walsh stated everyone just heard from the Northwest Youth and Family Services 43
representatives that there is a huge amount of need and funding lost at the federal level so the 44
“buck stops” at each citizen to fund everything. However, some do not have sufficient work to 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 9
provide their own needs. She stated it is important for Mounds View to get the best deal 1
possible for this very prime property that is close to two major freeways, and an airport. She 2
stated this property should be of great value to residents of Mounds View and the developer. Ms. 3
Walsh pointed out that citizens are also giving up access to an amenity of a golf course. She 4
stated she has questions about the terms of the contract and stated her understanding that State 5
statutes stipulate TIF Districts should only go for a term of 8 years but Medtronic is receiving a 6
25-year TIF term. 7
8
Mayor Marty explained there are different types of TIF Districts. One is for redevelopment for 9
blighted property or buildings created before 1990. Another is for contaminated soils. He noted 10
there are no buildings at the golf course constructed before 1990 and the soil testing was okay. 11
Because of that, the Legislature indicated the only type of TIF District to qualify would be an 12
economic development district that is capped at 8 years. It was then lobbied for and extended by 13
the Legislature to run an additional 17 years. 14
15
Ms. Walsh asked if this legislation occurred during the extended session. Commissioner Thomas 16
answered it occurred during the regular session. 17
18
Ms. Walsh asked when residents will hear whether the referendum will take place. Mayor Marty 19
answered that it is an agenda item for tonight. 20
21
Ms. Walsh asked about the indemnification and if there is a way to know how much it may cost 22
Mounds View residents. City Attorney Riggs explained the liability is capped for what is being 23
transferred to Medtronic for a $200,000 fee. 24
25
Ms. Walsh asked what that means. Councilmember Thomas explained that if something occurs, 26
liability is capped at $200,000 as the EDA. She noted that environmental studies have been done 27
and it is not believed that anything will come up. 28
29
City Administrator Ulrich further explained that should environmental contamination show up, 30
the City’s liability would be capped at $200,000. Environmental liability that carries with the 31
property is a separate item and if there should be an environmental issue that causes liability then 32
the City, because of the nature of environmental law and chain of title, could be brought back in. 33
He stated there is no way to predict and he cannot estimate a dollar. 34
35
Ms. Walsh asked if catastrophic environmental insurance is available. City Administrator Ulrich 36
stated there may be if you are willing to pay the premium but he does not know what it would 37
cost. 38
39
Mary Burg, New Brighton Councilmember, stated they had negotiations with Medtronic until 40
mid-June when they learned New Brighton was not a site being considered. She stated the New 41
Brighton Council looked at catastrophic insurance and found a 10-year policy to cover the 42
$250,000 cap that is set by the State. The policy was for $700,000 and would go for 10 years. 43
Ms. Burg stated they were concerned at that time because while contamination was not on their 44
site, people would possible sue because of “deep pockets.” She mentioned that she had called 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 10
two of her colleagues about the interest question and both indicated that they did not recall that 1
New Brighton included interest payments in their TIF Districts. 2
3
Dennis Hammes, 5511 Quincy, stated he spoke at the Town Hall meeting and while he is not 4
“for” or “against” Medtronic, he is having a hard time considering a 25-year TIF district. He 5
stated it does not seem right, is too high, and he does not think Medtronic really needs it. Mr. 6
Hammes stated when he collected signatures for the petition, he said this is something the 7
residents need to vote on, and did not make statements against Medtronic. He stated this should 8
be a decision for the residents of Mounds View and not five people because it is too much of a 9
burden for five people. He stated the entire community should be involved. 10
11
Connie Hammes, 5511 Quincy, pointed out that only Phase 1 is guaranteed in the draft purchase 12
agreement and contract. Phases 2 and 3 show tentative starting dates of 2012 and 2017. Full 13
development is optional and dependent upon future financial assistance for Phases 2 and 3. She 14
asked if both Phases 2 and 3 occur by additional future subsidies, what are the projections 15
concerning TIF as a percentage of the City’s future tax capacity. 16
17
Director Ericson stated staff has not considered those numbers because there are too many 18
variables to even guess what will happen in 10 to 15 years. He stated at this point he does not 19
know what the property values will be or the impact to the City. 20
21
Ms. Hammes noted that Medtronic indicates no part of the purchase is for speculation or land 22
holding. The draft contract is relevant only to Phase 1. There is no enforceable obligation 23
regarding sale or assignment for Phases 2 and 3. She asked if the Council has considered 24
subdividing Phase 1 construction, holding any balance of the Bridges property as a public asset, 25
contingent upon Medtronic’s first right of refusal for future development phases. 26
27
Councilmember Thomas explained that Phases 2 and 3, as far as projected development, is going 28
up, not out, so it would have the same footprint. Because of that, there is no way to subdivide 29
out properties for future phases. 30
31
Mayor Marty stated it was his understanding that Medtronic wanted the whole deal. 32
33
City Attorney Riggs stated it is difficult to deal with “what ifs” down the road. This 34
development contract deals with Phase 1 construction of approximately an 8,200 square foot 35
footprint of development. The contract defines the development property and the EDA has to 36
consent to any assignments or sales so the City does have that control right now. 37
38
Joan Dofney, 7801 Gloria Circle, stated this is the second year that City Administrator Ulrich has 39
worked in Mounds View. She asked City staff if they live in Mounds View. All staff members 40
present indicated they do not. 41
42
Ms. Dofney asked if any of the Medtronic representatives in attendance live in Mounds View. 43
She stated the Council has been voted in to represent her and those who signed the petition. She 44
stated all would agree this is a large multi-million dollar deal with a health provider for people 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 11
around the world. She asked each Councilmember if any had negotiated a deal of this 1
magnitude. All Councilmembers, Director Ericson, and Finance Director Beer indicated they 2
had not. Ms. Dofney asked City Administrator Ulrich and City Attorney Riggs if they had 3
negotiated a deal of this magnitude. Both indicated they had not. 4
5
Ms. Dofney agreed this is a big deal. She stated she knows all care about the City as does she, a 6
32-year resident. She stated this is a tough situation and asked if Medtronic would be willing to 7
renegotiate because of resident’s concern and good questions. Ms. Dofney stated that most 8
believe in the “golden rule” but commented that most know that “those who have the gold rule.” 9
She stated she knows Medtronic has a lot of money and asked if the City is getting the best deal. 10
She stated she hates to leave this burden up to the Council and noted there are many educated 11
and knowledgeable people who want to assure we get the best deal and jobs. 12
13
Mayor Marty stated a Mounds View Medtronic employee is in attendance tonight. 14
15
John Kopis, 2222 County Highway 10, stated his business has sold carpet to people who bought 16
a home in Mounds View which is beneficial to him. He stated he talked to many businesses in 17
Mounds View and every single person he spoke with is excited that Medtronic is coming to 18
Mounds View. He emphasized that that the business community really supports it. Mr. Kopis 19
stated he does not have a home in Mounds View but does have a building as big as 10 houses, 20
pays a lot of taxes, and works 60-70 hours a week so he can pay his taxes. He stated he wants the 21
Council to know this is a good thing for the City of Mounds View and while nothing is perfect, 22
and 25 years may be a bit too long, it is a good thing. He stated it is important to have Medtronic 23
in Mounds View and he would be proud to say they are where he has a business. Mr. Kopis 24
stated almost every week or day someone comes in for donations and he has donated money for 25
fireworks. He stated he resents it when you have been asked to make a donation and are then 26
criticized for it. 27
28
Mayor Marty stated he knows John Kopis works 60-70 hours a week. 29
30
Jon McKusick, 8465 Eastwood Road, asked if they are paying interest to other TIF districts. 31
Economic Development Coordinator Backman answered in the affirmative. 32
33
Ms. Haake reviewed the Light Industrial zoning language on that property and indicated that it 34
applies if Medtronic is going to have 50% of the principal building devoted to office or storage or 35
warehousing of merchandise. She referenced the Planning Commission meeting minutes of 36
January 19, 2005 and February 2, 2005 public hearing on this particular public facility. At one 37
time it was zoning to Industrial I-1 and stating that the office designation most likely correlated 38
with the planned office complex development. She stated she goes back to what she said 39
previously and thinks the attorney should look at it again. She stated she thinks a zoning change 40
is needed so it correlates to the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Haake stated the Comprehensive Plan 41
amendment the City did calls for this to be an office space. That means there has to be a zoning 42
class of Office. Ms. Haake stated there has to be a zoning change, which would require an 43
ordinance. She indicated that will then kick off, all over again, another petition. 44
45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 12
Ms. Haake stated residents elected the Council and it puts the Council in a tough spot. She noted 1
that the attorney may say if Mounds View doesn’t go through with it then Medtronic will sue us. 2
But she thinks Medtronic cares for their public image and does not want their name “blackened.” 3
She stated if Medtronic feels they have done the right thing by Mounds View and been a 4
wonderful neighbor, then residents will know that. She stated they are just asking for a vote and 5
more information. They believe the City needs to go through the contract more thoroughly 6
because residents do not believe all of the terms are fair to the City. They want to be of help to 7
the Council and future generations. She stated that Medtronic is a great company and she would 8
agree with $235,000 an acre and an 8-year TIF District. 9
10
Director Ericson explained that with zoning there is often a time when you need to interpret the 11
Zoning Code and he stands by the fact that an office type of use is a consistent use within the I-1 12
zoning district. Otherwise the City will need to kick out a number of its office uses within the 13
City. He stated that the project planned will have to go through a Planned Unit Development 14
(PUD) on the site which, in essence, is a rezoning consistent with the anticipated use of 820,000 15
square feet of office. 16
17
Brian Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, asked if there has been any language added or stricken 18
from the final terms of the contract since the July 11 version. City Attorney Riggs stated not as 19
to terms decided by the Council but as to semantics and to make all provisions work together. 20
He stated he could outline those semantic changes, if desired. 21
22
Mr. Amundsen asked if all changes were purely semantically. City Attorney Riggs answered in 23
the affirmative and stated the contract is consistent with what the EDA and Council adopted. If 24
there is to be a change in terms, an amendment would be needed and it would have to come back. 25
26
Mr. Amundsen asked about the status of the street project and whether any projects would be 27
occurring in 2006. He stated he feels some obligation to come back to his neighbors, maybe in 28
the form of a petition, about street improvements. He asked if the City is still moving forward 29
with Option 3. 30
31
Public Works Director Lee advised that at this point the City is not planning a street project in 32
2006 because there is no time to put together the plans and specifications and go through the 33
public hearing. The City does have plans for the area that Mr. Amundsen lives in and the City 34
could go with that since a public hearing was held for that area. Staff is now evaluating the 35
streets and updating the pavement condition index. That data will be used to determine which 36
area to next consider. 37
38
Councilmember Thomas stated this issue was discussed at a Council worksession as well as what 39
streets really need to be done. She explained this involves building a project from scratch and it 40
needs to be defended what project should be done first. 41
42
Mary Scotch, 7806 Gloria Circle, stated she knows Councilmember Gunn worked very hard on 43
the Festival in the Park but she wants to address the fact of looking at the deal because the 44
bottom line is that the golf course is the only asset residents have. She stated she has been asking 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 13
for eight years to have someone address Spring Lake. She asked what is the bottom factor, and 1
whether the $5 million the City is getting is going to improve the highway corridor for the next 2
five to six years, or whether the City will have to wait for the TIF to come in. 3
4
Mayor Marty stated he still questions where the $5 million will come from because the golf 5
course owes $4.2 million and is selling for $8.56 million so the City does not have a full $5 6
million left. Also, the money going to MnDOT will not benefit the City to spend. Mayor Marty 7
reviewed a calculation he made and stated it equals $148,000 a year (without interest or 8
investment). He stated the City could invest that money. 9
10
Ms. Scotch stated Medtronic wants to come to Mounds View and she would like to see them in 11
Mounds View but just wants the best deal. She stated that a lot of residents think this deal is 12
done but she feels there are other ways this can be addressed. 13
14
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated a lot of comments have been made but there is also a 15
silent majority. He noted the City took a survey and even if the petition had 2,000 signatures, it 16
would be a small percentage. He stated he also went to homes and heard the opposite. He noted 17
that senior citizens don’t come to the meeting or speak out but they are worried about a small 18
majority taking over. Mr. Jahnke stated the Council, attorney, and Ehlers studied this deal. He 19
stated he thinks all have looked at it closely and he gives them all credit. He stated this is a big 20
project and it is not easy to sit on the Council and take the criticism. However, when you look at 21
the petition it is a minority, not a majority. He stated they are not speaking for the residents of 22
Mounds View and he will speak for himself. Mr. Jahnke stated the survey is what spoke for the 23
residents. He noted this minority group is now asking for another two weeks but it is only a ploy 24
to delay this project that is very important for the future of Mounds View. Mr. Jahnke stated the 25
Council has done an excellent job and the lawyers can be depended on to decipher the contract 26
and assure it is done correctly. He stated you could pick on small issues in the contract for the 27
next five years and while it isn’t a perfect world, he thinks the Council did a perfect job. 28
29
Bill Schweigert, South Gray Cloud Trail, stated he does not live in Mounds View but has 130 30
acres and wonders if there is an amount of money that would kill the opposition, maybe an extra 31
fifty percent. He stated everyone likes Medtronic and it will be a “feather in the City’s cap” to 32
have them in Mounds View but there is a question of fairness and some people think this is not a 33
