HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2005/08/22CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
Monday, August 22, 2005
7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, Thomas
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC INPUT:
Citizens may speak to issues not on tonight’s agenda. Before speaking, please give
your full name and address for the minutes. Also, please limit your comments to
three minutes.
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
A. Presentation by Northwest Youth and Family Services to discuss their services
offered.
7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. 7:05 pm: Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6590 Approving a PUD
Amendment for SYSCO Minnesota to Expand Their Facility at 2400 Co. Road J
(Ericson)
B. 7:10 pm: Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6591 Approving the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the SYSCO Minnesota Facility Expansion
(Ericson)
C. 7:15 pm: Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6592 Approving the
General Concept Plan of the Medtronic Planned Unit Development (Ericson)
D. 7:20 pm: Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6594A, a Resolution
Approving the Removal of Certain Parcels from the EDA’s Tax Increment Financing
District No. 3 and Resolution 6594B Approving the Tax Increment Financing Plan
Establishing Tax Increment Finance (TIF) District No. 5, a Special-Legislation
Economic Development District, within the Redevelopment Project Area. (Backman)
E. 7:25pm Public Hearing to Consider 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 Stuart Thomas.
F. Policy for Removal of Nonconforming Street Accesses – Messiah Lutheran Church
Case
G. Proposal to Stripe County Crosswalks.
H. Resolution 6601 Awarding a Construction Contract for the Emergency Vehicle
Preemption (EVP) Installation Project
I. Resolution 6604 Requesting that Ramsey County Install a Signalized Intersection at
Silver Lake Road and County Road H
J. Consider Response to Innovative Images Letter of August 8, 2005
K. Resolution 6605 Adopting an Amended Contract with Canyon Grille for the Lease of
Space at the Mounds View Community Center
City Council Meeting
August 22, 2005
Page 2
8. CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS CONT…
L. Resolution 6606 Resolution Supporting the Improvements to Springbrook Nature
Center Associated with the SPRING (Sanctuary Protection & Renewal into the Next
Generation) Project and Supporting the Request to the State of Minnesota for
Financial Assistance.
M. Resolution 6585 Approving a Severance Package for Regular Full-time Golf Course
Employees
N. Resolution 6608 Approving the Sufficiency of Petition in Opposition Ordinance 760
(Ord Authorizing Disposal by Sale of Real Property Owned by the City of Mounds
View to the Mounds View Economic Development Authority)
(1) Resolution 6581 City of Mounds View Resolution Authorizing Sale of City of
Mounds View Property to the Mounds View Economic Development Authority
O. Resolution 6609 Approving the Hire of _________ to the Position of Planning
Associate in the Community Development Department.
P. Resolution 6610 Authorization to Advertise for the Cable Tech Position.
9. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Resolution 6602 Adopting the Countywide Emergency Operations Plan.
B. Resolution 6607 Resolution approving a Restaurant License for Caribou Coffee
located at 2585 Highway 10.
C. Resolution 6611 Approving an Agreement with Ms. Susan Huston to Provide Interim
Cable Coordinator Services
D. Resolution 6603 Authorizing the Renewal of a Training Contract with Century
College
E. Resolution 6612 Approving a Tobacco and a Restaurant License for City Tavern
located at 2400 Highway 10 in Mounds View.
F. Executive Session immediately following this City Council meeting:
1. To Discuss Threatened Lawsuit and Demand Letter of Innovative Images Dated
August 8, 2005
2. To Discuss the City Administrator’s Annual Performance Review
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. July 11, 2005 City Council Meeting Minutes
11. REPORTS
A. Reports of Mayor and Council
B. Reports of Staff
1. Police Department 2nd Quarter Report
2. Work Session Agenda for Tuesday, September 6, 2005.
C. Reports of City Attorney
12. Next Council Work Session: Tuesday, September 6, 2005
Next Council Meeting: Monday, September 12, 2005
Item No: 8A & 8B
Meeting Date: August 22, 2005
Type of Business: Public Hearing
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Public hearing, Review and Consideration of a PUD
Amendment and Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
Accommodate an Expansion of SYSCO Minnesota;
Planning Cases PA2005-002 and CP2005-001
Introduction:
SYSCO Minnesota, represented by Phil Seipp, its president, is requesting approval of an
amendment to expand the SYSCO PUD site by approximately three acres to accommodate
an additional 100 vehicle parking stalls, 50 truck parking stalls and a widened, relocated
access road to the east of the building. In addition, SYSCO is requesting that the three acres
of land to be transferred from the City to SYSCO be redesignated from OSP (Passive Open
Space) to HI (Heavy Industrial.)
Discussion:
The City originally approved the SYSCO Planned Unit Development in 1989 and at the same
time approved SYSCO’s major subdivision which created their lot and Outlot A, which was
then deeded to the City for future parkland, open space or other public use. The Outlot
comprises almost 46 acres and since the original land transfer, most of the land has been left
natural. A small triangle of land adjacent at its southeast corner was utilized with the
construction of the Bridges Golf Course. As indicated in the attached project narrative,
approximately three acres of land would be transferred back to SYSCO to accommodate the
proposed expansions. The additional space would provide SYSCO, which is essentially built-
out to the maximum potential on its existing lot, the ability to improve efficiencies and expand
their workforce by about 100 employees over the course of five years.
In addition to the PUD Amendment and Comp Plan Amendment, there would need to be a
major subdivision undertaken to create the lot to be deeded back to SYSCO. The proposal
would involve the relocation of the SYSCO stormwater management pond which would
necessitate a Mounds View Wetland Alteration Permit as well as a permit from the Rice
Creek Watershed District (RCWD) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). All
costs associated with the SYSCO request would be paid by SYSCO. Finally, the zoning of
the three-acre parcel to be created, currently “Industrial,” would be amended to be consistent
with the SYSCO designation of “PUD”.
SYSCO Report
Aug 22, 2005
Page 2
PUD Amendment
The amendment process for a Planned Unit Development is fairly straightforward. In this
case, the only amendment being considered is essentially an expansion of the site itself. No
changes in usage are being contemplated by this expansion. An amendment to the
development agreement would be prepared that would identify and assign any maintenance
issues associated with the relocated stormwater pond, potential access issues for the City to
the remainder of the SYSCO Outlot land, mitigation responsibilities and other issues.
Resolution 6590 is attached for the Council’s consideration which approves the PUD
Amendment and amendment to Mounds View Development Agreement No. 89-87.
Comp Plan Amendment
A community’s Comprehensive Plan is its principal guiding document which is adopted to
provide goals and policies dealing with land usage, housing, infrastructure, public facilities,
transportation, economic development and intergovernmental coordination. The future land
use map (FLU Map) is but one of the many maps, tables and exhibits in the Comp Plan
which together help determine and control how a community grows and develops. The
Comp Plan is a fluid document, in other words it is not intended to be rigid and static. As the
Community grows and develops, so too should the Comp Plan. As such, there is an
amendment process to make such periodic updates as may be necessary to keep the Comp
Plan fresh and relevant based on changing desires and expectations.
SYSCO has applied for such a Comp Plan amendment which suggests a redesignation of
the three-acre parcel proposed for transfer from the City to SYSCO from Passive Open
Space (OSP) to Heavy Industrial (HI.) The redesignation would seem appropriate as it would
be joined with the existing SYSCO parcel currently designated Heavy Industrial. The City
needs to review potential adverse effects of proposed or requested amendments. In this
case, no adjoining property owner would be affected or impacted, other than the City who
owns the 46-acre property. There would be an impact to the site by virtue of proposed
wetland mitigation resulting from the relocated driveway and relocated stormwater
management pond. The Economic Development Authority (the EDA) at their meeting on July
11, 2005, recommended that if the amendments and land transfer occur, that mitigation be
done immediately adjacent to the affected area rather than creating new wetland off-site.
The consultant working for the applicant has prepared a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
application package that will be submitted to the Metropolitan Council upon approval by the
City. The application (attached, labeled “Community Profile and Background”) will also be
forwarded to the cities of Blaine and Shoreview, the counties of Ramsey and Anoka, Rice
Creek Watershed District (RCWD) and the Minnesota Department of Transportation
(MnDOT).
Staff and the Planning Commission believe the proposed Comp Plan amendment is
reasonable and supports a recommendation of approval. Resolution 6591 is available for the
Council’s consideration and approval.
SYSCO Report
Aug 22, 2005
Page 3
Public Hearing
A duly noticed public hearing has been scheduled for this meeting as well as the Planning
Commission’s meeting on August 3, 2005. Staff was contacted by only one resident who
lives south of Highway 10 wondering if the expansion would bring in more trucks and more
noise to the site. Staff reviewed the plan with the resident and explained that the additional
vehicle and truck parking would be occurring on the east and southeast side of the building.
The expansion may result in less noise affecting residents south of Highway 10 as there
would be less unnecessary and redundant maneuvering of the trucks.
Recommendation:
Hold the public hearings, review and discuss the SYSCO PUD amendment and the
Comprehensive Plan amendment. Resolution 6590 approving the PUD and Development
Agreement amendments and Resolution 6591 approving the Comprehensive Plan
amendment are available for your action. Upon approval of these two resolutions, staff will
prepare two ordinances—one ordinance to rezone the land from Industrial to PUD, and the
other ordinance to transfer the land from the City to Sysco. The other remaining planning
activity will be approval of the major subdivision which will create the parcel to be transferred,
and a wetland alteration permit for the wetland fill and mitigation.
Respectfully submitted,
James Ericson
Community Development Director
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Letter from Applicant
3. Community Profile and Background
4. Zoning Map
5. Site Plan
6. Aerial View
7. Resolution 802-05
8. Resolution 6590
9. Resolution 6591
C:\Documents and Settings\jim.ericson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK29\Schedule 08-05-05.doc
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process
SYSCO Parking Expansion - Mounds View, Minnesota
Prepared June 7, 2005 – revised August 5, 2005
Meeting with SYSCO Minnesota............................................................................June 9, 2005
Application Conference with City Staff ..................................................Week of June 13, 2005
Wetland delineation ......................................................................................... June 22, 2005
Topographic Survey .......................................................................................... July 5-7, 2005
Pre-application conference with TEP for Wetland permitting ................... Week of July 11, 2005
Submit Concept PUD and Comp. Plan Amendment Application ............................... July 8, 2005
Planning Commission Meeting to introduce project ............................................... July 20, 2005
City Council Meeting to introduce project.............................................................July 25, 2005
Meeting on site with TEP for wetland verification ...............................................August 2, 2005
Planning Commission Approves Concept PUD & Comp. Plan Amendment.............August 3, 2005
City Council to Approve TIF financing................................................................August 8, 2005
Meet with Contractor and owner to discuss project budget / construction...Week of August 8-12
*Includes moving forward with geotech. Borings
Pinnacle to perform additional wetland delineation.................................. Week of August 15-19
*Will require EG Rudd to stake project limits prior to delineation and then go back after the
delineation to pick up the additional wetland limits.
City Council to Approve Concept PUD and Authorize Comp. Plan Amendment ....August 22, 2005
City Submittal of Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Met Council.....................August 23, 2005
Submit Development PUD Plans and Plat to City ..............................................August 24, 2005
Met Council 10-Day Review (Waiver of Amendment)....................................September 6, 2005
Planning Commission to Approve Preliminary Plat.........................................September 7, 2005
Submit Permit to Watershed District for wetlands and ponding .....................September 8, 2005
City Council to Approve Preliminary Plat..................................................... September 12, 2005
Project Schedule
SYSCO Parking Expansion - Mounds View, MN
Page 2 or 2
C:\Documents and Settings\jim.ericson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK29\Schedule 08-05-05.doc
Submit Final PUD Plans and Final Plat to City............................................. September 16, 2005
City Council approval of Final Development PUD Plans and Final Plat........... September 26, 2005
*also adopts Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Watershed District Permit Meeting ............................................................ September 28, 2005
City approves CD’s and permits issued....................................................... September 30, 2005
Begin Construction.........................................................................................October 3, 2005
Zoning Map
SYSCO
SYSCO
Outlot A
Aerial
SYSCO
OUTLOT
“A”
SYSCO
Driving
Range
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 802-05
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF (1) A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT FROM PASSIVE OPEN SPACE (OSP) TO HEAVY INDUSTRIAL (HI),
(2) A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT FOR SYSCO
MINNESOTA, AND (3) THE TRANSFER OF THREE ACRES OF SYSCO OUTLOT A
FROM THE CITY TO SYSCO MINNESOTA;
PLANNING CASES CP2005-001 AND PA2005-002
WHEREAS, the SYSCO Minnesota, represented by applicant and president Philip
Seipp, has submitted a request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) amendment relating to a proposed three-acre site expansion; and,
WHEREAS, SYSCO proposes a three-acre transfer of land from the City of Mounds
View (the “City”) to SYSCO to facilitate a five-year business expansion plan; and,
WHEREAS, in 1989, SYSCO deeded to the City the 46-acre lot legally described as
follows:
SYSCO OUTLOT A
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission reviewed the proposed
Comprehensive Plan and Planned Unit Development amendments on July 20, 2005 and
held a duly noticed public hearing for the amendments on August 3, 2005.
WHEREAS, per Minnesota Statutes 462.356, the Mounds View Planning
Commission reviewed the proposed transfer of land to SYSCO and finds that the transfer
would be consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission
does hereby make the following findings of fact relating to the Comprehensive Plan
amendment, the Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment and proposed transfer of
land to SYSCO Minnesota:
1. SYSCO Minnesota is situated north of Trunk Highway 10 and south of
County Road J, west of Interstate 35W.