fair deal. He stated what makes this deal seductive is the number of jobs and economic boost. 34
However, bringing in the jobs will also bring in school-aged children who will have to be 35
educated. He pointed out that if the City’s portion of property tax is $43,000, and if the 36
Medtronic units cost $25,000 each, selling two units a year would be enough to pay their 37
property tax bill. He stated Medtronic is a $4 billion company, which is equivalent to 4,000 one 38
million dollar bills. They are going to count out ten of them for the City. He stated this is like a 39
man buying a used car who can easily pay another $1,000 but enjoys the game of negotiation. He 40
stated the car buyer may walk out, but he thinks Medtronic would be a fool to walk out of this 41
area. 42
43
Naja Werner, 50 year resident of Mounds View, stated she has spoken to a lot of people about 44
the Medtronic deal and is getting opinions contrary to those presenting the petition. She stated 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 14
she is finding most favor having Medtronic here and believe it is the best thing to happen to 1
Mounds View. Ms. Werner stated she agrees. She noted that this golf course has existed for ten 2
years, has lost money constantly, and there is now a $4 million debt. The golf course borrows 3
money from the City and is not making any money. She stated Medtronic will allow the City to 4
pay off the debt on the golf course, the City will not have to pay golf course staff salaries, the 5
City is getting some money from the sale that can be used for other purposes, and the school 6
district and park fund are also getting money. Ms. Werner stated she believes the Council has 7
done a tremendous job, Councilmember Gunn did a commendable job on the Festival in the 8
Park, and Ms. Haake owes her an apology. She concluded by saying Mounds View is the City of 9
Trees and home to Medtronic. 10
11
Stan Meyer, 2812 Sherwood Road, stated people talk about taking sides and that is why they 12
want it on a referendum, so everyone can have a vote and have their say. He stated if the Council 13
is sure of themselves, why not put it up to a vote. In regard to new jobs, he stated he heard 14
Councilmember Thomas say it was not producing any new net jobs for residents of Mounds 15
View. He stated residents of Mounds View are who to jobs are for, not residents of New 16
Brighton or someplace else. Otherwise, it does not help Mounds View. He stated Medtronic has 17
been throwing around numbers of people to be hired at Medtronic and people will believe what 18
they want but that is disingenuous and putting something out there that does no good. 19
20
Valerie Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, stated this should not be a decisive issue but has 21
become just that. She applauded that people are encouraged to come and express diverse 22
opinions. She stated all what is best for the City and she supports this going to a vote of the 23
citizens because then we will know that the City is 100% behind the project. Ms. Amundsen 24
stated this 72 acres is a “jewel” and one of the last treasures of undeveloped land in Mounds 25
View. She stated there is a lot of talk about the Vikings coming into Blaine and asked what will 26
happen with the value of this land if that project happens. Ms. Amundsen stated she believes the 27
value will skyrocket and prospective offers will “come out of the woodwork.” She stated she 28
views herself to be part stockholder in that land along with the other 12,500 residents. She stated 29
if someone asked if she wanted to sell her stock in the land for a $2 dividend for all future 30
possibilities the land holds, she would be viewed as crazy. She stated she may support an 8-year 31
TIF District. She views herself as a stakeholder of the City and while Medtronic is a great 32
company, this project should not be built on the backs of the citizens of Mounds View. 33
34
Bill Werner, 2765 Sherwood Road, said Ms. Amundsen said she would agree if it was an 8 year 35
TIF District but he would suggest that it be kept longer than 8 years if it will be worth more. He 36
stated his question is where will we be if we do or don’t do the deal. He stated if the City does 37
not do the deal there will be no money for anything, including streets. If the deal is not done, the 38
golf course still will not make any money even if the billboards do bring in $250,000. Mr. 39
Werner stated this is an opportunity to clear off that mess. 40
41
Mr. Werner stated his opinion that the $2 million community center was built for $6.2 million 42
and now people who made those past decision are asking, “what should we do now.” He stated 43
the Medtronic deal will allow the City to pay off its debts and the Council is now supporting the 44
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 15
residents of the City, not like past Councils. Mr. Werner stated that he does not care how long 1
the TIF District lasts and thinks the Council should go for the deal and pay off the debts. 2
3
Jan Brink, 7800 Gloria Circle, stated there is a misconception. She stated those in opposition to 4
the Medtronic deal have conceded that they have lost the golf course and know it is gone and 5
done but they want a referendum because they oppose the specific terms of the contract. She 6
stated they feel the residents are not getting a fair deal and she is asking the Council to have the 7
integrity to allow residents to have that vote. 8
9
Mayor Marty called a recess at 9:49 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:01 p.m. 10
11
Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated the golf course has been in the “red” for years and 12
the Councils have taken care of that in the form of the billboard contract. He suggested that the 13
golf course will be in the black by 2012 in terms of outstanding bonds, by 2017 on interfund 14
loans, and in the “black” eight years before the TIF District expires. Then, at that point, it will be 15
valued at $48 million. He stated it is not a “big looser,” but just needs a little time. 16
17
Mr. Werner stated that is an expensive golf course because it will be sitting there, it hasn’t made 18
any money, and will keep borrowing money. 19
20
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated the billboard money is Mounds View money and the 21
golf course should stand on its own. He stated that is why eleven golf courses were closed this 22
past year. Mr. Jahnke pointed out that only 20% of the citizens golf and 80% are from outside of 23
Mounds View and say, ”good old Mounds View, they don’t know what is going on.” 24
25
Mary Kay Walsh, 8345 Pleasant View Drive, stated whether the golf course makes money is not 26
important because it adds oxygen and is an amenity to the City. She noted that Medtronic will 27
use $11 million of Mounds View TIF money and use it to buy property in Blaine for a parking 28
lot. She stated more issues should be addressed and it should go to a referendum. She stated she 29
hopes more information will come out because if the City does not get enough money for the 30
property, it will not be a good deal. 31
32
Mayor Marty stated the total amount is $14.8 million and of that some goes to roads, 33
infrastructure, water, sewer, and other qualified costs. The total amount to Blaine is just over $2 34
million, not $11 million. 35
36
Connie Hammes, 5511 Quincy, stated when she took the petition around people were concerned 37
about the extra traffic on the roads and asked if they will be improved. She pointed out that 38
Medtronic will also add traffic to 35W which is already a bottleneck so traffic will be cutting 39
through City streets. In addition, it will bring forward more police calls. She reviewed that 40
Councilmember Stigney had said at a meeting a year and a half ago that hiring two officers was 41
not in purview of the Council because it cost $147,000. Ms. Hammes noted this is a lot more 42
than that and encouraged the Council to let Medtronic stand on their own. 43
44
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 16
7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 1
2
This Agenda Item was considered after Agenda Item 8, Council Business. 3
4
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 5
6
A. 7:05 p.m.: Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6590 Approving a 7
PUD Amendment for SYSCO Minnesota to Expand Their Facility at 2400 8
Co. Road J 9
10
B. 7:10 p.m.: Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6591 Approving 11
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the SYSCO Minnesota Facility 12
Expansion 13
14
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 10:08 p.m. 15
16
Community Development Director Ericson explained that the project was approved in 1989 and, 17
at that time, Outlot A of 46 acres was passed to the City for open space and envisioned for trails 18
or public amenity. A small triangle of land was used to develop the golf course. SYSCO is now 19
asking for 3 acres back to allow for 100 new employees to be added to their workforce, the 20
addition of 100 vehicle parking stalls, 50 truck parking stalls, incorporate the relocation of a 21
drive access from County Road J, and provide greater maneuverability for trucks. He explained 22
that the SYSCO project is a PUD approved in 1989 for the use it is currently operating. No 23
change in land use is being proposed. It will remain as a food distribution company. Director 24
Ericson advised that SYSCO is currently short on vehicle and truck parking areas. The 25
additional area allows for parking a truck once instead of moving one out to bring in another. 26
27
Director Ericson advised that in addition, a Comprehensive Plan amendment is needed since it is 28
a passive open area and SYSCO is guided as a Heavy Industrial use. He explained that by 29
attaching that 3 acre sliver of property to the SYSCO property, it makes sense to rezone it to 30
Heavy Industrial. The Planning Commission reviewed the request, recommends approval, and 31
found that the Comprehensive Plan amendment would be consistent. 32
33
Director Ericson stated the City is the adjacent property owner and staff believes there would be 34
no adverse effects. The property in question is currently tax exempt and this would bring it back 35
onto the tax rolls and allow SYSCO to maintain its operation in Mounds View. The 36
Comprehensive Plan land use amendment vacation will be sent to the Metropolitan Council and 37
adjoining property owners. Director Ericson recapped that staff and the Planning Commission 38
believe the Comprehensive Plan amendment should be approved and will help SYSCO address 39
their future and current needs as a business. He noted there are two draft resolutions for the 40
Council’s consideration and that representatives of SYSCO are in attendance to answer questions 41
the Council may have. 42
43
Phil Seipp, President of SYSCO Minnesota, stated he would be happy to answer questions of the 44
Council or audience. 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 17
1
Councilmember Stigney asked how much additional taxes will be realized. Director Ericson 2
stated staff has not done that analysis but could determine that number if desired by the Council. 3
4
Councilmember Stigney noted they are asking for $250,000 of TIF and asked whether it will 5
bring additional tax base to the City. He asked what is the benefit of the City and stated he 6
believes cutting down the trees will be an adverse effect on the City. 7
8
Director Ericson stated there are impacts as a result of the land transfer and the relocation of the 9
storm water management plan would result in some trees coming out. He explained there is also 10
about one acre of designated wetland that would need to be mitigated. The Rice Creek 11
Watershed District and the DNR have indicated they would prefer to not have that mitigation 12
occur adjacent to the site and risk losing all the trees. They suggested the mitigation occur 13
somewhere else where trees would not be mitigated. Director Ericson advised that every single 14
significant tree to be removed, 77 of them, will be replaced but not on a one-to-one basis. He 15
stated there will be added value but staff does not know what that dollar amount will be. He 16
stated there is currently no obligations on the site and sufficient funds will be available to make 17
the TIF payments. 18
19
Councilmember Stigney stated he would like to know the timeframe to pay back the $250,000 for 20
putting in the driveway and parking spaces. He stated that he does not believe it is a good trade 21
off to replace mature tall trees, 100 feet or more, with small trees. Economic Development 22
Coordinator Backman stated the project is approximately is $1.2 million, should add about 23
$15,000 in property taxes each year, and generate over $300,000 a year in TIF increment. He 24
advised that the trees are primarily cottonwoods, not hardwoods, so there are some options to 25
have good replacement trees. 26
27
Councilmember Thomas noted it is also adding jobs. 28
29
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 10:20 p.m. 30
31
Councilmember Stigney stated it is proposed they will generate 100 jobs in the next five years 32
but nothing is in the documentation. Director Ericson stated it is a condition of the TIF financing 33
that 20 jobs per year must be added over each of 5 years. If that does not occur, a portion of the 34
TIF would have to be paid back to the City. 35
36
Councilmember Stigney asked if the City gets information each year on the jobs created. 37
Director Ericson answered in the affirmative. 38
39
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Thomas. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6590 40
Approving a Planned Unit Development and Development Agreement Amendment for SYSCO 41
Minnesota; Planning Case PA 2005-0002. 42
43
Mayor Marty referenced Page 5, Community Profile and Background, Consistency with Council 44
Policy, and asked whether wetland credits will be purchased off site to lessen impact to the 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 18
wooded area. He stated he would like ponding to be created somewhere on the SYSCO Outlot 1
A. 2
3
Councilmember Thomas noted that Outlot A is owned by the City, not SYSCO. 4
5
Mayor Marty stated he does not want the wetland credits purchased from Blaine or another city. 6
7
Mayor Marty read a section of the agreement related to costs of preparing and reviewing the 8
wetland permit and that all attorney fees will be paid by SYSCO. He referenced Page 11, 9
subsection M, indicating: “The Developer shall allow for a gravel access drive to be constructed 10
adjacent to the relocated stormwater pond to provide access to billboards on City land and shall 11
agree to provide reasonable site access to billboard leaseholders, their agents and representatives 12
for periodic maintenance and ad copy updates.” He asked if this would be a new gravel access 13
road. 14
15
Director Ericson stated it would be a new access and tie with another project. He stated staff is 16
looking at a relocated billboard on the SYSCO property and this access would be one means to 17
accomplish that. 18
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 19
20
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Flaherty. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6591 21
Approving the Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Passive Open Space (OSP) to Heavy 22
Industrial (HI) on Three Acres of SYSCO Outlot A to be transferred from the City to SYSCO 23
Minnesota; Planning Case CP2005-0001. 24
25
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 26
27
C. 7:15 p.m.: Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6592 Approving 28
the General Concept Plan of the Medtronic Planned Unit Development 29
30
Mayor Marty opened the Public Hearing at 10:26 p.m. 31
32
Community Development Director Ericson reviewed that on June 27, 2005, the City Council and 33
Economic Development Authority (EDA) authorized an agreement with Medtronic, Inc. to 34
redevelop the Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course. Subsequently, the Council adopted 35
Ordinance 760, an ordinance approving the transfer of land from the City of Mounds View to the 36
Mounds View EDA and then subsequently to Medtronic. 37
38
Director Ericson explained that the general concept plan is the first step to consider. He noted 39
Phase 1 will involve two buildings on the western side of the site. The two buildings will each 40
be approximately eight stories in height with approximately 50,000 square feet of space on each 41
level and connected by a lower level commons. He stated there is a phasing schedule for the 42
building and parking. Phase 1 will have 820,000 square feet of office space, 3,000 parking stalls 43
with 2,100 being structured stalls and 900 being surface stalls. Phase 2 is one additional building 44
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 19
of 380,000 more square feet of office space and 1,400 more structured parking stalls by adding 1
two more levels onto the Phase 1 parking structure so it would equal five levels of parking. 2
Phase 3 finishes the project with the fourth building, of 300,000 more square feet of office space, 3
additional atrium space, and 1,600 structured parking stalls in a four-level ramp that would be 4
located in Blaine. While the ramp is being constructed, a number of surface stalls will be 5
displaced so there will be surface stalls on the other side of the ramp. Then, once the ramp is 6
completed, that area will be returned to green space. 7
8
Director Ericson stated there would be a total of four buildings total that are connected by an 9
atrium space, a parking ramp in Mounds View and in Phase 3 a parking ramp in the City of 10
Blaine. He stated that this is a significant project and at 1,500,000 square feet it will be the 11
single largest building in Mounds View and the largest for Medtronic in the world. 12
13
Director Ericson advised that the City of Blaine would like to see the plans and have a 14
presentation before their Council. Blaine staff indicates they fully support the project and 15
anticipate that the Council will be supportive of the project moving forward. 16
17
Director Ericson stated the Planning Commission conducted an informal review of this project 18
on July 20, 2005 and there was no opposition at that point. He stated that he is unsure whether 19
the project at that meeting was being reviewed as an eight-story building. At the August 3, 2005 20
meeting, the Planning Commission voted on the general concept plan and the motion failed on a 21
3/3 tied vote. However they did not subsequently make a resolution of denial. Subsequently 22
they reviewed this and have no opinion, neither recommending approval or denial. The Planning 23
Commission is concerned with the height of the 8-story building and had not yet received 24
documentation from the FAA about that height. However, staff has now received a response 25
from the FAA indicating the building height is not a concern. But the FAA did not address the 26
height of the crane during construction. 27
28
Director Ericson stated there are other steps with the PUD but this is the first step and gives the 29
City the opportunity to review what Medtronic is thinking. This general concept plan does not 30
address sizes or setbacks or elevations of the building. However, once the Council reviews and 31
holds the public hearing, then Medtronic would come back with the site plan that contains those 32
details. 33
34
Director Ericson recapped that Phase 1 is for 820,000 square feet of office space in two 35
buildings, connecting atrium area, 2,100 structured parking stalls and 900 surface parking stalls. 36
37
Mayor Marty asked representatives of Medtronic if they have comments. 38
39
Barbara Haake, 3024 County Road I, stated the PUD is going to require a Zoning Code change 40
and asked when that is planned to occur. 41
42
Director Ericson explained that typically with a PUD, they get through the general concept plan 43
and general development plan and then consider first reading of an ordinance to approve the 44
PUD. On second reading, the ordinance would effectuate the rezoning. Director Ericson 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 20
explained there is some flexibility as to when it will occur but it will occur as a result of the PUD 1
application since it is a rezoning from the Industrial zoning to a PUD. In doing a PUD, it gives 2
the City greater flexibility in how it is developed, greater density, and preservation of wetlands 3
and additional open spaces. 4
5
Ms. Haake asked if the PUD allows more building stories. Director Ericson stated that is correct. 6
7
Ms. Haake asked if the PUD has to be done before any site work or removal of trees. Director 8
Ericson stated it will be done before “shovels are out there.” 9
10
Ms. Haake stated it will be a zoning ordinance change and residents can have a referendum on a 11
rezoning. 12
13
City Attorney Riggs advised there was a case in the Minnesota Court of Appeals in 2002 14
regarding a Best Buy project in Richfield called “Nordmarken versus the City of Richfield.” The 15
Court of Appeals has stated, this is the basic holding, that the referendum would be in conflict 16
with State law; that State Law preempted the Charter with respect to land use issues. City 17
Attorney Riggs stated that is the State law on the books and it is very recent. In response to Ms. 18
Haake’s question, City Attorney Riggs stated the answer would be likely no. That would not be 19
subject to referendum and courts have ruled on it very recently, within the last three years. 20
21
Ms. Haake stated there is another case study called “Denny versus Duluth” and in that case it 22
does state that any zoning change has got to be done by ordinance and it is a legislative act. 23
24
City Attorney Riggs clarified that is not what Nordmarken found. 25
26
Ms. Haake stated it is and there has to be research on that and she would be happy to hear what 27
that research found. She stated it is her understanding that would be open to referendum as far as 28
she understands with court cases. 29
30
Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated yes it has been his experience in 15 years of 31
elected office that all zoning changes were done by ordinance and in some cases, down zoning 32
for example, needs a four-fifths votes. He stated the Denny versus Duluth case was a Supreme 33
Court decision, not Court of Appeals, in 1968. In that case zoning was determined to be a 34
legislative police power act and will be subject to referendum under the City Charter. He stated 35
the information that residents have been receiving has been very confusing and he doesn’t want 36
to go down that road so far that it can’t be stopped. He stated he had attended a Rotary meeting 37
where Medtronic presented that the City would get $169,000 a year in all fees, $43,000 a year in 38
real estate taxes, and $46,000 a year in administrative fees. However, if this is TIF related it 39
cannot be used in the general fund. He noted there is an $80,000 franchise fee, which the City 40
has been trying to get rid of and to put the fee on property tax. He suggested Medtronic check 41
with the business community who has been against that type of fee for a long time. He stated 42
there are still many issues with this contract and he is open to a discussion with Mr. McCombs. 43
44
Ken Glidden, 5240 Edgewood Drive, stated he does not know what the commitment step 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 21
involves by taking action on this resolution but believes it is premature. He stated if it is in the 1
early stage planning, that is reasonable but if it commits the City to anything it seems premature 2
to him. He stated what most concerns him is the implied suggestion that there is some way to 3
avoid allowing the citizens of Mounds View to have any say in this rezoning. He asked why the 4
City would take any steps to do that as the City Attorney has suggested, that there may be a court 5
case that disallows a referendum. He stated that seems odd to him. 6
7
Cam Obert, 8315 Greenwood Drive, stated it seems like the “cart is ahead of the horse” and 8
asked if another agenda item tonight relates to citizen input. He stated he talked to many in the 9
north side neighborhoods about this topic and all want to know what is going on with the streets. 10
He suggested it is hard to repair the streets if you change an 8 year TIF into 25 years so you 11
cannot draw any money out of it. He stated this whole deal should be tabled and the Council 12
should first decide if they should proceed. He stated it seems everyone wants to push the 13
concerns “under the rug” and he would like the questions answered. 14
15
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated the City has studied the general concept plan and 16
should approve it and not waste any more time. He stated the plan looks good and if the building 17
is too high, sink it into the ground a little ways. 18
19
Jan Brink, 7800 Gloria Circle, asked staff to point out the location of the golf course features. 20
Director Ericson complied with the request and explained the proposal is to sell all of the golf 21
course and driving range. He also noted the location of the parcel that the City owns that is 22
located in the City of Blaine and proposed for parking area. 23
24
Ms. Brink asked if the plan is to keep the golf course and build around it. Director Ericson stated 25
the golf course would go away and this project would be built on the developed part of the City-26
owned golf course. 27
28
Brian Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, asked why the pond is in a triangle. Director Ericson 29
stated it is how the pond was originally created. 30
31
Mr. Amundsen asked where the trail system would be located. Director Ericson stated it has 32
been discussed internally but not discussed with Medtronic because it is up to the City where the 33
trail system would be located. 34
35
Councilmember Thomas noted that the golf course area by the wetland pond would also be torn 36
up so the pond could be expanded. 37
38
Director Ericson advised of the impact to wetlands and location of Judicial Ditch #1 that will be 39
shifted closer to the periphery of the property line. He stated Medtronic is designing it to be 40
more of a meandering stream and amenity to the Rice Creek Watershed District. Because that 41
would be relocated, it is considered to be a wetland that needs to be mitigated. He noted the 42
location on the site where the wetland would be expanded to compensate for the relocated 43
judicial ditch. Director Ericson stated Medtronic has indicated they do not envision it to be a 44
manicured high-maintenance lawn area but, rather, a natural grass or wildflower area. 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 22
1
An audience member asked about the locations of the phases. Director Ericson used a site map 2
to identify the location of the buildings in Phases 1, 2 and 3, the parking ramp, and surface 3
parking areas. 4
5
Mr. McCarty asked if there will be additional business subsidies for Phases 2 and 3. Director 6
Ericson stated the business subsidies being considered relate to Phase 1. 7
8
Mr. McCarty asked if it is a “given” and that opportunity is preserved to allow for additional 9
business subsidies for future phases. Director Ericson stated the contract under consideration 10
relates only to Phase 1 and does not tie this or future Councils to subsequent TIF or subsidy for 11
this project. 12
13
City Attorney Riggs explained the current contract only covers Phase 1 and the financing for 14
Phase 1. Any other financing request would have to stand on its own and be compliant with 15
State law. 16
17
Mr. McCarty stated the current contract indicates that future subsidies will not be unreasonably 18
withheld for Phases 2 and 3. He asked if this Council is signing the contract with that proviso 19
included. 20
21
City Attorney Riggs stated the Council will not bind itself at this point in time and any request 22
made would have to follow the same process with a public hearing and the but/for test would be 23
implicated. He stated that is the general concept that is being considered. 24
25
Mr. McCarty asked if the commitments of this Council cannot be held to future Councils. 26
27
Mayor Marty stated if Phase 1 is approved and Medtronic comes in, then the City will want 28
Phases 2 and 3 to also be constructed on Mounds View property to capture all the taxes 29
potentially available at some date and time. 30
31
Mr. McCarty asked how that effects the decertification possibilities in the future if one business 32
subsidy is being piling on top of another. Mayor Marty explained that they would not tie together 33
and could run currently. 34
35
Mr. McCarty stated the 25 year term that citizens are being told of could be something much 36
different. 37
38
Mayor Marty explained that Phase 1 stands on its own and when paid off, that District would be 39
decertified. If they create Phase 2, that has the potential to stand on its own unless they do 40
Phases 2 and 3 together. 41
42
Mr. McCarty stated the contract refers to additional future business subsidies and he believes that 43
Medtronic will be back in 2012 saying they want another business subsidy, which means another 44
TIF extension. 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 23
1
Mr. Inman stated this plan says when this obligation is exhausted there will be additional 2
increments that will have to be returned. There is nothing in the plan that requires Phases 2 and 3 3
and there would have to be another process. 4
5
Councilmember Thomas stated the limit on Phase 1 is the cap, irregardless of future Councils 6
approving another TIF Districts anywhere else in the City. 7
8
Mr. McCarty stated it is in the contract that when Phases 2 and 3 are ready to go, business 9
subsidies will be revisited. The contract sunsets at completion of Phase 1 and, at the same time, 10
there is a proviso in the contract that references future business subsidies in Phases 2 and 3. He 11
stated he understands what Councilmember Thomas is saying, that the Council can say “no” to 12
that, but asked if they would say no since it is not the end to it but the beginning. 13
14
Stan Meyer, 2812 Sherwood, stated this is just the basic concept and not a legally binding 15
document. Councilmember Thomas stated that is correct. 16
17
Mr. Meyer stated anything on the plan can be changed and this is just a “pipe dream.” He stated 18
that it has gone back and forth that Medtronic could keep the golf course for themselves. 19
20
Councilmember Thomas stated the golf course is written out of the contract. 21
22
Mr. Meyer asked who disposes of the greens, noting they are valuable. City Attorney Riggs 23
stated the City has control of the assets and has a year to deal with the assets from the signing of 24
the contract. 25
26
Mr. Meyer stated he thinks the greens are very valuable. City Attorney Riggs stated if the value 27
is over $50,000 the City would have to accept bids. 28
29
Ms. Haake asked City Attorney Riggs if the contract is such that there is absolutely no chance for 30
a golf course. She noted the location of Phase 1 buildings and stated there is nothing to preclude 31
Medtronic from moving the location of the buildings and parking, and coming back to the City to 32
keep the golf course. She stated it is their property and there is no guarantee in the contract that 33
they will even do Phases 2 and 3. She asked City Attorney Riggs if Medtronic could keep the 34
golf course. 35
36
City Attorney Riggs stated the development property has been defined as depicted and it is 37
defined as the development of Phase 1. Any changes for Phase 2 or 3 would have to come into 38
play and a definitional change made to allow that. Right now it does not say “and a golf course,” 39
it says an 820,000 square foot development with office with accessory uses. 40
41
Ms. Haake stated this is just a concept plan and they could still relocate Phase 1 and legally keep 42
the golf course if they wanted. City Attorney Riggs answered no, that could not happen as the 43
contract is currently written. He suggested that Medtronic be asked that question and noted a 44
restrictive covenant could be included if that’s the concern. 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 24
1
Rodger McCombs stated Medtronic has addressed this several times. He stated that Medtronic is 2
not interested in golf courses but in the development of life saving products. He stated they will 3
not have a golf course. 4
5
Mr. Jahnke stated SYSCO got TIF and are now adding on and getting another round of TIF 6
financing. He stated he does not understand why it is a question with Medtronic because there is 7
nothing wrong with it and was “played out in real” tonight with SYSCO. 8
9
Mr. McCarty stated there is a big difference between a $235,000 TIF project and one that is about 10
$32 million. 11
12
Mayor Marty closed the Public Hearing at 11:06 p.m. 13
14