2. The SYSCO site, as identified in Exhibit A, is currently designated Heavy
Industrial (HI) in the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned Planned Unit
development (PUD).
Resolution 802-05
Page 2
3. The three-acre parcel to be transferred to SYSCO is currently designated
Passive Open Space (OSP) in the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned
Industrial. A Comp Plan amendment to HI and rezoning to PUD would be
appropriate upon transfer.
4. The Planned Unit Development approved for the SYSCO site allows for the
existing usage, the transfer would necessitate an amendment to expand the
site and to address additional maintenance, access and mitigation issues.
5. The proposed transfer of land to SYSCO would be consistent with the goals
and policies of the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based on the above findings of
fact, the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby recommend (1) that the parcel to
be transferred to SYSCO, as identified on Exhibit A, should bear the future land use
designation of “HI,” (2) that the PUD should be amended to include said parcel, and (3)
finds that the proposed transfer of land is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, with the
following conditions:
1. That the Comp Plan and PUD amendments only be effective upon transfer of
land to SYSCO.
2. That the applicant arrange to create the lot to be transferred by amending the
SYSCO plat via the major subdivision process.
3. That the applicant arrange for and coordinate the Comp Plan amendment
process with the Metropolitan Council.
4. That the applicant apply for and obtain any necessary permits relating to
stormwater management and wetlands with the Rice Creek Watershed
District (RCWD), the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the City of Mounds View.
5. That the applicant shall consent to an amendment of the existing
Development Agreement addressing maintenance, access and mitigation
issues or other issues as may be necessary.
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.
Resolution 802-05
Page 3
Adopted this 3rd day of August, 2005.
Jean Miller, Vice Chairperson
ATTEST:
James Ericson
Community Development Director
(SEAL)
E:\PA05-002 (SYSCO)\SYSCO PUD AMENDMENT REPORT - JULY 20, 2005.DOC
Exhibit 1.
SYSCO Site – Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map
PROPOSED SYSCO AMENDMENT
Bridges
SYSCO
Proposed Area to be Transferred to SYSCO and Redesignated
from Passive Open Space (OSP) to Heavy Industrial (HI)
Area to be Transferred
RESOLUTION NO. 6590
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(PUD) AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT FOR SYSCO
MINNESOTA; PLANNING CASE PA2005-002
WHEREAS, SYSCO Minnesota, represented by president Philip Seipp, has
submitted a request for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment relating to a
proposed three-acre site expansion; and,
WHEREAS, SYSCO proposes a three-acre transfer of land from the City of Mounds
View (the “City”) to SYSCO to facilitate a five-year business expansion plan; and,
WHEREAS, in 1989, SYSCO deeded to the City the 46-acre lot legally described as
follows:
SYSCO OUTLOT A
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, per Minnesota Statutes 462.356, the Mounds View Planning
Commission reviewed the proposed transfer of land to SYSCO and finds that the transfer
would be consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on and
reviewed the proposed Planned Unit Development amendment and Development
Agreement amendment on August 22, 2005.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View City Council does
hereby make the following findings of fact relating to the Planned Unit Development (PUD)
amendment and Development Agreement amendment for SYSCO Minnesota:
1. SYSCO Minnesota is situated north of Trunk Highway 10 and south of County
Road J, west of Interstate 35W.
2. The SYSCO site, as identified in Exhibit A, is currently designated Heavy
Industrial (HI) in the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned Planned Unit
development (PUD).
3. The Planned Unit Development approved for the SYSCO site allows for the
existing usage, the transfer would necessitate an amendment to expand the site
and to address additional maintenance, access and mitigation issues.
4. The transfer of land would also necessitate an amendment to the original Sysco
Development Agreement, Mounds View Development Agreement No. 89-87.
Resolution 6590
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based on the above findings of
fact, the Mounds View City Council does hereby approve the requested PUD amendment
to allow for the site expansion and an amendment to Mounds View Development
Agreement No. 89-87 (as shown on Exhibit 1) to identify and assign any maintenance
issues associated with the relocated stormwater pond, potential access issues for the City
to the remainder of the SYSCO Outlot land, mitigation responsibilities and other issues,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall arrange to prepare and submit a plat to create the three-acre
parcel to be joined with the Sysco site.
2. The applicant shall arrange to prepare and submit a wetland alteration permit for
the impacted and mitigated wetlands, and apply for and obtain any necessary
permits relating to stormwater management and wetlands from Rice Creek
Watershed District (RCWD), the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
3. The applicant shall coordinate the preparation and submission of the Comp Plan
amendment application to the Met Council and affected other agencies.
4. The City shall prepare and process an ordinance to rezone the three-acre parcel
from Industrial (I-1) to Planned Unit Development (PUD).
Adopted this 22nd day of August, 2005.
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk / Administrator
(SEAL)
EXHIBIT 1.
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
MOUNDS VIEW DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO 89-87
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO MOUNDS VIEW DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
NO. 89-87, made and entered into this ______ day of _________, 2005, by and between the
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the “City”) and SYSCO
MINNESOTA (the “Developer”).
Recitals
A. The Developer is the fee owner of certain real estate located in Ramsey County,
Minnesota, legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, SYSCO.
B. The City is the fee owner of certain real estate located in Ramsey County,
Minnesota, Legally described as Outlot A, SYSCO.
C. The City and the Developer entered into Mounds View Development Agreement
No. 89-87 in 1989 relating to these parcels of land (the ”Property").
D. The Developer intends to acquire a three-acre tract of land from the City to be
added to the SYSCO parcel to effectuate an expansion of the SYSCO parking lot and
relocation of the internal driveway.
E. The Developer shall apply for a receive approval of a major subdivision and
wetland alteration permit consistent with the site plans (Exhibit A) approved by the City Council
in Resolution No. 6591 on August 22, 2005, subject to the conditions and requirements
contained in the authorizing resolution, Mounds View City Code and state statutes, which
involves the alteration and mitigation of wetlands, relocation of a stormwater holding pond and
construction of a parking lot expansion and driveway relocation.
F. The Developer is required to construct and install at its sole expense the
grading, drainage, landscaping and other improvements as shown on the site plans and
as required by City Code.
(THE REST OF THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK)
SYSCO Amendment
Page 2
Agreement
In consideration of each party's promises as set forth in this First Amendment to
Mounds View Development Agreement No. 89-87, it is mutually agreed as follows:
ARTICLE ONE
REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
1.01. City Representations and Warranties. The City makes the following representations as
the basis for the undertakings on its part contained herein:
A. The City is a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota.
B. The City has the right, power and authority to execute, deliver and perform its
obligations under this Agreement.
1.02. Developer Representations and Warranties. The Developer makes the following
representations as the basis for the undertakings on its part contained herein:
A. The Developer is a Minnesota Corporation.
B. The Developer has the right, power and authority to execute, deliver and
perform its obligations under this Agreement. The Developer assures the City that the
individuals who execute this Agreement on behalf of the Developer are duly authorized to sign
on behalf of the Developer and to bind the Developer thereto.
C. The Developer is not in default under any lease, contract, or agreement to which
it is a party or by which it is bound which would affect its performance under this Agreement.
The Developer is not a party to or bound by any mortgage, lien, lease, agreement, instrument,
order, judgment, or decree which would prohibit the execution or performance of this
Agreement by the Developer or prohibit any of the transactions provided for in this Agreement.
D. The Developer has complied with and will continue to comply with all applicable
federal, state and local statutes, laws, ordinances and regulations including, without limitation,
any permits, licenses and applicable zoning, environmental, or other laws, ordinances, or
regulations affecting the Property or the Improvements. The Developer is not aware of any
pending or threatened claim of any such violation. Without limitation of the foregoing, the
Developer expressly acknowledges and agrees that it has and shall at all times comply with
each and every provision of the City’s subdivision, zoning, and other related municipal code
regulations.
E. There is no suit, action, arbitration or legal, administrative or other proceeding or
governmental investigation pending or threatened against or affecting the Developer or
Property. The Developer is not in default with respect to any order, writ, injunction or decree of
any federal, state, local or foreign court, department, agency or instrumentality.
SYSCO Amendment
Page 3
F. None of the representations and warranties made by the Developer or made in
any exhibit hereto or memorandum or writing furnished or to be furnished by the Developer or
on its behalf contains or will contain any untrue statement of material fact or omits any material
fact, the omission of which would be misleading.
G. The Developer has sufficient funds or has obtained a commitment for financing
in an amount adequate to finance construction of the Improvements.
1.03 Incorporation of Recitals and Exhibits. The Recitals set forth in the preamble to this
Agreement First Amendment and the Exhibits attached to this Agreement First Amendment
are incorporated into this Agreement as if fully set forth herein.
ARTICLE TWO
CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS
2.01. Agreement to Construct Improvements. The Developer agrees to construct the
Improvements, including the grading, drainage, landscaping and other improvements required
by City ordinance for development of the Property. The Improvements are more fully
described in the site plan (the “Plan”) attached as Exhibit A. A final copy of the Plan must be
filed with the City prior to commencement of construction of the Improvements. All labor and
work performed by the Developer in connection with construction of the Improvements will be
done and performed in the best and most worker-like manner and in strict conformance with
the Plan. Any deviation from the Plans must be approved in writing by the City. Construction
of the Improvements shall be completed no later as set forth in Section 2.04 of this Agreement.
Prior to initiating construction of the Improvements, the Developer shall hold a pre-
construction meeting with the City to review and resolve any issues involving the construction
of the Improvements.
2.02. Obtaining Permits. The Developer shall obtain in a timely manner and pay for all
permits, licenses, and approvals required in connection with construction of the Improvements,
and all easements and licenses necessary for access to the Property and construction of the
Improvements. The Developer shall meet in a timely manner the requirements of all
applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations which must be met before the
Improvements may be lawfully constructed. Specifically, prior to obtaining any building permits
or grading permits as required under this Section 2.02 or otherwise, the Developer shall satisfy
and comply with all City Engineer, Rice Creek Watershed District, MPCA or DNR conditions
and requirements regarding the Plans; and complete all requirements set forth in Section 3.01
of this Agreement regarding the SYSCO replat.
2.03. Staking, Surveying, and Inspections. The Developer must provide for all staking,
surveying and inspections for the Improvements in order to ensure that the completed
Improvements conform to the Plans. The City will provide for general inspection, at the
Developer’s expense, on a basis that it determines necessary and appropriate within its sole
discretion. The Developer must notify the City in advance of all tests to be performed
regarding the Improvements.
SYSCO Amendment
Page 4
2.04. Time for Developer's Performance: General Provision. The Developer agrees that it will
commence work on the Improvements on or before October 3, 2005, and shall complete the
Improvements on or before October 2, 2006. The City may at its discretion extend the dates
specified in this Section 2.04 upon receipt of written notice from the Developer of the existence
of causes which will delay the completion of the Improvements if such causes are ones over
which the Developer has no control and which could not have been reasonably foreseen by
the Developer. If an extension of the date of completion of the Improvements is granted by the
City, the Developer must continue the performance bond required by this Agreement to cover
the work during the extension of time.
2.05. Additional Work or Materials. The Improvements shall be constructed at no expense to
the City. The Developer shall not do any work or furnish any materials for which
reimbursement is expected from the City, unless such work is first ordered and reimbursement
is approved by the City. Any work or materials which is done or furnished by the Developer
without prior written order is furnished at the Developer's risk, cost and expense, and the
Developer agrees that it will make no claim for compensation for work or materials so done or
furnished.
2.06. Financial Guarantee. Prior to commencement of construction of the Improvements, the
Developer agrees to furnish the City a performance bond, certified check, certificate of deposit,
irrevocable letter of credit from a bank or cash escrow in the amount of 125% of the estimated
costs for the wetland mitigation, site restoration and landscaping improvements, with such
estimates to be based on an engineer’s estimate or other evidence satisfactory to the City at
its sole discretion. The estimated costs for the Developer for the improvements identified
above are set forth in Exhibit B attached to this Agreement. Upon failure of Developer to
perform, the City may declare the Developer to be in default under this Agreement and, upon
failure of the Developer to cure the default within 30 days of written notice, may demand the
Financial Guarantee be paid over to the City. From the proceeds of the Financial Guarantee,
the City shall be reimbursed for any attorneys' fees, engineering fees or other technical,
administrative or professional assistance, and the remainder thereof shall be used by the City
to complete the Improvements. The Developer shall be liable to the City in the event that the
Financial Guarantee is inadequate to reimburse the City for its costs and pay for the
completion of the Improvements. Upon completion of the Improvements and passage of any
required inspections and final acceptance of the Improvements by the City pursuant to Section
2.09 of this Agreement, absent any default of the Developer, the Financial Guarantee may be
terminated.
The letter of credit shall be automatically renewable until the City releases the developer
from responsibility. The letter of credit shall secure compliance with the terms of this
Agreement and all obligations of the Developer under it. The City may draw down on the
letter of credit without notice if the obligations of the Developer have not been completed as
required by this Agreement. In the event of a default under this Agreement by the
Developer, the City shall furnish the Developer with written notice by certified mail of
Developer’s default(s) under the terms of this Agreement. If the Developer does not
remove said default(s) within two (2) weeks of receiving notice; the City may draw on the
letter of credit. With City approval, the letter of credit may be reduced from time to time as
financial obligations are paid and Developer installed improvements completed to the City’s
requirements.