Councilmember Thomas stated the only outstanding question related to the FAA and that 15
information has now been received by staff. 16
17
Mayor Marty stated previously the plan was for six stories and asked when the eight-story 18
building was approved. Director Ericson stated the request was sent out three to four weeks ago 19
to get authorization from the FAA. The FAA has provided assurance that the eight-story 20
buildings at a specified height of 140 feet was acceptable as of today. 21
22
Mayor Marty asked what was the original height. Director Ericson stated he does not know what 23
the FAA originally approved. 24
25
Chris Carda, RLK_Kuusisto, LTD stated it was originally approved at 85 feet. 26
27
Mayor Marty noted the height also includes air conditioning units. 28
29
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Stigney. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6592 30
Approving the Medtronic Planned Unit Development (PUD) General Concept Plan; Planning 31
Case No. PD2005-002. 32
33
Councilmember Stigney questioned the first WHEREAS and if it should be changed from 72 34
acres to 72.2 acres. Director Ericson stated staff would make that correction. 35
36
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Marty) Motion carried. 37
38
Director Ericson stated that more detailed plans of the development will be submitted the first 39
week in September and reviewed by the Planning Commission for their recommendation. 40
41
Mayor Marty commented that an eight-story building height will be of more benefit to Mounds 42
View than a six-story height in relation to limiting air traffic. 43
44
D. 7:20 p.m.: Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6594A, a 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 25
Resolution Approving the Removal of Certain Parcels from the EDA’s Tax 1
Increment Financing District No. 3 and Resolution 6594B Approving the Tax 2
Increment Financing Plan Establishing Tax Increment Finance (TIF) District 3
No. 5, a Special-Legislation Economic Development District, within the 4
Redevelopment Project Area 5
6
Mayor Marty opened the Public Hearing at 11:10 p.m. 7
8
Economic Development Coordinator Backman reviewed that on June 27, 2005, the Mounds 9
View EDA and City Council adopted resolutions approving the sale of land comprising the 10
Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course. They also approved the Medtronic Development 11
proposal. In order to facilitate this development, the City sought passage of special TIF 12
legislation during the 2005 legislative session. The Minnesota Legislature approved the Public 13
Finance Bill which included the City’s legislation that allows it to create a 25 year Economic 14
Development TIF District. The Boards for Ramsey County and the Mounds View School 15
District approved the legislation on June 28, 2005. 16
17
Economic Development Coordinator Backman explained that the proposed District encompasses 18
five parcels of the golf course and former SYSCO site and adjacent rights-of-say. Three parcels 19
will be removed from TIF District #3 to be included in the new district. 20
21
Economic Development Coordinator Backman further explained the former SYSCO 22
encompasses 4 acres and would remain with the City of Mounds View. It is proposed to be part 23
of the new district minus the 3 acres being deeded by the City back to SYSCO Minnesota. The 24
new District is being created to facilitate the development of Phase 1 for Medtronic business 25
campus. The development agreement has been authorized contingent upon the TIF Plan and is 26
likely to begin in the fall of 2005. 27
28
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated the EDA and Council have determined 29
that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the project for certain TIF qualified projects. 30
Staff recommends the Council adopt Resolution 659A, approving the decertification of parcels 31
from TIF District No. 3 in order to include them in the newly created TIF District No. 5, and 32
Resolution 694B, approving the TIF plan. He noted that at the EDA meeting, parcel #0004 was 33
not decertified so only two parcels would be decertified and put into District #5. 34
35
Brian Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, stated he understood it was pay-as-you-go and asked if 36
Medtronic makes the $14.8 million payment up front and then draws from it. Director Ericson 37
explained Medtronic is making a $100 million investment in the community and up-fronting 38
their development costs. There are approximately $25 million of TIF eligible expenses with this 39
project and there is a development agreement to provide $14.8 million in assistance, representing 40
they will have well in excess of $10 million beyond what is being provided in assistance. 41
42
Mr. Amundsen asked if the $14.8 million is being provided from Medtronic. Director Ericson 43
explained that the $14.8 million provided to Medtronic is coming from the money they pay in 44
property taxes. 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 26
1
Mr. Amundsen asked when the City starts paying interest on the $14.8 million. Mr. Inman 2
explained that Medtronic is required to provide documentation that the dollars have been spent. 3
Once that is established, the payments will start in the first calendar year afterwards. 4
5
Mr. Amundsen asked if interest payment will be paid on the full $14.8 million. Mr. Inman 6
answered in the affirmative. 7
8
Mr. Amundsen noted that the first year when there is a lower property value, the City will be 9
paying $750,000 of interest to Medtronic. Mr. Inman stated the City will only pay an amount 10
equal to 95% of the annual tax increment. So, if it takes them three years, the amount they 11
eventually will get will be less. 12
13
Mr. Amundsen asked where the funds come from to pay the interest. Mr. Inman stated typically 14
the developer carries some of that interest within their own performa or it is part of their overall 15
financing of the $100 million. 16
17
Mr. Amundsen asked where the funding comes from to pay the interest. Mr. Inman stated it 18
comes from available tax increment and if it is not available, they don’t get it. 19
20
Director Ericson explained that there have been TIF accounts in the past where the developer 21
never received the principal back. 22
23
Mayor Marty stated if only the interest is paid, the District could last longer. Director Ericson 24
stated staff and the financial advisors firmly believe this District will pay off early. 25
26
Mayor Marty noted that by Ehler’s reports, the projected interest is $16,947,000 so the project 27
cost total with interest and all qualifying TIF expenses runs roughly $32,700,000. 28
29
Mr. Inman noted by contract the City has limited the pay-as-you-go note to $14,800,000 so these 30
numbers are high because they were based on a higher estimate. He explained they were trying 31
to give the City the most flexibility. 32
33
Mayor Marty closed the Public Hearing at 11:21 p.m. 34
35
Mayor Marty stated there was a lengthy discussion about this at the EDA meeting. 36
37
MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Thomas. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6594A 38
Approving the Removal of Certain Parcels from the EDA’s Tax Increment Financing District 39
No. 3, not to include Sysco Outlot A, Pin #05-30-23-22-0004, which would remain. 40
41
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Marty) Motion carried. 42
43
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Gunn. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6594B, a 44
Resolution Approving the Tax Increment Financing Plan Establishing Tax Increment Finance 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 27
(TIF) District No. 5, a Special-Legislation Economic Development District, within the 1
Redevelopment Project Area, omitting Sysco Outlot A, Pin #05-30-23-22-0004. 2
3
Mayor Marty again stated that this was discussed at length during the EDA meeting and 4
encouraged interested residents to tune in to the EDA meeting broadcast. 5
6
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Marty) Motion carried. 7
8
E. 7:25 p.m. Public Hearing to Consider Resolution 6600 A Transfer of 9
Ownership of an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Jake’s Sports Café 10
located at 2400 Highway 10. Transfer of Ownership is from Mounds View 11
Jake’s Inc., to Stuart Thomas 12
13
Mayor Marty opened the Public Hearing at 11:25 p.m. 14
15
Administrative Assistant Crane explained that Section 502.08 of the City Code requires that a 16
public hearing be held prior to any intoxicating liquor license. The City of Mounds View issued 17
an on-sale intoxicating liquor license for Jake’s Sports Café on June 27, 2005. Thomas Stuart 18
will be acquiring Jake’s Sports Café and will be changing its name to City Tavern. 19
Administrative Assistant Crane advised that Thomas Stuart has submitted the City liquor license 20
application materials (to include the application to stay open until 2 a.m. per Ordinance 717), and 21
the applicable fees. She advised that the transfer of ownership has been delayed so staff is 22
recommending the public hearing held and continued to September 12, 2005. 23
24
Mayor Marty closed the Public Hearing at 11:26 p.m. 25
26
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Thomas. To Postpone the Public Hearing until the applicant’s 27
report from the Minnesota Department of Criminal Apprehension and the applicant’s Certificate 28
of Insurance is received. 29
30
Director Ericson stated he wanted to acknowledge that the City has had a wonderful relationship 31
with the Jacob Brothers, and their facility across the street. They have been a good business 32
owner and worked well with staff. He stated that while the City is sorry to see them leave, they 33
look forward to Mr. Stuart coming to Mounds View. 34
35
Mayor Marty concurred and stated they have corrected snow storage problems, helped with 36
redesign of the corner for sidewalk, turn lanes, established better parking on their site, and been a 37
an outstanding business and neighbor to have. He stated he is sad to see them go. 38
39
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 40
41
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 28
F. Policy for Removal of Nonconforming Street Accesses – Messiah Lutheran 1
Church Case 2
3
Public Works Director Lee reviewed that at the June 6, 2005, Council Work Session, staff 4
presented a request submitted by the Messiah Lutheran Church to have the City remove the head-5
in parking lot located along the west side of Knollwood Drive, just south of County Road H2. 6
As part of the report, staff recommended that should the Council wish to proceed with this 7
request, a policy be created to allow for the City to remove nonconforming street access before 8
performing any work at Messiah Lutheran Church. On June 13, 2005, the Council approved 9
Resolution 6556, which authorized the prohibition of parking on Knollwood Drive. However 10
this has not resolved the problem so another letter was submitted by the Messiah Lutheran 11
Church requesting that the City post “No Parking” signs along both sides of Knollwood Drive 12
from County Road H2, south 360 feet to the south end of their property. Those signs have since 13
been installed. 14
15
Councilmember Flaherty suggested this decision be delayed until after the street improvement 16
project has been determined and approved. 17
18
Public Works Director Lee advised that the church has indicated that cars are still parking head-19
in and backing onto Knollwood Drive. He stated from a legal standpoint, is it in the City’s best 20
interest to remove this non-conforming parking area that is within the City’s right-of-way. 21
22
Councilmember Thomas noted that there is a significant safety concern and asked about the 23
investment of the City’s time and money. 24
25
Public Works Director Lee estimated $1,600 to $1,800. He advised there are limited sight 26
distances and a crosswalk is located near by. 27
28
Mayor Marty stated that he understands there is a safety issue involved but the street 29
improvement may not occur for several years. He stated maybe the City should take out the 30
asphalt and put in black dirt and seed instead of sodding since the street may be redone. 31
32
Councilmember Thomas asked if the church is only asking to have the asphalt removed. Public 33
Works Director Lee stated that is correct and noted the policy, as prepared, would indicate it 34
would also be sodded. However, that can be taken out. He stated if approved, the $1,600 would 35
be funded by the Street Improvement Fund. 36
37
Mayor Marty stated the franchise fee this year has resulted in at least that much money. 38
39
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Stigney. To direct staff to remove the asphalt area and let the 40
church take it from there and to table consideration of the draft a policy until the street 41
reconstruction issue is again discussed. 42
43
Councilmember Flaherty noted that it is illegal for cars to park in this location. Public Works 44
Director Lee clarified that the “No Parking” signs are in the parallel area and the area of concern 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 29
is off the street where they park head-in. 1
2
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Flaherty) Motion carried. 3
4
G. Proposal to Stripe County Crosswalks 5
6
Mayor Marty stated he spoke with County Commissioners Tony Bennett and Jan Wiessner about 7
this today and mentioned that the stripes by the senior housing needs to be repainted. He 8
reported that Commissioner Bennett had indicated County crosswalks are on a time schedule for 9
painting but due to the fact that it is over due and by senior housing, those stripes could be done 10
relatively soon. Mayor Marty stated that he would like this item tabled until the County 11
addresses the other cross walks. In addition, he is concerned about the precedent that would be 12
set if City staff starts painting County crosswalks. 13
14
Councilmember Thomas suggested this topic be discussed again at the September 12, 2005 15
meeting. 16
17
City Administrator Ulrich reported that he spoke with Commissioner Bennett’s assistant who 18
indicated it has been referred to the County Public Works Department. He stated staff will put it 19
on the September 12, 2005 meeting agenda for an update. 20
21
H. Resolution 6601 Awarding a Construction Contract for the Emergency 22
Vehicle Preemption (EVP) Installation Project 23
24
Public Works Director Lee advised that two bids were received and the low bid is from Eagan 25
Companies, Inc. in the amount of $61,095. The City’s engineering consultant had estimated 26
$40,000 and submitted a note of explanation of why, in their opinion, their estimate was off from 27
the quote received. 28
29
Public Works Director Lee stated he is presenting three options for the Council’s consideration: 30
Award the bid to Egan Companies in the amount of $61,095, reject bids and direct staff to re-bid 31
the project, or reject the bids and cancel the project. 32
33
Mayor Marty stated that today he spoke at length with Public Works Director Lee on this subject. 34
He said he had asked who did the job at Rockford and also asked about Ramsey County’s 35
preferred contractors. 36
37
Public Works Director Lee stated Ramsey County reviewed the proposed contractors and 38
developed a list of acceptable contractors for EVP systems. Option 2, to reject and re-bid, could 39
result in getting a bid from a contractor that is not acceptable with Ramsey County and would 40
involve showing justification of why that contractor should be considered. The City’s 41
engineering consultant analyzed the costs to reject and re-bid, and determined there is a 42
possibility of getting a bid of maybe 10% ($6,000) less. The estimated cost to re-bid is about 43
$2,000. Another consideration is a legal issue should the bids be rejected and there happens to 44
be an incident at one of these intersections; would the City have more liability because it decided 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 30
not to proceed. 1
2
Mayor Marty questioned the City’s liability should a squad car hit a vehicle while responding to 3
an emergency. City Attorney Riggs stated there are statutory immunity provisions and also for 4
budgetary considerations such as cost benefit. 5
6
Councilmember Thomas asked if there should be a legal limitation on the bid that it has to be a 7
Ramsey County approved contractor. 8
9
Mayor Marty stated that is just a preference of Ramsey County. He advised that the County 10
estimated $10,000 to $12,000 per intersection. 11
12
Public Works Director Lee stated that is correct and Ramsey County reviewed the quotes of 13
$8,000 per intersection and felt they were very reasonable. 14
15
Councilmember Gunn referenced the Bonestroo letter and noted the factors stated by the 16
consulting engineer are that the Highway 10 intersections in Mounds View are larger than in 17
Rockford, they are overloaded with conduits so wire will have to be pulled, higher traffic 18
volumes on Highway 10 factored more heavily in the cost because it will result in more extensive 19
measures to keep traffic safety effectively controlled, and EVP systems increased in cost by $300 20
to $400 per system. 21
22
City Attorney Riggs stated that staff poses this as a quote process because it was not advertised 23
as a bid. However, the cost is over $50,000 so the safest course is to put it out for bid. 24
25
MOTION/SECOND. Marty/Stigney. To direct staff to bid for the Emergency Vehicle 26
Preemption (EVP) Installation Project. 27
28
Councilmember Thomas asked if the bid document should include the requirement that the 29
bidder be a Ramsey County approved vendor. Then the bid would automatically be approved by 30
Ramsey County. She noted that is no more of a limit than if Ramsey County were doing it 31
themselves. 32
33
Mayor Marty noted if a low bid comes in from a contractor that Ramsey County has had 34
problems with, the City is not obligated to take that bid. 35
36
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 37
38
I. Resolution 6604 Requesting that Ramsey County Install a Signalized 39
Intersection at Silver Lake Road and County Road H 40
41
Mayor Marty stated he talked with County Commissioners Jan Wiessner and Tony Bennett about 42
this issue. Commissioner Wiessner indicated she knew someone who served on the school 43
crossing guard committee and would check into getting crossing guards since this location is 44
about two blocks from Sunnyside School. He stated he had explained the traffic counts and that 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 31
it warranted a stoplight. Commissioner Wiessner indicated that since school starts in several 1
weeks, she would get right on it. Mayor Marty stated Commissioner Bennett explained it was 2
removed from the budget because of cuts. He stated he spoke with both Commissioners about 3
putting the signals in with TIF pool funds, noting an expenditure is needed for TIF funds. He 4
stated Ramsey County could then reimburse Mounds View in the next several years. 5
6
Mayor Marty stated it would be good to send them this resolution since they have a meeting 7
tomorrow night. He stated he also talked with the New Brighton Mayor who indicated they 8
would send a letter since they share County Road H. 9
10
MOTION/SECOND. Marty/Thomas. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6604 11
Requesting that Ramsey County Install a Signalized Intersection at Silver Lake Road and County 12
Road H. 13
14
Councilmember Thomas noted this is only to request the signal. 15
16
Mayor Marty stated this will bring it into the County’s “radar screen” and asked City 17
Administrator Ulrich to contact Commissioner Wiessner or Bennett to see if a resolution and 18
agreement can be reached with Ramsey County. 19
20
Public Works Director Lee stated in discussion with Ramsey County staff it was decided that 21
they would be the lead agency and do construction administration but Mounds View would do 22
the financing. Mayor Marty stated that is correct. 23
24
Mayor Marty stated he also talked with them about possible assistance with the trailway along 25
Silver Lake Road and Commissioner Bennett said Congressman Oberstar got federal funding of 26
$25 million for trailways. Public Works Director Lee will look into that since Mounds View 27
may qualify for matching trailways. 28
29
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 30
31
J. Consider Response to Innovative Images Letter of August 8, 2005 32
33
City Administrator Ulrich reported that in March of 2001, Mr. Linke requested an answer from 34
the City Council by September 5, 2005. He explained the City Attorney has indicated the 35
Council can discuss this matter in executive session since it deals with a threatened law suit. 36
37
Robert Alsop, attorney with Kennedy & Graven, stated they looked at whether this is the type of 38
issue that can go to closed session. He stated courts will generally look at competing principles, 39
attorney client privilege, and the open meeting law. In reviewing this case and the issues before 40
the Council, it was determined it is the type of issue that can go to closed session. Mr. Alsop 41
stated the discussion would be limited to the litigation, settlement demand, and acts of the 42
Council in the past. 43
44
Mayor Marty stated litigation has not been filed. 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 32
1
Mr. Alsop stated this deals with issues that must be discussed confidentially to protect the rights 2
of the City and it also deals with past acts of the Council and the City’s liability based on those 3
past acts. 4
5
City Attorney Riggs suggested Consent Agenda 9.F.1. tem be pulled for a separate action. 6
7
K. Resolution 6605 Adopting an Amended Contract with Canyon Grille for the 8
Lease of Space at the Mounds View Community Center 9
10
City Administrator Ulrich explained that with the proposed remodeling project at City Hall it is 11
recommended that the City administrative staff, with the exception of the Police Department that 12
will relocate to the Ramsey County Sheriff’s facility in Arden Hills, be relocated to the Mounds 13
View Community Center, utilizing space currently occupied by the YMCA and Canyon Grille. 14
The YMCA contracts with the City to provide recreational services. The Canyon Grille leases 15
space from the City comprising of the event center, former community school classrooms, offices 16
and common area. 17
18
City Administrator Ulrich advised that the total amount of space required for City operations at 19
the Community Center is about 4,700 square feet, including common space. Of the total, about 20
72% is space currently leased to Canyon Grille. The City would need to lease the space back 21
from Canyon Grille at a rate to be determined. 22
23
City Administrator Ulrich stated since Canyon Grille is paying rent, it would be in the form of a 24
lease concession. Canyon Grille agreed to pay the contract amount for July and August in the 25
amount of $5,000. He explained that it went from $3,000 the first part of the year to $5,000 on 26
July 1, 2005. The proposal is for the City to give a lease concession of the entire $5,000 amount. 27
That would equal about $12 per square foot. Other space staff inquired about at local shopping 28
centers and the educational building across the road, were quoted at $14.50 per square foot plus 29
utilities. He explained that the advantage of using the Community Center is that the City is 30
already paying the utility costs and the building is wired for computer use with the exception of a 31
T-1 high speed line. 32
33
City Administrator Ulrich noted he had provided the Council with the financials for Canyon 34
Grille and letter outlining their rental rates. He reviewed the rate schedule for the ballroom of 35
$22,969 for seven months plus $3,000 per month for the office space or a total of $43,000 for 36
seven months. At $5,000 per month, it would equal $35,000 over that period of time. The 37
$35,000 cost could be taken from the special projects funds, which is part of the City Hall 38
remodeling expenses. 39
40
City Administrator Ulrich recommended the Council accept this proposal. He stated it may seem 41
high to some Councilmembers but Canyon Grille is looking for some business assistance and this 42
may be the beginning of looking at that contract since this model may not work for the City in 43
the long term. He explained that Canyon Grille needs additional time to get their business on its 44
feet and if they don’t get that additional time to do so, and may cancel the contract. 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 33
1
City Administrator Ulrich recommended that the City Council consider Resolution 6605 2
Adopting an Amended Contract with Canyon Grille for the Lease of Space at the Mounds View 3
Community Center contingent upon the Council awarding bids for remodeling the City Hall. 4
5
Councilmember Flaherty stated this is a lease back to the City so it is not for zero, it is for $5,000 6
a month. He stated he supports staff’s recommendation. 7
8
Councilmember Thomas stated that prior to considering this matter, she had asked for a rent 9
comparison, which she thinks is favorable. She stated she was hopeful in discussion with Mr. 10
Dodds that they would have an indication if their business would be viable in seven month’s time 11
period. For the record, he said he should have an indication at the end of that time. With that 12
assurance, she stated she can support staff’s recommendation. 13
14
Councilmember Stigney stated he believes this is the “beginning of the end” of the banquet 15
operation being handled by Canyon Grille. He stated his concern with this recommendation and 16
asked if the City can give them 100 days notice and then the City has it. 17
18
City Administrator Ulrich stated the downside with that option is that the City would lose a 19
caterer who has provided a good service and if the City wants to give them any opportunity of 20
success. It would also throw the City into the scenario of trying to cover events that are already 21
booked. Financially, the City would be zeroed out anyway but there would be some obligation 22
for future events and the City would have to arrange for a caterer to come in for scheduled 23
events. 24
25
Councilmember Stigney pointed out that Canyon Grille would also pay zero dollars for seven 26
months but get to use the facility for weekends to do their business. He stated he does not 27
support that proposal. 28
29
Mayor Marty stated rents are paid by the day care and Chamber of Commerce, and the City 30
would be paying more rent than any of them. He asked why the City should pay more for their 31
own building, even if it is cheaper than other space checked. He stated it is only $1 a square foot 32
more but it makes more sense for the City to be across the street. 33
34
Councilmember Gunn stated she will support this recommendation because when City staff is 35
there using all the resources it will be less desirable to rent out. 36
37
Councilmember Stigney stated Canyon Grille will have the full use of the space every weekend. 38
39
MOTION/SECOND. Flaherty/Gunn. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6605 Adopting 40
an Amended Contract with Canyon Grille for the Lease of Space at the Mounds View 41
Community Center. 42
43
Councilmember Thomas stated it is somewhat attractive to use vacant space but the cost to the 44
City would be substantial to cover the scheduled events and there would also be less income into 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 34
the Community Enterprise Fund. She noted there had been discussion with him at the work 1
session and whether we were at that stage. The Council had decided to give him a chance and 2
see where we are at in a couple months. 3
4
Councilmember Stigney stated this thing will never work so why not give him 100 or 120 days 5
notice. 6
7
Councilmember Gunn stated she prefers to give Mr. Dodds a chance 8
9
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 10
11
L. Resolution 6606 Resolution Supporting the Improvements to Springbrook 12
Nature Center Associated with the SPRING (Sanctuary Protection & 13
Renewal into the Next Generation) Project and Supporting the Request to 14
the State of Minnesota for Financial Assistance 15
16
Administrative Assistant Crane advised that the voters in the City of Fridley approved a 17
$275,000 referendum in November of 2004 to continue programming and City-paid staff at 18
Springbrook Nature Center. The Springbrook Nature Center is a 127-acre park City of Fridley 19
park that provides year-round opportunities to experience and learn about nature and is an 20
environmental education center that serves school groups, community organizations and families. 21
She advised that the Mayor of Fridley is asking neighboring communities to support the 22
foundation in achieving a State grant by submitting a resolution of support. The Springbrook 23
Nature Center is now making a request for a $2.5 million matching State grant. The Springbrook 24
Nature Center Foundation has initiated a fundraising campaign to complete this matching grant 25
to reach their $5 million goal for capital improvements at Springbrook Nature Center. 26
27
Mayor Marty noted this does not cost Mounds View anything and has been a hard fought fight by 28
area residents. He stated Mounds View residents have also supported it with signs in their lawns. 29
30
MOTION/SECOND. Marty/Thomas. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6606 31
Supporting the Improvements to Springbrook Nature Center Associated with the SPRING 32
(Sanctuary Protection & Renewal into the Next Generation) Project and Supporting the Request 33
to the State of Minnesota for Financial Assistance. 34
35
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 36
37
M. Resolution 6585 Approving a Severance Package for Regular Full-time Golf 38
Course Employees 39
40
City Administrator Ulrich reviewed that this item was previously reviewed by the City Council at 41
the July 5th work session and the August 8th regular session. He stated a question was asked 42
about the flex time balances. He noted the severance provision proposed and sick leave, as 43
outlined in the severance policy, that flex time be allowed to play itself out for each employee 44
and that be their termination date so they will be able to use the flex time. He also propose a 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 35
severance benefit of one weeks pay for each year of service for the three employees involved, 1
which is standard severance for full time employees. He stated the most-cost case for each 2
employee, which will probably not be the case, would work out to $54,000. He noted that 3
amount was in the Medtronic performa. 4
5
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Marty. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6585 Approving 6
A Severance Package For Regular Full-Time Golf Course Employees. 7
8
City Attorney Riggs suggested adding the following: 9
10
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that severance benefits only occur if the Bridges closes in 2005. 11
12
The Council agreed to make this revision. 13
14
MOTION/ Stigney. To amend Resolution 6585 to indicate: “flex time payout would be 15
concurrent with the date of closing and done in cash.” 16
17
Motion died for lack of a second. 18
19
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 20
21
N. Resolution 6608 Approving the Sufficiency of Petition in Opposition 22
Ordinance 760 (Ordinance Authorizing Disposal by Sale of Real Property 23
Owned by the City of Mounds View to the Mounds View Economic 24
Development Authority) 25
26
City Administrator Ulrich advised that staff received a petition on Monday, August 15, 2005, 27
against Ordinance 760, authorizing disposal of the Bridges. He stated the Council adopted 28
Ordinance 760, which will be effective August 19, 2005. He advised that the petition names 29
were put in a data base to determine eligible signatures. Staff also checked each signature on the 30
Ramsey County Registered Voter Master List, which contains all registered voters in Mounds 31
View. Staff then checked all determined Non-Registered voters on the Minnesota Statewide 32
Voter Registration System. He stated there were some issues with legibility and three people 33
looked at those signatures to determine how they fit into the eligibility list. 34
35
City Administrator Ulrich reported that 12 signatures could not be determined due to legibility 36
issues for both the signature and printed name. The petition contained 1,193 signatures, 17 were 37
determined invalid because residence could not be determined, 214 signatures were non-38
registered voters, and 34 signatures were duplicates. The total number of registered voter 39
signatures is 945. City Administrator Ulrich advised the petition needed 989 signatures to 40
receive a ruling of sufficiency in accordance with Section 5.03 of the City Charter. The Charter 41