SYSCO Amendment
Page 5
In the event City does not recover its costs for completing the Improvements under
the provisions of this paragraph, as an additional remedy, City may, at its option, assess
the Property in the manner provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and Developer
hereby consents to the levy of such special assessments without notice or hearing and
waives its rights to appeal such assessments pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section
429.081, provided the amount levied, together with the funds deposited with the City under
this paragraph, does not exceed the expenses actually incurred by the City in the
completion of the Improvements.
2.07. Insurance. The Developer shall furnish proof of insurance in the amount of at least
$1,000,000.00, acceptable to the City, covering any public liability or property damage by
reason of the operation of the Developer's equipment or laborers in connection with the
Improvements. Developer agrees to keep the insurance in force at all times during
construction of the Improvements and until acceptance thereof by the City. The insurance
must name the City as an additional insured and must provide that the insurer will give the City
not less than 30 days' written notice prior to cancellation or termination of the insurance policy.
2.08. Unsatisfactory Labor or Material. In the event that the City rejects as defective or
unsuitable any material or labor supplied by the Developer regarding the Improvements, the
rejected material must be removed and replaced with approved material and the rejected labor
must be done again to the specifications and approval of the City and at the sole cost and
expense of the Developer.
2.09. Final Inspection/Acceptance. Upon completion of the Improvements, representatives of
the City and the Developer will make a final inspection of the work. Before final payment is
made to the contractor by the Developer, the City must be satisfied that all work is satisfactorily
completed in accordance with the Plans, and the Developer's engineer shall submit a written
statement attesting to the same. The City shall have no obligation to accept the Improvements
if they are not consistent with the Plans or not in compliance with all federal, state and local
laws and standards related thereto. Final approval and acceptance of the Improvements shall
be by a resolution duly adopted by the City.
2.10. Warranty on Property Work and Materials. The Developer warrants all work required to
be performed by it under this Agreement regarding the Improvements against defective
material and faulty workership for a period of one (1) year after completion and acceptance by
the City, except that the warranty period for the street, drainage, and erosion control portions
of the Improvements shall be for two (2) years after completion and acceptance by the City.
All trees, grass, sod or other landscaping installed in connection with the Improvements are
warranted to be alive, of good quality, and disease free for one year after planting. Any
replacements of same shall be similarly warranted for one year from the time of planting. The
Developer shall be solely responsible for all costs of performing repair and replacement work
required by the City and shall perform such work within thirty (30) days of receiving demand for
such work from the City, weather permitting.
2.11. Records and Plans. Upon completion, the Developer agrees to provide the City with a
full set of as-built plans of the Improvements for the City's records.
SYSCO Amendment
Page 6
2.12. Maintenance Bond. Upon completion of the Improvements and prior to acceptance
thereof by the City, the Developer shall obtain or cause to be obtained and shall furnish the
City a copy of a two-year maintenance bond guaranteeing the Improvements. The
maintenance bond shall be in an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of the financial
guarantee.
2.13. Indemnification. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, the City, its
officers, agents, and employees shall not be liable or responsible in any manner to the
Developer, Developer's successors or assigns, the Developer's contractor or subcontractors,
material suppliers, laborers, or to any other person or persons for any claim, demand, damage,
or cause of action of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of the execution of this
Agreement or the performance and completion of the Improvements. The Developer, and the
Developer's successors or assigns, agree to protect, defend and save the City, and its officers,
agents, and employees, harmless from all such claims, demands, damages, and causes of
action and the costs, disbursements, and expenses of defending the same, including but not
limited to, attorneys fees, consulting engineering services, and other technical, administrative
or professional assistance. Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver or limitation of
any immunity or limitation on liability to which the City is entitled under Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 466, or otherwise. In addition, while the City shall endeavor to complete the City’s
share of utility improvements contemplated in this Agreement, if any, under no
circumstances shall the City be responsible or liable for any construction delays of any kind,
costs, or the inability of the City to complete the City’s share of utility improvements
contemplated in this Agreement, if any.
2.14. Compliance with Existing Laws. The Developer warrants that all work performed
pursuant to this Agreement shall be in compliance with existing laws, ordinances, pertinent
regulations, standards, and specifications of the City, and is subject to approval of the City.
2.15. Lien Waivers. As a condition precedent to the City’s final acceptance of the
Improvements pursuant to Section 2.09 of this Agreement, the Developer shall deliver to the
City final lien releases or waivers by all contractors, subcontractors, materialmen, and other
parties who have supplied labor, materials or services for the construction of the
Improvements, or who otherwise might be entitled to claim a contractual, statutory, or
constitutional lien against the Improvements or Property.
2.16. Temporary Roads and Other Construction. If construction of the Improvements results
in the construction of temporary roads or other ways, or other temporary improvements or
modifications to the Property or any other property, the Developer shall, as a condition
precedent to the City’s final acceptance of the Improvements pursuant to Section 2.09 of this
Agreement, remove all such temporary improvements and otherwise return such property to
the condition it was in prior to construction of the Improvements; provided that the City may in
its sole discretion, waive or modify the requirements of this Section 2.16 by writing approved
by the City Council and executed by the City.
2.17. Parking and Storage. The Developer agrees to provide adequate parking and
storage area for workers, equipment, construction materials, or other items associated with
the improvements. Existing public roadways or right-of-ways shall not be utilized for these
purposes except as allowed by the City.
SYSCO Amendment
Page 7
2.18. City’s Access. The Developer hereby grants the city, its agents, employees, officers
and contractors a non-revocable license to enter the Property to perform all work and
inspections deemed appropriate by the City related to said development.
2.19. Clean up. The Developer shall clean streets of dirt and debris that has resulted from
construction work by the Developer, its agents or assigns. The City may inspect the site on
a weekly basis and determine whether it is necessary to take additional measures to clean
dirt and debris from the streets. After 24 hours verbal notice to the Developer, the City will
complete or contract to complete the clean up at the Developer’s expense. The Developer
shall inspect and if necessary clean all catch basins, sumps, and ponding areas of
erosion/siltation and restore to the original condition at the end of construction within this
development. All silt fence and other erosion control should be removed following the
establishment of turf. These items are to be secured through the Financial Guarantee as is
noted in paragraph 2.06 of this Agreement.
ARTICLE THREE
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS
3.01. Platting Requirements. The Developer shall plat the Property consistent with the plan
approved by the City Council in Resolution No. 6591 on August 22, 2005, subject to the
conditions and requirements contained in the authorizing resolution, the Mounds View City
Code and state statutes. Developer shall cause the plat to be recorded with the Ramsey
County recorder and provide the City with a reproducible Mylar copy of said plat.
3.02. Property Monumentation. The Developer agrees to provide sufficient property
monumentation (temporary), installed by or under the direction of a registered land
surveyor, prior to and during the course of the Improvements to ensure proper
layout. The Developer further agrees to install all subdivision monumentation (permanent)
within one year from the date of recording of the plat, or the monumentation shall be
installed on a per-lot basis at the time a building permit for the subject lot is issued,
whichever occurs first. At the end of the one-year period, the Developer shall submit to the
City written verification by a registered land surveyor that the required monuments have
been installed throughout the plat.
3.03. Payment of City Costs. The Developer agrees to reimburse the City its actual costs
regarding: (i) preparing and administering this Agreement and all other documents, permits,
and applications related to construction of the Improvements; (ii) processing the plat and
subdivision approvals relating to the Property; and (iii) preparing and reviewing the wetland
alteration permit. In addition to and without limitation of the foregoing, the costs to be
reimbursed by the Developer to the City shall include, but not be limited to, attorneys fees,
engineering fees, inspection fees, and the costs and fees of other technical and professional
assistance (including but not limited to the cost of City staff time) incurred or expended by the
City on activities arising out of this Agreement, the Improvements, and other undertakings
related thereto.
SYSCO Amendment
Page 8
In the event City does not recover its costs for completing the Improvements under the
provisions of this paragraph, as an additional remedy, City may, at its option, assess the
Property in the manner provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and Developer
hereby consents to the levy of such special assessments without notice or hearing and
waives its rights to appeal such assessments pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section
429.081, provided the amount levied, together with the funds deposited with the City under
this paragraph, does not exceed the expenses actually incurred by the City in the
completion of the Improvements.
3.04. Attorney Fees. The Developer agrees to pay the City's costs and expenses, including
attorney fees, in the event a suit or action is brought by the City against the Developer to
enforce the terms of this Agreement.
3.05. Amendment. Any subsequent amendment to this Agreement must be in writing and
signed by both parties.
3.06. Assignment. The Developer may not assign any of its obligations under this Agreement
without the prior written consent of the City.
3.07. Agreement to Run with Land. This Agreement shall be recorded among the land
records of Ramsey County, Minnesota. The provisions of this Agreement shall run with the
Property and be binding upon the Developer and its assigns or successors in interest.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, no conveyance of the Property or any part thereof shall relieve
the Developer of its liability for full performance of this Agreement unless the City expressly so
releases the Developer in writing.
3.08. Representatives Not Individually Liable. No officer, agent or employee of the City shall
be personally liable to the Developer, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default
or breach by the City on any obligation or term of this Agreement.
3.09. Notices and Demands. Any notice, demand, or other communication under this
Agreement by either party to the other shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is dispatched
by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered
personally:
(a) as to the Developer: SYSCO Minnesota
2400 County Road J
Mounds View, MN 55112
Attn: Phil Seipp
(b) as to the City: City of Mounds View
2401 County Road 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
Attn: City Administrator
or at such other address with respect to either such party as that party may, from time to time,
designate in writing and forward to the other as provided in this section 3.09.
SYSCO Amendment
Page 9
3.10. Park Dedications/Fees/Dedications. Without limitation of any other obligation of the
Developer contained in this Agreement or set forth in federal, state, or local law, the Developer
agrees to comply with any dedication requirements, including park dedications or payments in
lieu which may be required by the City's subdivision regulations, Mounds View City Code
Chapter 1204.
The Developer further expressly acknowledges and agrees that the Improvements and
all easements and other rights in the Property necessary and related to the City’s ownership of
the Improvements (all of which shall be described in the plat required by the City’s subdivision
regulations), shall inure to the City upon the Developer’s compliance with this Agreement,
acceptance by the City of the Improvements, and approval and recording of a final plat as set
forth in the City’s subdivision regulations.
3.11. Disclaimer of Relationships. The Developer acknowledges that nothing contained in this
Agreement nor any act by the City or the Developer shall be deemed or construed by the
Developer or by any third person to create any relationship of third-party beneficiary, principal
and agent, limited or general partner, or joint venture between the City and the Developer.
3.12. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of
which shall constitute one and the same instrument.
3.13. Choice of Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the state of Minnesota. Any disputes, controversies, or claims
arising out of this Agreement shall be heard in the state or federal courts of Minnesota, and
all parties to this Agreement waive any objection to the jurisdiction of these courts, whether
based on convenience or otherwise.
3.14. Indemnification. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, the City, its
officers, agents, and employees shall not be liable or responsible in any manner to the
Developer, Developer's successors or assigns, the Developer's contractor or subcontractors,
material suppliers, laborers, or to any other person or persons for any claim, demand, damage,
or cause of action of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of the execution of this
Agreement or the performance and completion of the Improvements. The Developer, and the
Developer's successors or assigns, agree to protect, defend and save the City, and its officers,
agents, and employees, harmless from all such claims, demands, damages, and causes of
action and the costs, disbursements, and expenses of defending the same, including but not
limited to, attorneys fees, consulting engineering services, and other technical, administrative
or professional assistance. Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver or limitation of
any immunity or limitation on liability to which the City is entitled under Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 466, or otherwise.
3.15. Compliance with Existing Laws. The Developer warrants that all work performed
pursuant to this Agreement shall be in compliance with existing laws, ordinances, pertinent
regulations, standards, and specifications of the City.
SYSCO Amendment
Page 10
3.16. Permits. No final inspection approval of the permits shall be issued until:
A. The site grading is completed and approved by the City.
B. All public utilities are tested, approved by the City, and in service.
C. All curbing is installed and backfilled.
D. The first lift of bituminous is in place and approved by the City.
E. All building permit fees are paid in full.
The Developer, in executing this Agreement First Amendment, assumes all liability and
costs for damage or delays, incurred by the City, in the construction of public improvements,
caused by the Developer, its employees, contractors, subcontractors, materialmen or agents.
No occupancy permits shall be issued until the public streets and utilities are in and approved
by the City, unless otherwise authorized in writing by the City.
3.17. Miscellaneous Provisions.
A. The Developer represents to the City that the development of the Property,
the subdivision and the plat comply with all city, county, metropolitan, state and federal laws
and regulations including, but not limited to: subdivision ordinances, zoning ordinances and
environmental regulations. If the City determines that the subdivision or the plat or the
development of the Property does not comply, the City may, at its option, refuse to allow
construction or development work on the Property until the Developer does comply. Upon
the City’s demand, the Developer shall cease work until there is compliance.
B. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Agreement.
C. Breach of the terms of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for
denial of building permits, including lots sold to third parties.
D. Wherever possible, each provision of this Agreement and each related
document shall be interpreted so that it is valid under applicable law. If any provision of this
Agreement or any related document is to any extent found invalid by a court or other
governmental entity of competent jurisdiction, that provision shall be ineffective only to the
extent of such invalidity, without invalidating the remainder of such provision or the remaining
provisions of this Agreement or any other related document.