requires the number of signers be at least 15% for initiative and referendum and for recall, at 42
least 25% of the total number of electors who cast their votes for president at the last presidential 43
election. The last presidential election was in 2004 and 6,597 residents cast their vote. 44
City Administrator Ulrich advised that the City Attorney brought up an argument any person 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 36
eligible to vote may be a valid signer of the petition and not need to be registered. However, the 1
City’s Charter specifically says “registered voter.” Such validation would require additional 2
review and each of the 214 apparent non-registered voters would have to be determined eligible 3
to vote. 4
5
City Administrator Ulrich read the rules for eligibility for voting and stated the City Attorney 6
also issued an opinion dated August 11 that transfer of land as proposed is an administrative 7
function and, therefore, not subject to a petition for referendum. The recommendation is that 8
Council consider and adopt the second version of Resolution 6608 determining sufficiency of 9
referendum petition pursuant to City Charter; finding the referendum question invalid; and 10
declaring that such question shall not be certified for a special election. He stated it indicates that 11
the petition committee would be notified of the insufficiencies of the petition and that the 12
Council would move forward based on this recommendation. 13
14
City Administrator Ulrich stated it is also recommended that following this action, Council adopt 15
Resolution 6581 providing for the transfer of land by resolution. 16
17
City Attorney Riggs explained that subsequent to conversation with City Administrator Ulrich 18
when he was preparing the memorandum, he did further review of the question of registered 19
voters versus eligible voters. He advised that case law in Minnesota is not directly on point but 20
other jurisdictions are on point where it is a requirement of using the actual term “registered 21
voter” at the time the petition is signed. Minnesota case law can be read consistent with that and 22
appears to be the logical reading. He stated he has been in discussion with a number of people to 23
review this issue and that is why the second version of the resolution is being recommended for 24
adoption. 25
26
Mayor Marty asked if the committee is notified if the petition is insufficient and given a period of 27
time to correct the insufficiency. City Attorney Riggs stated that is correct and a period of 30 28
days is allowed. He pointed out that it does not call into question the validity of the question but 29
would go to the question of the validity of the petition. 30
31
Councilmember Gunn suggested, for the aid of the audience members, that City Charter section 32
5.02 be read. The Council agreed so Councilmember Gunn read that section aloud. 33
34
Councilmember Stigney stated it has always been his view and indicated in past legal discussions 35
that the Charter can go beyond what is in State Statute. 36
37
City Attorney Riggs stated in some cases it certainly can but in this situation, with the case law 38
that Minnesota has, the only thing close to interpreting that is what City Administrator Ulrich 39
was discussing. He advised that the Charter clearly says “registered voter.” As the Charter is 40
written, that is consistent with what other States have done where they have had to look 41
specifically at that term “registered voter.” Based on the interpretation for the one specific case 42
in Minnesota, they gave effect to a different term and said it wasn’t a registered voter so that 43
wasn’t required. However, our case is very different because the Charter specifically says 44
“registered voter.” 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 37
1
Councilmember Thomas noted the most recent resolution is not about “registered voters” and 2
addresses that this is not a referendum issue. 3
4
City Administrator Ulrich clarified that the most recent resolution finds the referendum question 5
invalid and the petition itself would be disposed of according to the provisions of the Charter, 6
which has the Council reporting back to the petition committee of the insufficiencies of the 7
petition. 8
9
City Attorney Riggs stated that is correct. 10
11
Mayor Marty noted the most recent resolution says the referendum question is not valid and 12
would not certify the question for election. He asked when the most recent resolution was 13
deemed listed as invalid. City Attorney Riggs stated that has not changed since August 11. He 14
stated this has been reviewed for many hours today, is a minor revision to the resolution 15
contained in the meeting packet, and returns the petition to the committee for action. 16
17
Councilmember Flaherty stated it returns the petition back to the committee for 30 days. City 18
Attorney Riggs answered in the affirmative. 19
20
Councilmember Thomas stated it gives it back to them but here is no chance of action because 21
the referendum question is not valid. City Attorney Riggs stated that is correct. 22
23
Barbara Haake, 3024 County Road I, asked if the City Charter supersedes the State law related to 24
“registered” or “non-registered” voters. She stated that the Charter states “registered voters” but 25
there is some State law that indicates it could be “non-registered” as long as they are eligible and 26
can vote on election day. 27
28
City Attorney Riggs corrected that there is no State law, there is a case that deals with another 29
Charter that uses a very different term. 30
31
Ms. Haake stated there is a case out there that could be quoted and say someone eligible to vote 32
would be accepted. 33
34
City Attorney Riggs stated that is correct in that case, but they were not calling it a registered 35
voters. 36
37
Ms. Haake stated that if the Charter says “registered voters” and is tighter than even the Supreme 38
Court decision, then why wouldn’t it apply also under 12.05 that an ordinance has to be instituted 39
to sell public land. 40
41
City Attorney Riggs stated the case does not say it supercedes. He is saying it has not been 42
addressed and when the Court interpreted that term that existed, they said that isn’t a “registered 43
voter.” However the Charter clearly says “registered voter.” He explained different scenarios 44
where the Charter supercedes and explained that the Charter is only as good as the Legislature 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 38
allows it as well as courts interpret it. 1
2
Ms. Haake stated she understands interpretations can be different and strongly urged the Council 3
to allow a referendum to go ahead. She stated they operated in good faith as to what the Charter 4
said and regulation and law. She suggested the Council represents the citizens and they made a 5
good faith effort to follow the Charter. Ms. Haake stated she even offered to look at the names 6
staff felt were illegible because she collected many of them. She stated she thinks Medtronic will 7
not appreciate the adverse publicity that may be coming because they want to be good neighbors. 8
She noted the petition only asked for the right to vote and is not against anything. Ms. Haake 9
that while she cares about the details, many people have stated they just want Medtronic and 10
don’t really care about the details so the vote may come to naught in November. 11
12
Ms. Haake noted the City still has to do a PUD by ordinance and this could start all over again 13
but having a vote in November would get to the bottom line. She appealed to the Council that it 14
is important to them. Ms. Haake stated that City Attorney Riggs also recommended that 15
Medtronic might sue but she does not think they want that kind of “black mark” against them 16
because it is a David and Goliath issue and she wants “little David to have a chance to make a 17
vote.” 18
19
City Attorney Riggs corrected that he did not recommend that Medtronic sue but indicated it was 20
an option as with any other tax payer. As to the PUD issue, he explained that case cited from 21
1968 be shepardized because the State Legislature adopted the Municipal Land Planning Act in 22
the 1970’s which changed the law substantially and that is what the newer case interprets. 23
24
Ken Glidden, 5240 Edgewood Drive, stated the Council is talking about ways to circumvent the 25
Charter, which is an open vote. He stated that each resident could say it is a good deal for the 26
City or it is not. He asked why the City Attorney, who is a City employee, is spending time 27
searching case law to circumvent that from happening. Mr. Glidden asked what they are doing 28
and if they are afraid of a no vote. He pointed out that the vote could just as likely be a yes. He 29
stated the citizens of this City are asking for an opportunity to vote, want to understand the deal, 30
weigh it, and vote. He stated that is all they are looking for. He stated that staff may find a case 31
law to circumvent that, but what would that do. He urged the Council to let the residents of 32
Mounds View vote. 33
34
Mr. Glidden stated he understands the committee gets the opportunity to correct the insufficiency 35
and he would welcome the opportunity to do that. 36
37
Councilmember Gunn stated a lot of people are talking about complying with the Charter and 38
that is why she read this section aloud. It states that the signatures must be registered voters and 39
even with taking out only the duplicates and invalids, the number is down to 979 valid 40
signatures. She stated the recommended action follows the City Charter. 41
42
Mr. McCarty stated they are not arguing that the petition is sufficient or unregistered voters are 43
not qualified to sign the petition because the Charter is very clear on that issue. He stated that 30 44
years ago he called two of his friends and asked if they would help him circulate a petition to 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 39
have a Charter Commission appointed. He stated that petition resulted in creating the Charter 1
Commission under the guidance of then Judge Rolland Hashee who was Chief Judge at the time. 2
He stated that 15 people came forward and they worked hard, along with the League of 3
Minnesota Cities, and many others, and adopted the Charter on December 7, 1979. Since that 4
time, the Charter has served the City very well. He stated he understands, if challenged, perhaps 5
they wouldn’t win but that would only delay it until the zoning code change. 6
7
Mr. McCarty stated he disagrees with the City Attorney’s opinion that a Supreme Court decision 8
would have been preempted by a lower court or any case law. He stated his concern about the 9
matter of selling land as being an administrative action. He asked if the installation of utilities is 10
an administrative action, noting they probably are since they are not a police or legislative action. 11
He stated the Council can order a storm water project and the Charter says citizens have a right to 12
petition against it. For 30 years the Council has honored those petitions and it’s been to the 13
City’s advantage because it has brought them all to the table and a compromise was found. He 14
stated that regardless of the legal issues, the Charter gives them a point to jump off and find some 15
common ground. 16
17
Mr. McCarty stated if the Council wants to “gut the Charter,” this is the way to do it. He stated 18
the committee does not have money to fight this in court but he would lead a charge to raise the 19
money and go to court if denied the right to petition about an ordinance change. He stated he 20
thinks the Council, if they like a compromise position, has the option in the Charter to call an 21
advisory election. Then the question will be settled once and for all. 22
23
Mr. McCarty asked whether the 400 people contacted by Decision Resources are the leading 24
indicator, or were the 1,200 people contacted by the petition committee. He stated that will not 25
be known unless it is opened to a referendum vote. He stated that all Councilmembers said give 26
us your ideas and let us know what you think. With the community center, it was settled with the 27
advisory election. He asked for the opportunity to debate the facts and then go to the polls and 28
get it over with. 29
30
Dan Hall, 2200 Highway 10, stated he thinks that Mr. McCarty has confused the issues because 31
as Councilmember Gunn read the Charter it is clear, black and white. But, Mr. McCarty is 32
saying that if you now follow the Charter it wrecks the Charter. Mr. Hall stated he is sorry to 33
hear that the City Attorney, who is paid a tremendous amount of money, has been wrong all 34
along, that Ehlers who has been paid $40,000 by the City is wrong, and the Council is wrong. He 35
stated that the group against the selling of the golf course to Medtronic is so vehement that they 36
will stop at nothing. Mr. Hall stated the Council has done their job for the City, done extensive 37
study and research, followed the laws, and it is spelled out that you cannot form a petition against 38
it. In addition, the petition is not sufficient and still Mr. McCarty threatens to sue the City to get 39
enough money to block the PUD. 40
41
Mr. Hall stated this is not a conservative group looking out for what is best for City; they now 42
have a driven agenda. He stated he does not know what their goal is but they have spent money 43
to do it. He asked if they block Medtronic, what do they want, to bankrupt Mounds View. Mr. 44
Hall stated the Council has done their work and the majority has voted on everything in the right 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 40
way. If the Council does not continue to follow the rules, they will become party to the 1
bankrupting of Mounds View. 2
3
Councilmember Gunn asked what is the difference between resolution (2) and the most recent 4
one. City Attorney Gunn answered that the title is clarified but the rest is fairly consistent. 5
6
Jan Brink, 7800 Gloria, stated she will speak loudly because some cannot understand what they 7
are saying. She stated they oppose the proposed contract by Medtronic because of what they are 8
willing to pay and that TIF is not in the best interest of Mounds View. They feel there can be a 9
better deal for Mounds View. Ms. Brink asked for the integrity of the Council to let the citizens 10
vote. 11
12
Ken Danmeyer, 2812 Sherwood, asked who determined that the 200 signatures were not 13
registered voters. He stated he knows that the 30 signatures he got were registered voters. City 14
Administrator Ulrich stated he is charged with making that determination and has detailed notes 15
on which signatures are not valid. 16
17
Mr. Danmeyer asked how that can be challenged. City Administrator Ulrich stated there is a 30-18
day window to challenge the determination. 19
20
Mr. Danmeyer asked if only City Administrator Ulrich did the work. City Administrator Ulrich 21
explained that three staff members worked on it under his supervision. Mr. Danmeyer suggested 22
that City Administrator Ulrich didn’t do the work but signed it. 23
24
Councilmember Thomas cautioned Mr. Danmeyer on his statements about staff and said she 25
knows that City Administrator Ulrich did work on that project. 26
27
Mr. Danmeyer stated that it is the right thing to let this go to a referendum. He stated they could 28
go on and on but he doesn’t want to go down that road. He stated that 1,200 people signed the 29
petition on some hot days and it was not a massive effort, about 30 people collecting signatures. 30
He stated he only got turned down four times and was able to convince many people it was the 31
thing to do. He stated if there is merit to this deal, it can be debated fully and put to a vote, 32
which gets the Council off the hook. He stated he does not accept that the Council has the kind 33
of power to put the City on the hook for 25 years. 34
35
Councilmember Flaherty stated as far as the Council having the power, they were put into these 36
seats by all the residents and the petition is only 15% of the residents. He pointed out that the 37
other 85% of the residents who either did not sign the petition or were not contacted. He noted 38
that the phone survey clearly stated it but the petition committee was not satisfied with that so 39
they decided to bank it on the Charter. However, the question is not valid and there are not 40
enough signatures. 41
42
Stan Meyer stated that a phone survey “doesn’t mean squat” and is completely worthless. 43
44
Councilmember Flaherty asked why the petition is any better. 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 41
1
Mayor Marty stated he does not want that line of discussion to continue. He stated that he knows 2
City Administrator Ulrich and his staff worked very hard on certifying the signatures and if one 3
person couldn’t read it the signature was viewed by others and cross referenced through 4
addresses and utility billing. 5
6
Brian Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, stated he supports a City wide referendum, whether 7
advisory or actual referendum, Primarily because it answers the question by the entire community 8
and is not on the backs of five people. The referendum will say if the City, all residents, really 9
favor this deal. He suggested that case law is very specific to the case and cannot be applied 10
generally to any other case of other situations. Mr. Amundsen noted this came up with the 11
placement of the Ten Commandments; the cases appeared to be the same but came to two 12
different conclusions. 13
14
Mr. Amundsen asked whether, in fact, the ordinance has a legislative component since the 15
ordinance includes both the sale of property as well as approval of TIF Districts, establishment of 16
a taxing mechanism and taxing deferment, which was approved by legislative action by the 17
Legislature. He stated that sufficiency is a measure of the number of registered voters and clearly 18
there appears to not be a sufficient number. That is why there are additional steps allowed to 19
citizens in order to proceed. He stated that is how it should proceed, at this point, for the Clerk 20
Administrator to notify the Council and petition committee of the insufficiency and for the 21
committee to take action. He stated his opinion that the Council should take no action. He stated 22
the Charter Commission is currently working on Chapter 5 to provide additional clarity. 23
24
Mr. McCarty stated assuming that the petition were to be valid and the Council agrees, there is an 25
opportunity to correct the deficiency. He agreed that no decision should be made on the number 26
of qualified voters that would bring this petition in as sufficient. Mr. McCarty stated that it 27
should be decided by all residents after full debate and the opportunity for Medtronic to put their 28
position forward. He stated he thinks as many voters will appear at the polls as appeared at the 29
last general election. Mr. McCarty urged the Council to not “gut the Charter” and stated he can 30
accept stepping back to an advisory referendum to assure the details are worked out. 31
32
Jan Brink asked about the phone survey. Mayor Marty stated it was a City-wide telephone 33
survey and 400 people were involved. He stated that she can get a copy of the survey if she’d 34
like. 35
36
Ms. Brink asked if the respondents were certified registered voters. 37
38
Councilmember Flaherty explained the survey was just one of the many tools that were used in 39
the Council’s decision making process. Other tools included talking with Ehlers, discussion with 40
staff, and several meetings held to accept public input, which was the most important. 41
42
Ms. Brink stated she is concerned their opinion is more important to the Council than those who 43
signed the petition. 44
45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 42
An audience member stated he thinks this is a “David and Goliath” situation and Mounds View 1
is David. He stated that Mounds View got snuckered by Medtronic and asked who did the 2
negotiations. He asked why this was not open to a competitive marketplace sale and why one 3
entity was allowed to come in and also triple the average TIF District life by throwing money at 4
the school district and paying for some fireworks. He stated it is a competitive marketplace but 5
he knows there are some golf course haters who want to get rid of it no matter what. 6
7
An audience member asked about the streets and when something will be done. He stated he is a 8
believer in the Council and Mayor doing their jobs but the Charter has given the opportunity and 9
if the Charter made a mistake the matter should be turned over to the voters and let them make 10
the decision. He stated Medtronic is a great company but he thinks they took advantage of 11
Mounds View. He urged the Mayor and Council to go into the neighborhoods and tell their 12
constituents about the terms of the contract. He stated he would prefer Medtronic to the golf 13
course but wants it done right and falling over for the first offer doesn’t get it. 14
15
Joan Dofney, 7801 Gloria Circle, stated it is a great project and will cost a lot of money. She 16
stated she went out to get signatures on the petition and found it was an easy job. She stated she 17
was blown away by the number of people willing to sign and does not think there is anything to 18
fear to let people vote. She felt if the City could get more money from Medtronic for the City 19
that would be great, noting that Medtronic has a lot of money. Ms. Dofney stated if they get to 20
vote, a lot of people will come to the voting booth. 21
22
Mary Kay Walsh stated if they get 30 days to remedy the petition they will do that. She thinks it 23
is valid to have a petition because the Charter says they can have a referendum on the sale of 24
land. She stated if they need more names, they will get them and asked for the opportunity to get 25
those names in the next 30 days. 26
27
MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Gunn. To adopt Resolution 6608 Determining the Sufficiency of 28
Referendum Petition Pursuant to City Charter; Finding the Referendum Question Invalid; and 29
Declaring that Such Question Shall Not be Certified for a Special Election. 30
31
Councilmember Stigney read the resolution in full. 32
33
Councilmember Flaherty asked the City Attorney whether the passing of the resolution allows the 34
petition committee to rectify the petition. City Attorney Riggs responded that they can do so to 35
make the petition sufficient but that does not mean the petition is valid based his legal opinion 36
dated August 11, 2005. Councilmember Flaherty asked if they still have recourse. City Attorney 37
Riggs stated they do have that option under the Charter provision. 38
39
Councilmember Thomas stated she does not want to offer false hope because there is no 40
recourse. She stated this is a deliberate action that she has agonized more over than the actual 41
sale itself. She stated she does not have to worry about the sale, she made that decision. The 42
difference of opinion is whether the City got the best deal and she does feel they got a fabulous 43
deal and the best one this Council could negotiate. 44
45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 43
Councilmember Thomas stated she is a member of the Charter Commission, knows every word 1
of Chapter 5 intimately, and worked untold hours on the language to try to correct the errors that 2
she and Mr. McCarty know are weak spots that 30 years ago no one could have envisioned. She 3
stated that in another 30 years there may be problems that today the Charter Commission cannot 4
possibly envision in how it is worded. Councilmember Thomas explained that it comes down to 5
all those extra things and taken aside, it is not about “is it a good deal.” Two hundred some 6
petitioners are not registered but she has every faith they could come up with more than enough 7
signatures given the opportunity. 8
9
Councilmember Thomas stated she has to decide that whether defending the Charter, which she 10
works on every month to be the best representation and uphold the rights of the citizens to act in 11
their government, is this the place that they can and/or should act. And, regardless of what we 12
would like to give as a power to residents, some powers are taken away by the State. She stated 13
she knew it would start to become a problem and had coffee with Brian Amundsen for three 14
hours. She explained that Mr. Amundsen sits on the Charter Commission with her and both 15
knew of the weakness in the Charter and whether or not this would be eligible for a referendum. 16
Chapter 5 does not have that language and does not address the problem of an administrative 17
action versus a legislative one. 18
19
Councilmember Thomas stated the Council has the City Attorney’s legal opinion. She asked 20
what if the situation were reversed and the City had property they wanted to purchase; would the 21
City go through all of this. She stated the City does not. The Council does it on a regular basis 22
and despite all the arguments about what is the proper property to purchase, whatever the 23
dealings of the City, we know it is an administrative action done by this body with all deliberate 24
care and thought put in to it. However, it is the Council’s responsibility to make that choice. 25
Councilmember Thomas stated she cannot get away from the fact that regardless of the 26
extraneous details that go around it, this is the sale of a property. It is the City’s responsibility to 27
make the best judgment it can and it’s a fully administrative action. She stated that she cannot 28
come to any other conclusion. 29
30
Councilmember Thomas stated for the record that an RFP is not the standard way for a city to 31
ever sell property. Especially if they want to have any choice in the development which is 32
Mounds View’s goal, to get the best development they can get. 33
34
Councilmember Thomas stated she was not 100% sure that she had made up her mind until 35
listening to this discussion. She stated she thinks referendums are allowed but in this case does 36
not think it is allowed. 37
38
Councilmember Flaherty stated the reason he asked the attorney if there is recourse on the 39
petition is because he said he was all in favor of petition and it was a mechanism for citizens to 40
use. He stated he previously indicated that he would not stop the petition based on a legality. He 41
stated he disagrees with the petition because it was based on misinformation, and people who 42
signed were not given all the information. However, he stands by his conviction and will do 43
what he said he would do. 44
45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 44
Councilmember Thomas stated she thinks Ken Danmeyer’s comments deserve to be addressed 1
specifically. She stated no one is trying to circumvent the process, noting there were other 2
options to circumvent the process but the Council has not taken those options. She stated that 3
she felt Ken Danmeyer’s comments had to be answered and clarified that it is not the City 4
Attorney’s job to find ways for the Council to circumvent the process. The City Attorney’s job is 5
to give the Council as much information as is available and on all sides. She noted the Council 6
could have circumvented the process with a resolution but she was clear with staff that this issue 7
had to be addressed by this Council and not through a resolution, which they could have done. 8
9
Mayor Marty stated that unlike other members, he does not think this is a fabulous deal but it is a 10
deal and on paper. He stated he does not think it is the best deal that Mounds View could have 11
gotten and that Mounds View could have negotiated harder for a shorter time period and more 12
money. Then it would have been more workable. He stated the biggest complaint is the amount 13
of time, the 25 year TIF District. Mayor Marty stated he has heard about that over and over 14
because many residents will never see the benefit of it. He noted that staff and consultants have 15
said it will pay off sooner but he will believe it when he sees it. With regard to the petition 16
process, Mayor Marty stated the sale of the property, getting MnDOT to remove the restrictions, 17
and the testimony at the Capitol may not be called “administration” and he believes it was 18
legislation and involves a legislative act. He noted the Charter says the sale of City property is 19
to be done by ordinance. 20
21
Mayor Marty reviewed that last spring citizens used the Charter to circulate a petition to stop a 22
street development project for this year. He stated this Council unanimously deemed the petition 23
valid. He asked if that is legislative or administrative. 24
25
City Attorney Riggs advised it is legislative and under a different statute. 26
27
Mayor Marty stated he has been supportive of the referendum for a long time and approached by 28
several developers personally indicating they were interested in the golf course property but 29
Medtronic got the inside track and then held the only track in the race. He stated he did feel this 30
should have gone to a referendum, is disappointed, and feels this is a loss to citizens. 31
32
Councilmember Stigney thanked Councilmember Thomas for the way she stated her opinions on 33
the issues she has been wrestling with on this issue. With regard to the Charter, Councilmember 34
Stigney stated he has been a member for 8 years, firmly believes in the City Charter, and watches 35
every meeting. He stated he discusses Charter issues with Mr. Werner, a founding father of the 36
City Charter, as is Duane McCarty. He stated there are problems in the Charter, as Mr. McCarty 37
knows. 38
39
Councilmember Stigney pointed out that the City Attorney issued an early opinion that you 40
cannot petition against the sale. He noted there are other problems with the Charter such as with 41
recall and term limits. He stated that he is supportive of giving residents rights but there are 42
problems with the Charter. With respect to whether the City could get a better deal, maybe but 43
maybe not. He stated he couldn’t disagree more with those who talk about land values being 44
somewhere else because it has nothing to do with the action the Council is considering. 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 45
1
Councilmember Stigney noted that getting $5 million cash could add $250,000 a year for the next 2
20 years to offset the tax base. At that point the Medtronic’s project will be over and then it will 3
bring in $1 million a year. He stated as much as he respects the attempt to oppose, he thinks they 4
are all on the “wrong page” and no one has convinced him to the contrary. He stated he asks 5
what could be better but no one has an answer to that so he is a Councilmember who is proud to 6
vote for it. 7
8
Ayes-4 Nay-1 ( Marty) Motion carried. 9
10
Councilmember Gunn read into the record the e-mail statement submitted by John Murphy, 11
resident of Mounds View. 12
13
(1) Resolution 6581 City of Mounds View Resolution Authorizing Sale of 14
City of Mounds View Property to the Mounds View Economic 15
Development Authority 16
17
Community Development Director Ericson stated the City Attorney recommends that action be 18
taken on this item. 19
20
Mr. McCarty stated when we first began discussion about getting a better exchange of ideas, they 21
went on the long-standing precedent that they were honored by the Council and sought out 22
guidance from staff to assure the petition was in the correct form. He noted Ordinance 760 23
references the validity of Chapter 12.05 of the City Charter and was adopted and put in place 24
accordingly. He stated there are many reasons and precedents we could consider. Mr. McCarty 25
asked those who do not want this to go to the voters, what strikes fear in their heart to have 26
residents vote on this issue. He asked if we are so full of ourselves that we don’t want them to 27
vote. He again asked what is the fear to let residents vote 28
29
Councilmember Flaherty stated it does not “strike fear in him” and he has said all along he has 30
no problem with the petition if that is what the people want to do, they should be able to do that. 31
He noted the Council just voted on the sufficiency because there were not enough signatures and 32
the question is invalid. He stated he asked the City Attorney if there was recourse and the answer 33
was yes, there is recourse. He stated he is not afraid of the resident’s vote. 34
35
Mr. McCarty stated there is no recourse other than going to court. 36
37
City Attorney Riggs stated they have the ability to challenge, go to court, or come up with a 38
different opinion. He stated there are other ways to approach this and he is sure they have 39
explored those options. 40
41
Mr. McCarty stated the only recourse is to go to court and it is unseemly to him that they would 42
have to go to court and fight their own money with their own money. He stated the Council can 43