E. If building permits are issued prior to the completion and acceptance of public
improvements, the Developer assumes all liability and costs resulting in delays in
completion of public improvements and damage to public improvements caused by the
City, Developer, its contractors, subcontractors, materialmen, employees, agents or third
parties.
SYSCO Amendment
Page 11
F. No failure by any party to insist upon the strict performance of any covenant,
duty, agreement, or condition of this Agreement or to exercise any right or remedy
consequent upon a breach thereof, shall constitute a waiver of any such breach of any
other covenant, agreement, term, or condition, nor does it imply that such covenant,
agreement, term or condition may be waived again. The action or inaction of the City shall
not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding,
amendments or waivers shall be in writing and signed by the parties. The City’s failure to
promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement shall not be a waiver or release.
G. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and
in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter
arising, available to the City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each
and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so exciting may be
exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the
City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right,
power or remedy.
H. This Agreement, together with the exhibits hereto, which are incorporated by
reference, constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of all mutual understandings
between the parties with respect to this Agreement, superseding all prior or contemporaneous
proposals, communications, and understandings, whether oral or written, pertaining to the
subject matter of this Agreement.
I. No officer, agent or employee of the City shall be personally liable to
Developer, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the City on
any obligation or term of this Agreement.
J. Data provided to the Developer or received from the Developer under this
Agreement shall be administered in accordance with the Minnesota Government Data
Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.
K. Mitigated wetlands on City land shall be the responsibility of the developer up
until and at such point that Rice Creek Watershed District determines the wetlands to have
successfully revegetated.
L. All landscaping installed on City land as a result of this development shall be
subject to the requirements as provided for in Section 2.10 of this Agreement.
M. The Developer shall allow for a gravel access drive to be constructed adjacent to
the relocated stormwater pond to provide access to billboards on City land and shall agree to
provide reasonable site access to billboard leaseholders, their agents and representatives for
periodic maintenance and ad copy updates.
SYSCO Amendment
Page 12
IN WITNESS OF THE ABOVE, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed
on the date and year written above.
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
By:
___________________________________
Mayor
By:
___________________________________
City Administrator
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of
________________, 2005, by Rob Marty and Kurt Ulrich, the mayor and city administrator,
respectively, of the City of Mounds View, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the
corporation.
__________________________________
Notary Public
SYSCO Amendment
Page 13
SYSCO Minnesota
By:
___________________________________
its:
___________________________________
STATE OF ______________ )
) SS.
COUNTY OF ____________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of
________________, 2005, by ________________________________, the
____________________________ of SYSCO Minnesota, a Minnesota corporation, on behalf
of the corporation
__________________________________
Notary Public
This document drafted by:
KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED (SJR)
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337-9300
Agreement First Amendment
Exhibit A.
SITE PLAN
Agreement First Amendment
Exhibit B.
Engineer’s estimate of the Improvement Costs for determination of Financial Guarantee,
consistent with Section 2.06 of the Agreement.
RESOLUTION NO. 6591
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM
PASSIVE OPEN SPACE (OSP) TO HEAVY INDUSTRIAL (HI) ON THREE ACRES OF
SYSCO OUTLOT A TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE CITY TO SYSCO
MINNESOTA; PLANNING CASE CP2005-001
WHEREAS, the SYSCO Minnesota, represented by president Philip Seipp, has
submitted a request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment relating to a proposed three-
acre site expansion; and,
WHEREAS, SYSCO proposes a three-acre transfer of land as shown on Exhibit 1
from the City of Mounds View (the “City”) to SYSCO to facilitate a five-year business
expansion plan; and,
WHEREAS, in 1989, SYSCO deeded to the City the 46-acre lot legally described as
follows:
SYSCO OUTLOT A
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission reviewed the proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendments on July 20, 2005 and held a duly noticed public hearing
for the amendment on August 3, 2005, recommending approval of the proposed
amendment; and,
WHEREAS, per Minnesota Statutes 462.356, the Mounds View Planning
Commission reviewed the proposed transfer of land to SYSCO and found that the transfer
would be consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View City Council does
hereby make the following findings of fact relating to the Comprehensive Plan amendment
of the three-acre tract to be transferred from the City to SYSCO Minnesota:
1. SYSCO Minnesota is situated north of Trunk Highway 10 and south of County
Road J, west of Interstate 35W.
2. The SYSCO site, as identified in Exhibit A, is currently designated Heavy
Industrial (HI) in the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned Planned Unit
development (PUD).
3. The three-acre parcel to be transferred to SYSCO is currently designated
Passive Open Space (OSP) in the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned Industrial.
A Comprehensive Plan amendment to HI and rezoning to PUD would be
appropriate upon transfer.
Resolution 6591
Page 2
4. The proposed transfer of land to SYSCO would be consistent with the goals and
policies of the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based on the above findings of
fact, the Mounds View City Council does hereby approve a Comprehensive Plan Land
Future Land Use Amendment on the tract to be transferred to SYSCO, as identified on
Exhibit 1, approving the future land use designation of Heavy Industrial “HI”, with the
following conditions:
1. That the Comp Plan and PUD amendments only be effective upon successful
transfer of land to SYSCO.
2. That the applicant arrange to create the lot to be transferred by amending the
SYSCO plat via the major subdivision process.
3. That the applicant arrange for and coordinate the Comp Plan amendment
process with the Metropolitan Council.
4. That the applicant shall consent to an amendment of the existing Mounds View
Development Agreement No. 89-87 addressing maintenance, access and
mitigation issues or other issues as may be necessary.
Adopted this 22rd day of August, 2005.
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk / Administrator
(SEAL)
Exhibit 1.
SYSCO Site – Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map
PROPOSED SYSCO AMENDMENT
Bridges
SYSCO
Proposed Area to be Transferred to SYSCO and Redesignated
from Passive Open Space (OSP) to Heavy Industrial (HI)
Area to be Transferred
Item No: 8C
Meeting Date: Aug 22, 2005
Type of Business: Public Hearing
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Review and Discussion of the Medtronic General Concept PUD
Plan, 8290 Coral Sea Street.
Planning Case PD2005-002
Introduction:
On June 27, 2005, the Mounds View City Council and Economic Development Authority
(EDA) authorized an agreement with Medtronic Inc. to redevelop the Bridges of Mounds View
golf course. The approved project would entail a phased development process with the first
phase encompassing approximately 820,000 square feet of office space and related ancillary
uses. On July 11, 2005, the City Council adopted Ordinance 760, an ordinance approving the
transfer of land from the City of Mounds View to the Mounds View EDA and then
subsequently to Medtronic.
PUD Intent:
The purpose of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process is to provide for the grouping of
land parcels for development as an integrated, coordinated unit as opposed to traditional parcel
by parcel, piecemeal, sporadic and unplanned approach to development. The PUD process is
intended to introduce flexibility of site design and architecture for the conservation of land and
open space through clustering of buildings and activities. It is further intended that planned unit
developments are to be characterized by central management, integrated planning and
architecture, joint or common use of parking, maintenance of open space and other similar
facilities and a harmonious selection and efficient distribution of uses. Given the visibility and
prominence of the Bridges site, a PUD will ensure that the site is developed to be architecturally
noteworthy and context sensitive from an environmental standpoint. The concept plan is
intentionally general; the buildings will not be constructed as simple unappealing rectangles as
shown but something with more of an aesthetically appealing design. The rectangles are
intended only to show the general location and building massing.
Discussion:
Opus Architects & Engineers along with Julie Snow Architects have submitted a general
concept plan rendering site consistent with the PUD requirements to give the City Council and
residents an opportunity to review the plan prior to the more formal and detailed development
stage plans. The plan shows the anticipated full build-out of the site which would involve four
buildings connected by a low-level (one or two story) atrium or common open assembly area.
Phase 1 would involve two buildings proposed to be a maximum eight stories tall with
approximately 50,000 square feet of space on each level. (At such a height, the FAA would
need to issue a revised approval allowing for the building height.) The trade-off of having
taller buildings is that more green space is preserved on the site. No changes have been
made from the site plan presented to the Council at your August 1, 2005 worksession
meeting.
Medtronic PUD General Concept Plan Report
August 22, 2005
Page 2
All of the buildings will be erected with the Mounds View city limits although some parking and
potentially a future parking structure would be constructed on the land within the City of
Blaine.
Building and Parking Phasing
Building Space Parking spaces
Phase 1
2 buildings connected by
Commons/atrium area
820,000 square feet total
2,100 structured stalls
900 surface stalls
Phase 2 1 additional building
380,000 more square feet
1,400 more structured stalls by
adding two more levels onto Phase
1 parking structure
Phase 3 1 additional building
300,000 more square feet
1,600 structured stalls in four level
ramp Å located in Blaine
Total at full
Build out
1,500,000 square feet in four
connected buildings
6,000 structured and surface parking
stalls, two parking structures
Municipal Coordination:
City staff from Blaine and Mounds View met on July 26, 2005 to informally review and
coordinate the processes for site plan review and other issues related to this development.
Blaine staff was supportive of the project and expressed a desire to be helpful in any way
possible. It was discussed that the Medtronic campus could potentially be served by Blaine
water for fire protection as a back-up and supplement to Mounds View water which will be
brought to the site from under Highway 10. Blaine staff would like to have the site plans and
phasing schedule presented to the Blaine City Council in September for consideration. Site
plan approval from Blaine will likely be an administrative step. Another meeting will be
scheduled upon receipt of the more detailed development stage plans, which are expected in
September.
Planning Commission Action:
The Planning Commission informally reviewed the plans on July 20, 2005 and was generally
supportive. A resolution recommending approval was presented at their public hearing on
August 3, 2005. After taking testimony from staff, two residents in attendance and the
applicant, the Commission considered the resolution of approval. The motion to approve the
resolution failed due to a split three to three vote. Staff communicated to the Commission that
their role as a Planning Commission was to review and consider the plan on its merits, not on
personal opinion, emotions or financial considerations. The Council had approved the project
thus the Commission was obligated to provide unbiased and objective review, regardless of
whether or not they personally agreed with the project. The Commissioners who voted
against the approval indicated they did not support the project due to the proposed height of
the buildings (eight stories) and the lack of a letter from the FAA.
Medtronic PUD General Concept Plan Report
August 22, 2005
Page 3
Recommendation:
Hold the public hearing and take testimony from staff, the applicant and any residents or other
interested parties relating to the general concept plan. Staff has prepared a resolution of
approval for the Medtronic general concept plan, which proposes an 820,000 square foot
office facility at 8290 Coral Sea Street. If the Council feels modifications or revisions are
warranted on the concept plan, these revisions may be incorporated into your resolution of
approval.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Ericson
Community Development Director
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Zoning Map
3. Concept Plan Submittal Information
4. Resolution 6592
Zoning Map
General Concept Plan PUD Submittal Form
A. General Information
Landowner's name and address City of Mounds View /
Economic Development Authority
2401 County Road 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
Applicant’s name and address Medtronic Inc.
710 Medtronic Parkway
Minneapolis, MN 55432-5604
Consultants’ names and addresses Opus Architects & Engineers
10350 Bren Road West
Minnetonka, MN 55343
Julie Snow Architects
2400 Rand Tower
527 Marquette Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55402
RLK-Kuusisto (Civil Engineer)
6110 Blue Circle Drive, #100
Minnetonka, MN 55343
Close Landscape Architects
400 First Avenue North, Suite 528
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Evidence of control City Council Resolution 6564 (Exhibit A)
Address and legal description of property Address: 8290 Coral Sea Street
Legal: See Attached Exhibit A
Existing zoning and land use Zoning: Industrial
Land use: Golf Course
Comp Plan: Office (OFC)
Maps extending out 500 feet Maps are on file in city offices
Written statement (1120.05, Sub 1c) Project to consist of a four building
1,500,000 SF Campus for the Cardiac
Rhythm Management Division of
Medtronic. Project to be constructed in
phases with Phase 1 being 820,000 SF.
Site conditions Presently developed as a municipal golf
course with landscaped and irrigated
greenspace. Land is generally level with
areas of extensive wetlands and
woodlands. Wetlands have been
delineated by SEH, Inc.
Schematic drawings Refer to Exhibit B
Allocations of land use 100% office and office support space.
Office support space to include cafeteria
and lunchroom, meeting rooms, auditorium,
fitness center, and laboratory areas.
Statement of staging Phase 1 construction to begin upon
completion of approval process and will
complete summer/fall of 2007. Phase 2 and
Phase 3 to start in future as Medtronic
space needs dictate.
Open Space provisions Open areas shown on plans to remain
open. This includes large wetland area on
eastern portion of site. This wetland to be
expanded as required accommodating
wetland mitigation requirements.
Restrictive covenants? None
Feasibility study and economic analysis Studies and analyses conducted by SEH,
Inc, RLK-Kuusisto, SRF Consulting Group
and Ehlers and Associates, all on file in City
offices
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 6564
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RESOLUTION APPROVING
PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE
DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW,
MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY AND MEDTRONIC, INC.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council ("Council") of the City of Mounds View as
follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The City of Mounds View (the "City") has previously established the Mounds View
Economic Development Project (the "Project"), which is currently administered by the Mounds
View Economic Development Authority (the "Authority").
1.02. The Authority and City are considering approval of a tax increment financing plan
("TIF Plan") and a proposed Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 (the "TIF District") within the
Project.
1.03. The City owns certain property within the Project legally described as set forth in
Exhibit A (the “Property”).
1.04. The City and Authority have received a development proposal from Medtronic, Inc.
(the "Developer") for an office facility (the "Development") to be constructed on the Property which
is located within the proposed TIF District.