embrace the democratic process by an advisory election and not endanger the City’s position. He 44
stated that to just throw out a document that has been rallied around for years is just not right and 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 46
in his opinion the Council’s action just “gutted the Charter.” 1
2
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated the City has adopted ordinances from time 3
to time when certain property has been conveyed from the City to the EDA. The City Attorney’s 4
August 11, 2005 letter indicates that State law allows the City to convey property without regard 5
to City Charter provisions. Minnesota State Statute 471.64 authorizes the City to enter into a 6
contract for the sale of real property to another political subdivision without regard to Charter 7
provisions. Although the City Council complied with the Charter and adopted an ordinance 8
authorizing the conveyance, the Statute provides authority for the Council to adopt a resolution 9
authorizing staff to finalize conveyance of the property to the EDA. Staff recommends the 10
Council adopt the draft resolution which would convey the property known as the Bridges Golf 11
Course to the Mounds View EDA. 12
13
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Stigney. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6581 14
Authorizing Sale of City of Mounds View Property to the Mounds View Economic Development 15
Authority 16
17
Mayor Marty stated his belief that taking this action is a blatant way to circumvent the Charter 18
since the sale of land is to be done by ordinance. However, to pass a resolution conveying this 19
property seems like over-kill or like someone is worried about this stopping and wanting to make 20
sure residents don’t have the opportunity to vote. 21
22
Councilmember Gunn stated the EDA has handled all the land buying and selling and it has not 23
been done through the Council. She stated this is no different. 24
25
Councilmember Thomas stated she was firmly against doing this by resolution because it needed 26
to be done by ordinance. Now the Council has done it by ordinance so it is not circumventing 27
anything. She stated this vote is the hardest thing she has ever had to do in her life. She stated 28
she was very firm in conversations with staff that until that stand was made, this was off the 29
table. Now this is a matter of paperwork, involves no change, or change in the process. She 30
noted there have been discussions and the public has been dealt with in a way that was 31
honorable. Councilmember Thomas reiterated that this is just paperwork. 32
33
Mayor Marty stated he begs to differ with the opinion that this is just paperwork. He noted it was 34
petitioned and deemed invalid but why duplicate the process with a resolution just to ensure that 35
all the bases are covered. He stated that seems to him to be over kill. 36
37
Councilmember Thomas stated it probably is and she does not know that it will serve any more 38
benefit than action already taken but it is staff’s recommendation so she will support it. 39
40
Councilmember Stigney stated he agrees with Councilmember Thomas and does not want to 41
leave any loopholes open that may delay this development. 42
43
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Marty) Motion carried. 44
45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 47
Ms. Haake stated that a Councilmember remarked earlier it was known that an ordinance wasn’t 1
the right thing. She asked why it was even allowed and for them to follow it through with what 2
they thought was the City Charter. 3
4
Councilmember Thomas stated that she knew this might be a problem because she was familiar 5
with this issue, with some of the administrative questions, so she knew this issue was going to 6
come up. However, she did not know what the Council was going to decide, what the City 7
Attorney was going to come down to, or what the final decision will come down to. 8
9
Ms. Haake asked City Attorney Riggs why he did not advise the Council earlier about this issue. 10
City Attorney Riggs stated he did so on July 11. 11
12
Ms. Haake asked why he didn’t then inform all the citizens so they didn’t go to all the effort. 13
City Attorney Riggs stated it was a preliminary opinion and was moot depending on the petition. 14
He stated that when the petition came out he said immediately that the question was an issue. In 15
addition relative to the PUD, he also cited a case and suggested they check that case. However, 16
Ms. Haake referred to a different case that existed before the Legislature adopted the Municipal 17
Land Planning Act and Chapter 462. 18
19
Ms. Haake stated she believes there was a disservice made to the citizens because something was 20
not definitely said. She said she really appreciates the petition circulators and the Council should 21
too. She stated it is everyone’s first amendment right to vote on something and she is sorry the 22
Council did not let them carry through with it. She stated the PUD is to be a zoning code 23
ordinance so it will come around to be another ordinance. 24
25
Ms. Haake stated she will not spend money on court cases but will spend shoe leather. She 26
stated she wants to be sure we do have the right to vote and believes the City could get a better 27
price on the land and that the TIF District didn’t have to be 25 years. However, that’s opinion 28
and she appreciates where the Council is coming from. 29
30
Councilmember Stigney stated the TIF district with Medtronic is for 25 years and that seems to 31
be a big problem. However, every TIF District in Mounds View is a 25 year TIF district. 32
33
O. Resolution 6609 Approving the Hire of Heidi Heller to the Position of 34
Planning Associate in the Community Development Department 35
36
Community Development Director Ericson reviewed that on June 13, 2005, the City Council 37
authorized staff to advertise for the vacant planning associate position in the Community 38
Development Department. Staff received almost 50 applications, interviewed five candidates, 39
and made an offer of employment to Heidi Heller contingent upon Council approval and 40
satisfactory background checks. Ms. Heller would start at Step 1, which is $36,982 and begin 41
employment on August 29, 2005, pending satisfactory background check. 42
43
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Flaherty. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6609 44
Approving the Hire of Heidi Heller to the Position of Planning Associate in the Community 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 48
Development Department. 1
2
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 3
4
P. Resolution 6610 Authorization to Advertise for the Cable Tech Position 5
6
MOTION/SECOND. Marty/Flaherty. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6610 7
Authorization to Advertise for the Cable Tech Position. 8
9
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 10
11
7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 12
13
Mayor Marty referenced the last page, Kennedy & Graven, tracking of reimbursements from 14
outside parties, noting the Waldock Minor Subdivision and Meyer/HolmBurg Minor Subdivision 15
can be removed because they are paid off. He asked Director Ericson to call Ernie Gustafson for 16
the remaining $27 so it can also be closed. 17
18
Director Ericson stated if so directed he will make that telephone call, however, he does not think 19
Mr. Gustafson will be cooperative in making payment and recommended that amount be written 20
off. 21
22
Council consensus was reached to direct staff to write off the $27. 23
24
Councilmember Stigney noted the charge of $90.53 on Page 8 for freeway towing and asked if 25
the City will get reimbursed for that amount. Police Chief Sommer stated he does not have an 26
answer on that reimbursement but will find out. 27
28
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Gunn. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as Presented. 29
30
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 31
32
9. CONSENT AGENDA 33
34
A. Resolution 6602 Adopting the Countywide Emergency Operations Plan 35
B. Resolution 6607 Resolution Approving a Restaurant License for Caribou 36
Coffee located at 2585 Highway 10 37
C. Resolution 6611 Approving an Agreement with Ms. Susan Huston to Provide 38
Interim Cable Coordinator Services 39
D. Resolution 6603 Authorizing the Renewal of a Training Contract with 40
Century College 41
E. Resolution 6612 Approving a Tobacco and a Restaurant License for City 42
Tavern located at 2400 Highway 10 in Mounds View This item was removed. 43
F. Executive Session immediately following this City Council meeting: 44
1. To Discuss Threatened Lawsuit and Demand Letter of Innovative Images 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 49
Dated August 8, 2005 This item was removed for a separate vote. 1
2. To Discuss the City Administrator’s Annual Performance Review This 2
item was removed. 3
4
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Flaherty. To Approve the Consent Agenda as presented. 5
6
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 7
8
F. Executive Session immediately following this City Council meeting: 9
1. To Discuss Threatened Lawsuit and Demand Letter of Innovative Images 10
Dated August 8, 2005 11
12
City Attorney Riggs acknowledged that Mr. Robert Alsop discussed this matter as Agenda Item 13
8J and set forth reasons for the understanding to deal with this matter in a closed session in 14
response to a litigation matter. 15
16
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Stigney. To Approve Holding an Executive Session immediately 17
following this City Council meeting to discuss Threatened Lawsuit and Demand Letter of 18
Innovative Images dated August 8, 2005. 19
20
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 21
22
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 23
24
A. July 11, 2005 City Council Meeting Minutes 25
26
The following corrections were requested: 27
28
• Page 2, Line 13, should read: “wondering if perhaps the value statement, in its entirety, has 29
been set aside in our” 30
• Page 3, Line 23, should read: “Councilmember Thomas explained that the City did not set a 31
precedent. This is how a City” 32
• Page 11, Line 1, should read: “better deal than what was discussed in New Brighton.” 33
34
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Thomas. To Approve the July 11, 2005 Special City Council 35
Meeting Minutes as amended. 36
37
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 38
39
11. REPORTS 40
41
A. Reports of Mayor and Council 42
43
Council Member Gunn stated she will report on the Festival in the Park at the next meeting. 44
45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 50
B. Staff 1
2
Director Ericson advised that the third installment of the New Brighton Area Historical Society 3
book is available for purchase at the New Brighton City Hall and the Historical Society. He 4
stated it also contains a lot of interesting information and pictures about Mounds View. 5
6
Councilmember Thomas asked when the first meetings will be held at the Community Center. 7
City Administrator Ulrich stated it will be the first meeting in October. Councilmember Thomas 8
asked that the Commissions who meet in this chambers also be notified. 9
10
Councilmember Gunn stated she will present the Library Task Force report at the work session. 11
12
1. Police Department 2nd Quarter Report 13
14
Police Chief Sommer presented the 2nd Quarter Report and advised they are partnering with the 15
New Brighton Police Department for the Save and Sober Grant, which is currently under review. 16
17
Councilmember Flaherty referred to a resident letter commending Officer Kampa and stated it is 18
always nice to see that recognition. 19
20
Mayor Marty stated he is still getting calls about speeding vehicles and has been thanked when 21
the radar trailer is in use. He stated he is glad it also checks data and advised that Public Works 22
Director Lee mentioned a speed issue on Mounds View Drive. Mr. Lee would like to see officers 23
make more traffic stops because he believes it is more effective than installing speed limit signs. 24
He asked Police Chief Sommer to pass the Council’s appreciation on to the Police Officers. 25
26
Councilmember Thomas stated she has seen an officer patrolling Highway 10 on three different 27
occasions. 28
29
2. Work Session Agenda for Tuesday, September 6, 2005 30
31
Acknowledged. 32
33
C. Reports of City Attorney 34
35
None. 36
37
12. Next Council Work Session: Tuesday, September 6, 2005 38
Next Council Meeting: Monday, September 12, 2005 39
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 51
1
13. ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION 2
3
The meeting recessed to an Executive Session to discuss and consider a response to the 4
Innovative Images letter of August 8, 2005 at 2:13 a.m. 5
6
Transcribed and recorded by: 7
8
9
Carla Wirth 10
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 11
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Executive Session
Date: 08/22/05
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
Time: 9:08 pm
1. 2:15am (08/23/05) EXECUTIVE SESSION IS CALLED TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL:
Mayor Marty, Council Members Gunn, Flaherty, Stigney and Thomas. City
Administrator Kurt Ulrich, City Attorneys Scott Riggs and Robert Alsop
3. DISCUSS THREATENED LITAGATION
The City Council and City Staff discussed threatened litigation by Innovative
Images, LLC. as outlined in a letter to the City dated August 8, 2005. The City
Council consensus was to have the City Administrator continue negotiations
toward a possible settlement.
4. 2:48am (08/23/05) MEETING ADJOURNED
Respectfully Submitted:
Kurt Ulrich
City Administrator
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Executive Session
Date: 09/06/05
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
Time: 9:08 pm
1. 10:30pm EXECUTIVE SESSION IS CALLED TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL:
Mayor Marty, Council Members Gunn, Flaherty, Stigney and Thomas. City
Administrator Kurt Ulrich, City Finance Director Mark Beer, City Attorney
Robert Alsop
3. DISCUSS THREATENED LITAGATION
The City Council and City Staff reviewed a proposed settlement agreement and
discussed threatened litigation by Innovative Images, LLC. as outlined in a letter
to the City dated August 8, 2005. The City Council consensus was to have the
City Administrator present the settlement agreement to the Council for
consideration on September12, 2005. The Finance Director and City Attorney
left the meeting at this time.
4. CITY ADMINISTRATOR ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW
The City Council reviewed and discussed the annual performance review for the
City Administrator. Each member completed evaluation forms with comments
that will be included in the employee’s personnel file. The consensus opinion was
that the City Administrator has satisfactorily performed the duties of the position.
5. 11:00pm MEETING ADJOURNED
Respectfully Submitted:
Kurt Ulrich
City Administrator
Item No. 11B(1)
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: Desaree Crane, Administrative Assistant
Item Title/Subject: Library Town Meetings
Meeting Date: September 12, 2005
The following below was sent by Ramsey County as a Press Release. Please announce this at
tonight’s meeting.
Residents' Contribution Wanted
Residents from Arden Hills, Mounds View, New Brighton and St. Anthony are invited to
attend a Town Hall meeting to share their thoughts regarding library services in the
northwest quadrant of Ramsey County.
Meetings will be conducted:
· Thursday, September 15
Mounds View Community Center, 5394 Edgewood Drive.
7 p.m.
· Tuesday, September 20
Arden Hills City Hall, 1245 West Highway 96
7 p.m.
· Wednesday, September 28
New Brighton Family Center, 400 10th Street
7 p.m.
In preparing a presentation, please consider the following questions:
1. What is the appeal of a small library?
2. What is the appeal of a large library?
3. Which do you prefer and why?
4. What are the criteria that should be used in determining where a library should
be located?
5. What types of organizations or amenities would be good partners in a library in the
northwest area?
6. How would you suggest funding your preference for library service?
7. What other issues should be considered by the Task Force?
Meetings are open to the public and everyone is invited. To schedule your presentation,
please call Kristi Saksvig at 651-486-2208. Walk-ins will be welcome.