1.05. The Developer has proposed to acquire the Property from the City and Authority,
and in connection with that proposal the City and Authority have caused to be prepared a Purchase
Agreement and Contract for Private Development between the City, the Authority and Developer
(the “Contract”).
1.06. The Council has reviewed the Contract providing for the sale of the Property, the
construction of the Development on the Property and certain tax increment payments to the
Developer in connection with the Development, and has concluded that the proposed development
is consistent with and promotes the goals and objectives for which the Project was established.
1.07. Pursuant to the Contract the City agrees to convey to the Authority, and the
Authority agrees to subsequently convey to the Developer, the Property described in the Contract,
subject to certain terms and conditions.
EXHIBIT A
1.08. The Authority has on June 20, 2005 held a public hearing pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.105 regarding conveyance of the Property to the Developer at which all
interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard.
1.09. The City finds that conveyance of the Property to the Authority is in the public
interest because it will further the objectives of the Project.
1.10. The City finds that conveyance by the Authority of the Property to the Developer is
in the public interest because it will further the objectives of the Project.
1.11. The Contract provides for certain financial assistance that constitutes a “business
subsidy” within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.993 to 116J.995 (the “Business
Subsidy Act”).
1.12. The “business subsidy agreement” as required under the Business Subsidy Act is
included as Article V of the Contract, and the City and the Authority have on June 20, 2005,
conducted a duly-noticed public hearing regarding the business subsidy agreement at which all
interested persons were provided an opportunity to be heard.
1.13. The Council has reviewed the Contract, including the business subsidy agreement,
and finds that the execution thereof by the City and the Authority and performance of the City's and
the Authority’s obligations thereunder are in the best interest of the Authority, the City and its
residents.
Section 2. Authorization.
2.01. The City approves the conveyance of the Property to the Authority, subject to
satisfaction of all terms and conditions of the Contract, and authorizes and directs the Mayor and
Clerk-Administrator to execute the Contract, deed and related documents necessary to carry out
such real estate transaction.
2.02. The City approves the Authority’s conveyance of the Property to the Developer,
subject to satisfaction of all terms and conditions of the Contract, and authorizes and directs the
Mayor and Clerk-Administrator to execute the Contract and related documents necessary to carry
out such real estate transaction.
2.03. The Council hereby approves the Contract, including all necessary accompanying
agreements included therein, the business subsidy agreement within the Contract, and any tax
increment payment obligations contained therein, in substantially the form presented to the Council
on this date, subject to modifications that do not materially alter the City’s or the Authority's rights
and obligations under the Contract and that are approved by the Mayor and Clerk-Administrator and
the Authority's President and Executive Director, which approvals shall be conclusively evidenced
by execution of the Contract.
2.04. The proper City officials are authorized to execute the Contract and take any and all
other steps necessary or convenient in order to carry out the City’s obligations under the Contract.
Approved by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 27th day of June, 2005.
___________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________________
City Clerk-Administrator
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
Outlot A and Lot 4, Block 1, North Star Industrial Park 2nd Addition, according to
the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Lot 16, Block 2, North Star Industrial Park, except the Easterly 40 feet thereof,
according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota.
That part of Tract A described below:
Tract A.
The South Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 5, Township 30 North, Range
23 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota;
Which lies northerly and westerly of the following described line: Commencing
at the center of said Section 5; thence north on an azimuth of 359 degrees 23
minutes 10 seconds (azimuth oriented to Minnesota State Plane Coordinate
System) along the north and south quarter line of said Section 5 for 781.42 feet to
the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence on an azimuth of 108
degrees 12 minutes 41 seconds, 231.14 feet; thence on an azimuth of 98 degrees
27 minutes 03 seconds, 1486.78 feet; thence run northeasterly for 447.16 feet on a
non-tangential curve, concave to the northwest, having a radius of 720 feet, a
delta angle of 35 degrees 35 minutes 02 seconds and a chord azimuth of 76
degrees 55 minutes 11 seconds; thence on an azimuth of 59 degrees 07 minutes 40
seconds, 192.89 feet; thence run northerly 398.14 feet on a non-tangential curve,
concave to the northwest, having a radius of 850 feet; a delta angle of 26 degrees
50 minutes 15 seconds and a chord azimuth of 29 degrees 26 minutes 05 seconds;
thence on an azimuth of 16 degrees 00 minutes 57 seconds, 303.65 feet to the
north line of said Tract A and there terminating;
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14 and 15, Block 1 and Lots 1, 2, 3; Lot 4 except the South 60
feet and Lot 5 except the South 222.2 feet, Block 2, LaPort Meadows, according
to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota except
those portions which lie southwesterly of a line run parallel with and distant 100
feet northeasterly of the following described line:
Beginning at a point on the west line of Section 5, Township 30 North; Range 23 west distant
688.09 feet south of the northwest corner thereof; thence run southeasterly at an angle of 142
degrees 35 minutes 45 seconds with said west section line for 1278.48 feet; thence deflect to the
left on a 3 degrees 00 minutes curve (delta angle 33 degrees 39 minutes 25 seconds) for 1121.90
feet; thence on tangent to said curve for 1100 feet and there terminating.
EXHIBIT B
RESOLUTION NO. 6592
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MEDTRONIC PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
GENERAL CONCEPT PLAN; PLANNING CASE NO. PD2005-002
WHEREAS, Medtronic, Inc., has submitted an application for a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) for an 820,000 square foot corporate office campus on 72 acres of land
and is requesting approval of the PUD general concept plan; and,
WHEREAS, the land to be developed by Medtronic represents the City’s Bridges Golf
Course located north of Trunk Highway 10 at 8390 Coral Sea Street, legally described as
follows:
Refer to Exhibit A
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on this matter on
August 22, 2005; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed Chapter 1120 of the Mounds
View Municipal Code pertaining to planned unit developments; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the land use component of
the Comprehensive Plan relative to this request; and,
WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the site plans dated
July 26, 2005, relative to this request.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council, finding
that the general concept plan of the proposed Medtronic Planned Unit Development is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Municipal Code, approves said general
concept plan.
Adopted this 22nd day of August, 2005
_______________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk / Administrator
(SEAL)
EXHIBIT A – Medtronic PUD Legal Description
Parcel 1:
Outlot A and Lot 4, Block 1, North Star Industrial Park 2nd Addition, according to the recorded
plat thereof; and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Parcel 2:
Lot 16, Block 2, North Star Industrial Park, except the easterly 40 feet thereof, according to
the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Parcel 3: That part of Tract A described below:
Tract A.
The South Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 5, Township 30 North, Range 23 West,
Ramsey County, Minnesota, which lies northerly and westerly of the following described
line:
Commencing at the center of said Section 5; thence north on an azimuth of 359
degrees 23 minutes 10 seconds (azimuth oriented to Minnesota State Plane
Coordinate System) along the north and south quarter line of said Section 5 for 781.42
feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence on an azimuth of 108
degrees 12 minutes 41 seconds, 231.14 feet; thence on an azimuth of 98 degrees 27
minutes 03 seconds, 1486.78 feet; thence run northeasterly for 447.16 feet on a non-
tangential curve, concave to the northwest, having a radius of 720 feet, a delta angle of
35 degrees 35 minutes 02 seconds and a chord azimuth of 76 degrees 55 minutes 11
seconds; thence on an azimuth of 59 degrees 07 minutes 40 seconds, 192.89 feet;
thence run northerly 398.14 feet on a non-tangential curve concave to the northwest,
having a radius of 850 feet; a delta angle of 26 degrees 50 minutes 15 seconds and a
chord azimuth of 29 degrees 26 minutes 05 seconds; thence on an azimuth of 16
degrees 00 minutes 57 seconds, 303.65 feet to the north line of said Tract A and there
terminating;
Parcel 4:
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14 and 15, Block 1 and Lots 1, 2, 3, Lot 4 except the South 60 feet and Lot
5 except the South 222.2 feet, Block 2, Laport Meadows, according to the recorded plat
thereof, and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota, except those portions which lie
southwesterly of a line run parallel with and distant 100 feet northeasterly of the following
described line:
Beginning at a point on the west line of Section 5, Township 30 North, Range 23 West
distant 688.09 feet south of the northwest corner thereof; thence run southeasterly at
an angle of 142 degrees 35 minutes 45 seconds with said west section line for 1278.48
feet; thence deflect to the left on a 03 degrees 00 minute curve (delta angle 33 degrees
39 minutes 25 seconds) for 1121.90 feet; thence on a tangent to said curve for
1100.00 feet and there terminating.
(This legal description does not include parcels in Blaine.)
Item No. 08E
Type of Business: PH & CB
Meeting Date: August 22, 2005
City Administrator Review: ______ City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree Crane, Administrative Assistant
Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Resolution 6600, a
Resolution Approving a Transfer of Ownership for an
On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License from Jake’s Sports
Café, Inc. to Thomas Stuart of City Tavern
Section 502.08 of the City Code requires that a public hearing be held prior to any
intoxicating liquor license. The City of Mounds View issued an on-sale intoxicating
liquor license for Jake’s Sports Cafe on June 27, 2005. Thomas Stuart will be acquiring
Jake’s Sports Café and will be changing its name to City Tavern.
Thomas Stuart has submitted the city liquor license application materials (to include the
application to stay open until 2am per Ordinance 717), and the applicable fees. The
following investigations and inspections have been conducted to determine whether
there is cause for the City to deny any of the above referenced intoxicating liquor
license application:
Police Inquiry and Investigations
The report has not come back from the Minnesota Department of Criminal
Apprehension for Thomas Stuart. The Intoxicating liquor license will be pending a
satisfactory report from this agency. This report should arrive within a week.
Utility Billing Inquiry (City of Mounds View)
Jake’s Sports Café does owe the City of Mounds View $1,305.63. However, they still
have until August 31, 2005 to pay.
Fire Inspection (City of Mounds View Fire Marshal)
The City’s Fire Marshal has inspected the location currently called Jake’s Sports Café
and issued a satisfactory report.
Thomas Stuart still needs to submit a Certificate of Insurance for his liquor license. I left
a message for Mr. Stuart on Thursday indicating that I needed this Certificate before the
City can forward his application to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety.
According to the City Code, the establishment must be insured for the following:
(1) Fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) for bodily injury to any one (1)
person in any one occurrence and subject to the limit of one (1)
person, in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars
($100,000.00) for bodily injury to two (2) or more persons in any one
(1) occurrence and in the amount of ten thousand dollars
($10,000,00) for injury to or destruction of property of others in any
one (1) occurrence.
(2) Fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) for loss of means of support of
any one (1) person in any one (1) occurrence and, subject to the limit
for one (1) person, one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) for
loss of means of support of two (2) or more persons in any one (1)
occurrence.
Recommendation
Staff has two options for the City Council to consider:
Option One
Postpone the Public Hearing until the applicant’s report from the Minnesota Department
of Criminal Apprehension and the applicant’s Certificate of Insurance is received.
Or
Option Two
Recommend approval with the stipulation that the On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License is
not issued unless the Minnesota Department of Criminal Apprehension Report come
back satisfactory, and the applicant submits the appropriate Certificate of Insurance with
the amounts as defined in the City Code.
A resolution for approval is attached if the City Council wishes to recommend approval.
Respectfully Submitted
Desaree M. Crane
RESOLUTION 6600
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Resolution Approving an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for
Thomas Stuart (City Tavern)
WHEREAS, Jake’s Sports Cafe’s is transferring ownership to Thomas Stuart
Intoxicating Liquor License for an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License; and
WHEREAS, all City of Mounds View business licenses must be approved by the
City Council; and
WHEREAS, all necessary inspections for the establishment located at 2400
Highway 10 have been conducted; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends approval of Thomas Stuart (City Tavern) On-
Intoxicating Liquor License with the condition that a satisfactory report from the
Minnesota Department of Criminal Apprehension and Certificate of Insurance is
received.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council
does hereby approve an Intoxicating Liquor License for Thomas Stuart (City Tavern)
subject to a satisfactory report from the Minnesota Department of Criminal
Apprehension and receipt of a Certificate of Insurance.
Adopted this 22nd day of August, 2005.
________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No. 8G
Meeting Date: August 22, 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: Proposal to Stripe County Crosswalks
Background:
Over the past few months the City has received several requests to re-stripe the
crosswalks on County Road I between Silver Lake Road and County Road 10.
Staff has reviewed the current visibility of the striping of these crosswalks and
has contacted Ramsey County regarding this issue; Ramsey County has
jurisdiction over this segment of County Road I.
There are three (3) crosswalks on this section of County Road I that, according to
City Staff’s opinion, are due for repainting. However, County Staff has informed
City Staff that due to the limited County budget, the County will not be re-striping
these crosswalks this year and have no set schedule of re-striping them in the
near future. City Staff then inquired as to the possibility having the City re-stripe
these crosswalks with financial reimbursement from the County. County Staff
informed City Staff that the County would allow the City to re-stripe the
crosswalks, however, the County will not provide financial reimbursement.
Below is a cost estimate of time and materials for the City to re-stripe the three
crosswalks on County Road I between Silver Lake Road and County Road 10:
1.5 gallons of paint per intersection ($10.42 per gallon) x 3 intersections $49.94
1 bag of reflective bead (includes tax) $20.23
1.5 to 2 hrs per intersection x 3 workers at O.T. rate of ($32.09) x 6hours $192.54
1 utility truck and trailer at $25.00 per hour x 6 hours $150.00
Total $412.71
The City’s template that is used to paint City crosswalks is not of the same
dimensions as is used by the County and State. The dimensional difference is
due to the different speed ratings and the classification of the roadway. The City
uses a 3'x6' template, whereas the County uses a 3'x8' template. In the event the
City wishes to re-stripe these crosswalks, the County will allow City Staff use
their template to avoid the cost of manufacturing one.
Discussion:
The issue of re-striping the crosswalks on County Road I between Silver Lake
Road and County Road 10 was discussed at the August 15, 2005 Special City
Council Work Session. At that time, The City Council directed Staff to review all
County jurisdictional crosswalks throughout the City to determine if there are
other County Crosswalks in similar condition needing re-striping.
Staff has since reviewed all County Crosswalks within the City. The results are
as follows:
• County Road H. has 11 crosswalks, 6 need to be repainted.
• Silver Lake Road has 5 crosswalks, none of them need to be repainted.
• Long Lake Road has 8 crosswalks, 5 need to be repainted.
• County Road I has 10 crosswalks, 7 need to be repainted.
• County Road 10 has 20 crosswalks, 4 need to be repainted.
Total number of County crosswalks: 54
Total number that needs to be repainted: 22
There are 54 total County jurisdictional crosswalks, of which, as per Staff’s
opinion, 22 are candidates for re-striping this year (this number includes the three
previously discussed crosswalks along County Road I).
The estimated cost for the City to re-stripe these 22 crosswalks is $3,000.00. As
a note, this improvement would not be Tax Increment Financing (TIF) eligible.
A case can be made as to why the City should re-stripe County jurisdictional
crosswalks from a public safety standpoint. However, another issue to consider is
setting a precedent of the City expending City funds to provide a service the
County is responsible for.
Another option to address this issue would be to have the City Council directly
make a formal request to the County Commission, or to direct Staff to submit a
formal request to the County Commission pleading for assistance in addressing
this issue.
Recommendation:
Staff is looking for direction on this matter. Specifically, Staff is looking for
Council direction as to how they would like to precede with the need for County
Crosswalks to be re-striped.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item No: 8K
Meeting Date: 08/22/05
Type of Business: CB
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6605 Adopting an Amended Contract with Canyon Grille
for the Lease of Space at the Mounds View Community Center
Background
With the proposed remodeling project at City Hall it is recommended that the City Hall
staff (with the exception of the Police Department that will relocate to the Ramsey County
Sheriff’s facility in Arden Hills) be relocated to the Mounds View Community Center,
utilizing space currently occupied by the YMCA and Canyon Grille. The YMCA contracts
with the City to provide recreational services. The Canyon Grille leases space from the
City comprising of the event center, former community school classrooms, offices and
common area.
The total amount of space required for City operations at the Community Center is about
4,700 square feet, including common space. Of the total, about 72% or 3,400 square
feet, is space currently leased to Canyon Grille. The City would need to lease the space
back from Canyon Grille at a rate to be determined.
Discussion
Canyon Grille has requested that they pay no rent for the approximately seven months
that the City will be occupying the space from September 1, 2005 through April 1, 2006.
For the first six months of their lease, the Canyon Grille paid $3,000 per month in rent.
Beginning July 1, 2005, the lease went up to $5,000 per month. Canyon Grille is to pay
the $5,000 for July and August.
The City received quotes from two Mounds View shopping centers and an educational
office building and rents were quoted at $14.50 a square foot, not including utilities. At
that rate the City would need to pay $5,679 in rent, plus utilities for the same amount of
square footage being used at the Community Center. A high-speed computer connection
(T1 line) would also need to be added in any of those locations.
If the total square footage of 4,700 square feet is used in the calculation, the city is
paying a rate of about $12.00 per square foot for the Community Center. Utilities are
already being paid for with the building so there would be no additional charge. A T-1
computer connection is also already installed and paid at the community center so there
would be no additional charge for that service. By comparison, the lease rates of other
current tenants (e.g., the day care and Chamber of Commerce) range from $8-11 per
square foot.
The Canyon Grille has been asked to provide financial information for the past six
months of community center operation.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council consider the attached Resolution 6605 Adopting
an Amended Contract with Canyon Grille for the Lease of Space at the Mounds View
Community Center subject to receiving financial information from the Canyon Grille.
RESOLUTION NO. 6605
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION ADOPTING
AN AMENDED CONTRACT WITH CANYON GRILLE
FOR THE LEASE OF SPACE AT THE MOUNDS VIEW COMMUNITY CENTER
WHEREAS, the city of Mounds View is undertaking a major remodeling of City Hall
and must temporarily relocate its office operation to the Mounds View Community Center;
and
WHEREAS, the Canyon Grille currently leases space from the City of Mounds View
that the City would like to use on a temporary basis from approximately September 1, 2005
to April 1, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the City has examined alternatives for leasing space in other
buildings within the City and finds this to be the most economical and convenient
alternative.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds
View, Ramsey County, Minnesota does hereby authorize staff to amend the current lease
contract with the Canyon Grille, to allow rent of $0 for the period from September 1, 2005
to April 1, 2006, in consideration the City will be able to utilize space as defined for City
Hall operations during the same time period, and subject to the City ordering the City Hall
remodeling project.
Adopted this 22nd of August 2005.
____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No: 08L
Meeting Date: August 22, 2005
Type of Business: CB
City Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree M. Crane, Administrative Assistant
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6606 Supporting the Improvements to
Springbrook Nature Center Associated with the SPRING
(Sanctuary Protection & Renewal into the Next Generation)
and Supporting a Request for Financial Assistance from the
State of Minnesota
The voters in the City of Fridley approved a $275,000 referendum in November of
2004 to continue programming and city-paid staff at Springbrook Nature Center.
The Springbrook Nature Center is now making a request for a $2.5 million
matching state grant. The Springbrook Nature Center Foundation has initiated a
fundraising campaign to complete this matching grant to reach their $5 million goal
for capital improvements at Springbrook Nature Center.
The Mayor of Fridley is asking neighboring communities to support the foundation
in achieving a state grant by submitting a resolution of support. Attached is a
resolution of support, if the Council wishes to support achieving this state grant for
the Springbrook Nature Center.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree Crane
RESOLUTION 6606
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE IMPROVEMENTS TO SPRINGBROOK
NATURE CENTER ASSOCIATED WITH THE SPRING (SANCTUARY
PROTECTION & RENEWAL INTO THE NEXT GENERATION) PROJECT AND
SUPPORTING THE REQUEST TO THE STATE OF MINNESOTA FOR
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
WHEREAS, the Springbrook Nature Center is a 127-acre City of Fridley
park that provides year-round opportunities to experience and learn about nature;
and is an environmental education center that serves school groups, community
organizations and families; and
WHEREAS, the Springbrook Nature Center serves the people living in the
north suburban area with enjoyable and educational programs, hands-on exhibits
and nature center facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Springbrook Nature Center SPRING Project will enhance
this park as a learning center for people from the metropolitan area, the State of
Minnesota, the City of Fridley and the City of Mounds View; and
WHEREAS, the Springbrook Nature Center SPRING Project includes
facility improvements that will provide spaces for education, health and wellness,
community gatherings, celebrations, and business meetings; and
WHEREAS, the Springbrook Nature Center SPRING will create public
spaces that minimize future operation and environmental costs through design and
technology improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Springbrook Nature Center SPRING Project has been
developed with the input of citizen groups, environmentalists, City officials and
architects to preserve the Springbrook experience for future generations; and
WHEREAS, the Springbrook Nature Center Foundation is a local non-
profit organization dedicated to supporting the overall planning, development and
management of the Springbrook Nature Center; and
WHEREAS, the Springbrook Nature Center Foundation has committed to
taking the lead in raising the $2.5 million matching funds for a State grant from
private sources; and
Resolution 6606
Page 2
WHEREAS, the increased operating costs associated with the
Springbrook Nature Center SPRING Project will be covered through a combination
of additional program revenue and funds provided by the Springbrook Nature
Center Foundation; and
WHEREAS, the recent legislative shifts in government aids, levy limits and
real estate tax changed make it impossible for the Fridley City Council to pass on
tax increases for Fridley property owners for the future development and future
maintenance of this regional facility.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Mounds View
City Council supports the improvements included in the Springbrook Nature Center
SPRING Project and recognizes the positive impact this project will have upon the
citizens of the northern Twin Cities metropolitan area.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mounds
View supports the application to the State of Minnesota for financial assistance
with the Springbrook Nature Center SPRING Project.
Adopted this 22nd day of August, 2005.
________________________________
Rob Marty Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No. 8M
Meeting Date: August 22, 2005
Type of Business: CB
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6585 Approving a Severance Package for
Regular Full-time Golf Course Employees
Background:
This item was previously reviewed by the City Council at the July 5th work session
and the August 8th regular session. The consensus of the Council at that time was
to allow payout of vacation and sick leave in accordance with current policy and to
allow accumulated flextime to be used by employees prior to termination, or to pay
out as a lump sum. Current flextime balances of golf course employees are being
reviewed.
No consensus was reached on whether there should be additional severance pay
(e.g., one week per year of service) based on a lay-off situation. Currently, the City
has no special severance pay provisions for economic lay-off situations and, as
discussed by the Council, past practice (e.g., past Park and Recreation lay-offs)
does not support such action.
The golf course has three full-time employees who would be impacted by the sale
and closure of the golf course; the Golf Course Manager, the Clubhouse
Manager/Golf Instructor, and the Grounds/Equipment Manager.
Discussion:
The City flextime policy in regard to golf course employees reads:
Except for Golf Course exempt status personnel, accrued Flex time balances will be reduced to
forty hours on December 31 of each calendar year. Golf Course exempt status personnel must
use accrued Flex time balances by March 1 of each calendar year or accrued Flex time balances
will be reduced to forty hours. Upon an employee’s termination from the City, there will be no
pay-out of Flex time accruals, either partial or total.
If all the staff recommended severance pay was granted, the cost to the City would
not exceed $54,000, based upon a most-cost scenario of each employee working
until the end of the calendar year and having enough accrued flextime to last until
March 1, 2006, which was typical in past years. The Medtronic project included
the expense of $50,000 in the financial pro forma to cover this cost.
The concept of using TIF to cover employee severance pay was reviewed by our
financial advisors and not recommended.
All of the full-time golf course employees are non-union and therefore covered by
the City Personnel Manual in regard to severance.
According to Section 4.35 of the Mounds View Personnel Manual:
SEPARATION COMPENSATION
Vacation
An employee will be compensated for accrued vacation and compensatory time upon
separation.
Sick Leave Severance
Severance pay shall be granted to employees who leave in good standing in the amount
of fifty percent (50%) of unused sick leave to employees who have completed two years
of service. Maximum accumulation of sick leave is 120 days. Additional banked sick
leave hours will not be computed in severance pay.
The spouse or family of an employee is eligible for severance benefits, if the following
conditions are met:
• Employee worked for the City for two years prior to the termination of employment; and;
• The employee died while an employee of the City.
Employees who have completed ten years of service and retire may elect, in lieu of
severance pay, to have the employer use sixty-five percent (65%) of the employee’s
accrued and unused sick leave for the retiree’s group health, dental and life insurance
premiums for as long as the funds are available up to the retiree’s 65th birthday.
Severance benefits will be paid at the employee’s regular rate of pay on the last date as
an employee.
According to the Mounds View Personnel Manual Section 4.15 in regard to
Layoff it states:
Notice of Layoff
The City Administrator shall give written Notice of a Layoff to a regular or probationary employee
at least 14 calendar days before the effective date of the Layoff. A copy of the notice shall be
provided to the Human Resource Representative.
This policy only applies to regular part-time and full-time employees. Written Notice of Layoff
may be given to provisional or temporary employees at any time prior to the effective date of
Layoff.
None of the Golf Course employees were interested in the position in the Sewer
and Water Division that is now being hired.
The Council may consider granting employees an additional severance of one
week’s pay per year of service due to economic lay-off. Employees will have
completed three, nine, and three years of employment respectively by the end of
2005. This type of severance pay is common in organizations and, if approved
for the golf course employees, it is recommended that it be written into general
City policy for economic or budgetary layoff situations with appropriate
guidelines.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution 6585
approving a severance package for regular full-time Golf Course employees. In
addition to the standard severance pay as provided in the Personnel Manual that
includes vacation and sick leave, the resolution provides for a termination date
that would account for the employee’s balance of flextime hours. Additionally, a
severance benefit of one weeks pay per year of service is included.
RESOLUTION NO. 6585
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING A SEVERANCE PACKAGE FOR
REGULAR FULL-TIME GOLF COURSE EMPLOYEES
WHEREAS, the City Council anticipates closing of the municipal golf
course known as The Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course at the end of the 2005
season; and
WHEREAS, the golf course has three full-time employees who would be
impacted by the sale and closure of the golf course; the Golf Course Manager, the
Clubhouse Manager/Golf Instructor, and the Grounds/Equipment Manager; and
WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City to provide a severance package
to these employees that is consistent with existing City policy and past practice in
regard to layoffs, and recognizes the efforts of the golf course employees; and.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View City
Council hereby affirms that all regular full-time golf course employees will be
subject to all severance benefits as provided in the City’s Personnel Policy and
subject to the terms and conditions therein,
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED, that the termination date of each golf
course employee will be established within the Notice of Layoff to account for the
individual employee’s flextime balance and, further, each employee shall be given
an additional severance payment of one week’s pay for each complete year of
service.
Adopted this 8th day of September 2005.
_________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No: 08N
Meeting Date: August 22, 2005
Type of Business: CB
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6608 Approving the Sufficiency of Petition in Opposition
of Ordinance 760, an Ordinance Authorizing Disposal by Sale of
Real Property Owned by the City of Mounds View to the Mounds
View Economic Development Authority
Background:
On Monday, August 15, 2005, staff proceeded with determining the validity of the
petition against Ordinance 760, an Ordinance Authorizing the Disposal by Sale of Real
Property owned by the City of Mounds View to the Mounds View Economic
Development Authority. The City Council adopted Ordinance 760, which is scheduled
to take effect on August 19, 2005, pursuant to the City Charter. The petition contains
1,930 signatures.
According to 5.02 of the City Charter it states:
Section 5.02. General Provisions for Petitions. A petition provided for under this chapter
shall be sponsored by a committee of five registered voters of the City whose names and
addresses shall appear on the petition. A petition may consist of one or more papers, but
each separately circulated paper shall contain at its head, or attached thereto, the
information specified in sections 5.05, 5.07 or 5.08 which apply, respectively, to initiative,
referendum and recall. Each signer shall be a registered voter of the City and shall sign
their name and give their street address. Each separate page of the petition shall have
appended to it a certificate by the circulator, verified by oath, that each signature appended
thereto was made in their presence and that the circulator believes them to be the genuine
signature of the person whose name it purports to be. The person making the certificate
shall be a resident of the City and registered to vote. Any person whose name appears on a
petition may withdraw their name by a statement in writing filed with the Clerk-Administrator
before said Clerk-Administrator advises the Council of the sufficiency of the petition.
In order to validate the petition, staff developed a database to track each resident that
signed the petition. This was to track any duplicate signatures, and to have a record of
determining sufficiency. Each resident was checked on the Ramsey County Registered
Voter Master List. This list contains all registered voters in the City of Mounds View.
After this was completed, Staff checked all determined Non-Registered voters on the
Minnesota Statewide Voter Registration System. This system is updated daily, and has
the most updated information on registered voters.
Staff had some difficulty in reading names on the petitions. Staff had three employees
(Desaree Crane, Jodi Salmonson, and Tracy Juell) to look at these names to make
every effort that each resident who signed the petition was counted. Of the 1,193
signatures, 12 could not be determined due to an illegible signature.
Staff also found that some of the residents either did not give an address on the
petition. These signatures are not valid because a determination of residency could not
be made to these residents. There were 17 signatures that were not valid.
Discussion:
The petition numbers are as follows:
Number of Signatures: 1,193
Number of Non-Registered Voters: 214
Number of Illegible Signatures
Duplicates and Invalid 34
Number of Registered Voters: 945
The petition needed 989 signatures in order for it to be a sufficient petition. According
to Section 5.03 of the City Charter it states:
Section 5.03. Determination of Sufficiency. The committee shall file the completed petition
in the office of the Clerk-Administrator. The required number of signers shall be at least
fifteen percent for initiative and referendum, and for recall, at least twenty-five percent of
the total number of electors who cast their votes for president at the last presidential election.
Immediately upon receipt of the petition, the Clerk-Administrator shall examine the petition
as to its sufficiency and report to the Council within ten days. Upon receiving the report, the
Council shall determine by resolution the sufficiency of the petition.
The last presidential election was in 2004, and 6,597 residents cast their votes. Fifteen
percent of 6,597 is 989.55.
Recommendation:
RESOLUTION NO. 6608
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION DETERMINING THE SUFFICIENCY OF REFERENDUM
PETITION PURSUANT TO CITY CHARTER AND PROVIDING FOR THE
DISPOSITION OF SAID PETITION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY
CHARTER
WHEREAS, Section 5.07 of the Mounds View City Charter provides that an ordinance
adopted by the City Council may be subjected to a petition for a referendum prior to the date
when the ordinance takes effect; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 760 which is scheduled to take
effect on August 19, 2005, pursuant to the Mounds View City Charter; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 5 of the Mounds View City Charter a petition for a
referendum as to Ordinance No. 760 has been received by the City; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Mounds View City Charter, City staff has reviewed and
determined that the petition submitted to the City is insufficient due to the fact that the
number of valid signatures was less than the required number; and
WHEREAS, the referendum petition seeks a vote as to the final adoption of
Ordinance No. 760 which authorizes the sale of real property by the City of Mounds View to
the Mounds View Economic Development Authority; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received an opinion from the City Attorney which is
attached and set forth as Exhibit A to this resolution and incorporated herein by reference;
and
WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the City Attorney that an ordinance dealing with the
sale of land is an administrative act (among other reasons) of the City Council that is not
subject to referendum pursuant to Minnesota law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council does not concur with the opinion of the City Attorney.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds
View that the recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this
Resolution as if fully set forth herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mounds View
hereby finds the petition initially submitted on August 15, 2005, requesting a vote as to the
adoption of Ordinance No. 760 to be insufficient pursuant to the Mounds View City Charter;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council hereby finds that the question posed
in such referendum petition is valid;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council hereby finds that the City Clerk-
Administrator shall provide written notification to the sponsoring committee of defects in the
petition as provided in the Charter; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that City staff is authorized to take
all necessary action consistent with the City Charter and State law to inform the petitioners of
the findings of the City Council as to the referendum petition submitted concerning Ordinance
No. 760.
Approved by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 22nd day of August,
2005.
___________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
RESOLUTION NO. 6608
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION DETERMINING THE SUFFICIENCY OF REFERENDUM
PETITION PURSUANT TO CITY CHARTER; FINDING THE
REFERENDUM QUESTION INVALID; AND DECLARING
THAT SUCH QUESTION SHALL NOT BE CERTIFIED
FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION
WHEREAS, Section 5.07 of the Mounds View City Charter provides that an ordinance
adopted by the City Council may be subjected to a petition for a referendum prior to the date
when the ordinance takes effect; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 760 which is scheduled to take
effect on August 19, 2005, pursuant to the Mounds View City Charter; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 5 of the Mounds View City Charter a petition for a
referendum as to Ordinance No. 760 has been received by the City; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Mounds View City Charter, City staff has reviewed and
determined that the petition submitted to the City is sufficient/insufficient because of
__________________________________________________________________; and
WHEREAS, the referendum petition seeks a vote as to the final adoption of
Ordinance No. 760 which authorizes the sale of real property by the City of Mounds View to
the Mounds View Economic Development Authority; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received an opinion from the City Attorney which is
attached and set forth as Exhibit A to this resolution and incorporated herein by reference;
and
WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the City Attorney that an ordinance dealing with the
sale of land is an administrative act (among other reasons) of the City Council that is not
subject to referendum pursuant to Minnesota law.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds
View that the recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this
Resolution as if fully set forth herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mounds View
hereby finds the petition initially submitted on August 15, 2005, requesting a vote as to the
adoption of Ordinance No. 760 to be sufficient/insufficient because of
________________________________________________________________________
pursuant to the Mounds View City Charter; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council hereby finds that the question posed
in such referendum petition is manifestly invalid;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council hereby finds that the question posed
in such referendum petition will not be placed on the ballot of a future City special election;
and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that City staff is authorized to take
all necessary action consistent with the City Charter and State law to inform the petitioners of
the findings of the City Council as to the referendum petition submitted concerning Ordinance
No. 760.
Approved by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 22nd day of August,
2005.
___________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
EXHIBIT A
OPINION OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY ATTORNEY
Kennedy
470 US Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
&
Graven
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
http://www.kennedy-graven.com
sriggs@kennedy-graven.com
C H A R T E R E D
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: August 11, 2005
TO: Mounds View City Council
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
FROM: Mary D. Tietjen
Scott J. Riggs
RE: Transfer of Property from City to EDA
Referendum Issues
This memorandum addresses the legal issues related to a potential referendum
challenging the transfer of property from the City of Mounds View (“City”) to the Mounds
View Economic Development Authority (“EDA”) for the Medtronic Development Project
(“Project”). A key question is whether the City Council would have legal grounds to deny a
referendum petition on the sale of the property and adopt a Resolution authorizing and
finalizing the transaction. In my opinion, the City Council has a sufficient legal grounds to
do both.
Factual Background
On July 11, 2005, the Mounds View City Council adopted Ordinance No. 760 authorizing
the conveyance of certain property from the City to the EDA. The EDA intends to
subsequently convey the property to Medtronic, Inc., for development and construction of
an 820,000 square foot office complex pursuant to a purchase agreement and a contract
for development between the City, the EDA and Medtronic. Residents have threatened to
challenge the City’s conveyance of property for the Project pursuant to the power of
referendum under Section 5.01 of the City Charter.1
1 Section 5.01 reads: “The people of Mounds View reserve to themselves the powers in accordance
with the provisions of this Charter to initiate and adopt ordinances and resolutions, to require
Legal Issues
I. Is the conveyance of property a legislative act subject to referendum?
II. May the City authorize conveyance of the property under Minnesota Statutes
sections 471.64 and 465.035, without regard to city charter provisions?
III. Does Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462 preempt the city charter referendum
provision?
Legal Discussion
The following are legal arguments that would support a finding by the City Council to deny
a petition for referendum on the sale of the property.
I. The Conveyance of Property is Not a Legislative Act Subject to
Referendum.
The power of referendum is limited to acts which are legislative in character. Hanson v.
City of Granite Falls, 529 N.W.2d 485, 487 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995)(citing Oakman v. City of
Eveleth, 203 N.W. 514 (1925). To determine whether an ordinance is legislative and
subject to a referendum, the courts have distinguished between legislative, administrative
and quasi-judicial acts of a city. Id. at 488. In the Oakman case, a taxpayer sought to
require the city to hold a referendum on an ordinance authorizing the settlement of a
lawsuit against the city. The court found that the ordinance did not enact a law, but was
instead the exercise of an administrative function:
We think the measure is one that calls for investigation and discretion, and, if
such matters are not to be met and handled as a part of the daily routine of
business of a municipality, but must be submitted to the people to make a law for
each controversy that may arise, we are drifting from the ideals of representative
government. In fact, the theory of initiative and referendum was directed at
supposed evils of legislation alone . . . To allow a referendum to be invoked in
order to delay executive conduct would destroy the efficiency necessary to the
successful administration of the business affairs of a city.
Oakman, 203 N.W. at 517 (emphasis added). The Oakman court also rejected the idea
that the matter of awarding a contract is a legislative act:
The orders of the city council as to which the referendum is sought in the case at
bar are clearly executive and not legislative in their nature. A direction to an
officer to sign a specified contract with a named person to do a defined thing for
a specified price is not a legislative act. . . It is not the laying down of a rule, a
principle or a law by which the conduct of a public officer may be guided.
Id. (emphasis added). General legislative acts lay down some permanent and uniform rule
measures passed by the Council to be referred to the electorate for approval or disapproval, and to
recall elected public officials. These powers shall be called the initiative, the referendum, and the
recall, respectively.”
of law, administrative acts relate to daily administration of municipal affairs, and quasi-
judicial acts are the product of investigation, consideration and deliberate human judgment
based upon evidentiary facts of some sort. Hanson, 529 N.W.2d at 488.
The Mounds View City Council adopted an ordinance authorizing the conveyance of real
property from the City to the EDA. Although Minnesota courts have not directly held that
the sale of real property is an administrative, rather than a legislative act, the case law
strongly supports this argument. As an administrative act, the sale of property is not
subject to referendum.
Moreover, the ordinance authorizing the sale is an ordinance authorizing a contract for the
conveyance of property. And, courts have held that entering into a contract is an
administrative act. The sale of property does not establish a permanent or uniform rule of
law; rather, it is an administrative act that is part of the day-to-day business activities of the
City. Also, the fact that the Council authorized the sale by ordinance should not change
the conclusion. In the Oakman case, the city adopted an ordinance approving a settlement
and the court, nonetheless, held that the ordinance was the exercise of an administrative
function. If administrative acts, such as the sale of property, were subject to referendum, it
would defeat not only the purpose of referendum, but make it highly impractical and
inefficient for the City to conduct its daily business affairs.
Under the case law, a court would likely find that the sale of real property is an
administrative, not a legislative, act. Thus, the ordinance authorizing the sale is not subject
to referendum and the City Council may deny the sufficiency of a petition on this basis.
II. State Law Allows the City to Convey Property Without Regard to City Charter
Provisions.
Two state statutes provide support for this argument.
A. Minn. Stat. § 471.64.
The first statute, Minn. Stat. § 471.64, authorizes the City to enter into a contract for the
sale of real property to another political subdivision without regard to charter provisions:
Any county, city, town, . . . or other political subdivision of the state may enter
into any contract with . . . any other political subdivision of the state for the
purchase, lease, sale, . . . of real property, without regard to statutory or charter
provisions . . .
(emphasis added). Minnesota courts have not had an opportunity to construe this statute.
However, the Attorney General concluded in two opinions that a city may disregard charter
or statutory procedural requirements when entering into a contract with another
governmental entity. In both cases, the Attorney General decided that a city could
disregard statutory and charter bidding provisions when entering into a contract for the
purchase of electricity from the federal government. See Op.Atty.Gen., 59-A-15, March 30,
1965; Op.Atty.Gen., 59-A-15, July 7, 1945.
Section 12.05 of the Mounds View Charter that provides that “[n]o real property of the City
shall be disposed of except by ordinance.” However, section 471.64 authorizes the City to
enter into a contract for the sale of property to the EDA without regard to the city charter.
Although the City Council complied with the charter and adopted an ordinance authorizing
the conveyance, Minn. Stat. § 471.64 provides authority for the Council to adopt a
resolution authorizing staff to finalize conveyance of the property to the EDA.
B. Minn. Stat. § 465.035.
The second statute that supports the argument that the conveyance of property is not
subject to charter requirements is Minn. Stat. § 465.035. That section provides:
Any county, town, city or other public corporation may lease or convey its
lands for a nominal consideration, without consideration or for such consideration as
may be agreed upon to the state or to any governmental subdivision . . . for public
use when authorized by its governing body.
The Minnesota Supreme Court addressed this statute in County of Hennepin v. City of
Hopkins, 58 N.W.2d 851 (Minn. 1953). In that case, Hennepin County conveyed property
to the village of Hopkins for park and recreation purposes. After the deed had been
recorded, the county brought an action to invalidate the conveyance based on the failure to
comply with a statute requiring the adoption and publication of a resolution defining the
terms of the sale, a bond, and other specific requirements. The court held, however, that
Minn. Stat. § 465.035 trumped the requirements in the other statute and that the county
was permitted to convey the property without complying with the other statute. See id. at
855.
The City in this case has authorized conveyance of property to the EDA for a public
purpose. Under the Court’s holding in County of Hennepin, Minn. Stat. § 465.035 would
trump the City’s charter requirements. Thus, the City may adopt a resolution authorizing
staff to finalize conveyance of the property to the EDA, despite the ordinance requirement
in the charter. Under this same reasoning, a court could also find that, in a conveyance of
property from one public entity to another, section 465.035 trumps the referendum
provision in the city charter.
III. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462 Preempts the Charter Referendum
Provision.
The City may also be able to argue that the conveyance and redevelopment of property is
governed by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462, and, therefore, Chapter 462 preempts the
referendum provision in the charter.
City charters provisions must be consistent with and are subject to state law. See State ex
rel Town of Lowell v. City of Crookston, 252 Minn. 526, 91 N.W.2d 81, 83 (1958). The
Minnesota Court of Appeals recently held that the procedures set forth in chapter 462 for
adopting and implementing laws for land use planning preempt charter provisions reserving
the right of referendum to voters to approve or disapprove land use ordinances. See
Nordmarken v. City of Richfield, 641 N.W.2d 343 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002). In Nordmarken, a
private redeveloper submitted a plan to the City of Richfield that required both a rezoning
and an amendment to the city’s comprehensive plan. The council adopted the necessary
ordinances to allow the plan to go forward. A group of citizens petitioned the council for
referendum on the rezoning and comp plan ordinances. The court of appeals held that a
referendum would be in conflict with the state law and that state law preempted the charter
with respect to land use issues.
Although Nordmarken did not deal with the conveyance of property, the same rationale
may be applicable. Chapter 462 addresses the acquisition and disposal of property in
furthering the planning goals of a city. First, section 462.353, subd. 3, authorizes a
municipality to enter into contracts with other public or private agencies in furtherance of
the planning activities authorized in sections 462.351 to 462.364. Next, Minn. Stat. §
462.356 addresses the acquisition and disposal of property in the context of a city’s
comprehensive plan:
After a comprehensive municipal plan . . . has been recommended by the planning
agency and a copy filed with the governing body, no publicly owned interest in real
property within the municipality shall be acquired or disposed of, . . . until after the
planning agency has reviewed the proposed acquisition, . . . and reported in
writing to the governing body . . . its findings as to compliance of the proposed
acquisition, disposal or improvement with the comprehensive municipal plan.
Section 462.356 requires that a city follow a specific process before selling property to
ensure that the proposed sale is in compliance with the comprehensive plan. To subject
the findings approving or authorizing a sale to referendum would usurp the process set
forth in state statute. Also, the City has complied with section 462.356. The planning
commission reviewed the ordinance authorizing the sale of property from the City to the
EDA and reported to the City Council. Because state law governs the disposal of public
property and the City has complied with that law, an argument can be made that the
charter provision subjecting the City ordinance to referendum is preempted under the
court’s rationale in Nordmarken.
Conclusion
The City Council has several bases upon which to deny the sufficiency of a referendum
petition on the sale of property from the City to the EDA. First, entering into a contract for
the sale of property is an administrative, not a legislative, act and therefore is not subject to
referendum. Second, state law authorizes the City to convey property to another
governmental entity without regard to city charter provisions. Although the City Council has
adopted an ordinance authorizing the sale, it is not prohibited from also adopting a
resolution to authorize staff to finalize the transaction. Finally, an argument can be made
that the state law governing land use planning and the disposal of public property preempts
the referendum provision in the city charter.
Thus, based upon the above-discussed rationale, it is recommended that any referendum
petition received by the City regarding the sale of property from the City to the EDA be
denied as insufficient. In addition to the City’s involvement in this matter, the city council
should also keep in mind that other parties, including Medtronic, may be able to challenge
the sufficiency of any referendum petition or potential election based upon the above-
referenced case law, statutes and discussion.
Item No: 08N
Meeting Date: August 22, 2005
Type of Business: CB
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6608 Approving the Sufficiency of Petition in Opposition
of Ordinance 760, an Ordinance Authorizing Disposal by Sale of
Real Property Owned by the City of Mounds View to the Mounds
View Economic Development Authority
Background:
On Monday, August 15, 2005, staff proceeded with determining the validity of the
petition against Ordinance 760, an Ordinance Authorizing the Disposal by Sale of Real
Property owned by the City of Mounds View to the Mounds View Economic
Development Authority. The City Council adopted Ordinance 760, which is scheduled
to take effect on August 19, 2005, pursuant to the City Charter. The petition contains
1,193 signatures.
According to 5.02 of the City Charter it states:
Section 5.02. General Provisions for Petitions. A petition provided for under this chapter
shall be sponsored by a committee of five registered voters of the City whose names and
addresses shall appear on the petition. A petition may consist of one or more papers, but
each separately circulated paper shall contain at its head, or attached thereto, the
information specified in sections 5.05, 5.07 or 5.08 which apply, respectively, to initiative,
referendum and recall. Each signer shall be a registered voter of the City and shall sign
their name and give their street address. Each separate page of the petition shall have
appended to it a certificate by the circulator, verified by oath, that each signature appended
thereto was made in their presence and that the circulator believes them to be the genuine
signature of the person whose name it purports to be. The person making the certificate
shall be a resident of the City and registered to vote. Any person whose name appears on a
petition may withdraw their name by a statement in writing filed with the Clerk-Administrator
before said Clerk-Administrator advises the Council of the sufficiency of the petition.
In order to validate the petition, staff developed a database to track each resident that
signed the petition. This was to track any duplicate signatures, and to have a record of
determining sufficiency. Each resident was checked on the Ramsey County Registered
Voter Master List. This list contains all registered voters in the City of Mounds View.
After this was completed, Staff checked all determined Non-Registered voters on the
Minnesota Statewide Voter Registration System. This system is updated daily, and has
the most updated information on registered voters.
Staff had some difficulty in reading names on the petitions. Staff had three employees
(Desaree Crane, Jodi Salmonson, and Tracy Juell) to look at these names to make
every effort that each resident who signed the petition was counted. Of the 1,193
signatures, 12 could not be determined due to an illegible signature.
Staff also found that some of the residents either did not give an address on the
petition. These signatures are not valid because a determination of residency could not
be made to these residents. There were 17 signatures that were not valid.
Discussion:
The petition numbers are as follows:
Number of Signatures: 1,193
Number of Non-Registered Voters: 214
Number of Illegible Signatures
Duplicates and Invalid 34
Number of Registered Voters: 945
The petition needed 989 signatures in order for it to be a sufficient petition. According
to Section 5.03 of the City Charter it states:
Section 5.03. Determination of Sufficiency. The committee shall file the completed petition
in the office of the Clerk-Administrator. The required number of signers shall be at least
fifteen percent for initiative and referendum, and for recall, at least twenty-five percent of
the total number of electors who cast their votes for president at the last presidential election.
Immediately upon receipt of the petition, the Clerk-Administrator shall examine the petition
as to its sufficiency and report to the Council within ten days. Upon receiving the report, the
Council shall determine by resolution the sufficiency of the petition.
The last presidential election was in 2004, and 6,597 residents cast their votes. Fifteen
percent of 6,597 is 989.55.
Today, the City Attorney brought forth an argument that State law could be interpreted to
allow any person eligible to vote may be a valid signer of the petition and that they may not
need to be registered as such. Such validation would require additional review and each of
the 214 apparent non-registered voters would have to be determined eligible to vote (see
attached list).
The City Attorney has also issued an opinion that the transfer of land has proposed is an
administrative function and therefore not subject to a petition for referendum (see attached
Exhibit A, memo dated August 11, 2005).
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council consider and adopt the second (2) version of
Resolution 6608 attached based upon the City Attorney’s opinion. It is also recommended
that this action be followed with the adoption of 6581 providing for the transfer of land by
resolution. If the Council disagrees with the City Attorney’s August 11,2005 opinion, it is
suggested that version one (1) of Resolution 6608 be adopted, thereby allowing the petition
committee an additional 30 days to correct any identified insufficiencies or irregularities.
(1) RESOLUTION NO. 6608
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION DETERMINING THE SUFFICIENCY OF REFERENDUM
PETITION PURSUANT TO CITY CHARTER AND PROVIDING FOR THE
DISPOSITION OF SAID PETITION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY
CHARTER
WHEREAS, Section 5.07 of the Mounds View City Charter provides that an ordinance
adopted by the City Council may be subjected to a petition for a referendum prior to the date
when the ordinance takes effect; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 760 which is scheduled to take
effect on August 19, 2005, pursuant to the Mounds View City Charter; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 5 of the Mounds View City Charter a petition for a
referendum as to Ordinance No. 760 has been received by the City; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Mounds View City Charter, City Clerk/Administrator has
reviewed and determined that the petition submitted to the City is insufficient due to the fact
that the number of valid signatures was less than the required number; and
WHEREAS, the referendum petition seeks a vote as to the final adoption of
Ordinance No. 760 which authorizes the sale of real property by the City of Mounds View to
the Mounds View Economic Development Authority; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received an opinion from the City Attorney which is
attached and set forth as Exhibit A to this resolution and incorporated herein by reference;
and
WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the City Attorney that an ordinance dealing with the
sale of land is an administrative act (among other reasons) of the City Council that is not
subject to referendum pursuant to Minnesota law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council does not concur with the opinion of the City Attorney.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds
View that the recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this
Resolution as if fully set forth herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mounds View
hereby finds the petition initially submitted on August 15, 2005, requesting a vote as to the
adoption of Ordinance No. 760 to be insufficient pursuant to the Mounds View City Charter;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council hereby finds that the question posed
in such referendum petition is valid;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council hereby finds that the City Clerk-
Administrator shall provide written notification to the sponsoring committee of defects in the
petition as provided in the Charter; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that City staff is authorized to take
all necessary action consistent with the City Charter and State law to inform the petitioners of
the findings of the City Council as to the referendum petition submitted concerning Ordinance
No. 760.
Approved by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 22nd day of August,
2005.
___________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
(2) RESOLUTION NO. 6608
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION DETERMINING THE SUFFICIENCY OF REFERENDUM
PETITION PURSUANT TO CITY CHARTER; FINDING THE
REFERENDUM QUESTION INVALID; AND DECLARING
THAT SUCH QUESTION SHALL NOT BE CERTIFIED
FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION
WHEREAS, Section 5.07 of the Mounds View City Charter provides that an ordinance
adopted by the City Council may be subjected to a petition for a referendum prior to the date
when the ordinance takes effect; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 760 which is scheduled to take
effect on August 19, 2005, pursuant to the Mounds View City Charter; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 5 of the Mounds View City Charter a petition for a
referendum as to Ordinance No. 760 has been received by the City; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Mounds View City Charter, City staff has reviewed and
determined that the petition submitted to the City is insufficient because the City
Clerk/Administrator has reviewed and determined that the petition submitted to the City is
insufficient due to the fact that the number of valid signatures was less than the required
number; and
WHEREAS, the referendum petition seeks a vote as to the final adoption of
Ordinance No. 760 which authorizes the sale of real property by the City of Mounds View to
the Mounds View Economic Development Authority; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received an opinion from the City Attorney which is
attached and set forth as Exhibit A to this resolution and incorporated herein by reference;
and
WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the City Attorney that an ordinance dealing with the
sale of land is an administrative act (among other reasons) of the City Council that is not
subject to referendum pursuant to Minnesota law.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds
View that the recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this
Resolution as if fully set forth herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mounds View
hereby finds the petition initially submitted on August 15, 2005, requesting a vote as to the
adoption of Ordinance No. 760 to be insufficient because City Clerk/Administrator has
reviewed and determined that the petition submitted to the City is insufficient due to the fact
that the number of valid signatures was less than the required number pursuant to the
Mounds View City Charter; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council hereby finds that the question posed
in such referendum petition is manifestly invalid;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council hereby finds that the question posed
in such referendum petition will not be placed on the ballot of a future City special election;
and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that City staff is authorized to take
all necessary action consistent with the City Charter and State law to inform the petitioners of
the findings of the City Council as to the referendum petition submitted concerning Ordinance
No. 760.
Approved by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 22nd day of August,
2005.
___________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
EXHIBIT A
OPINION OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY ATTORNEY
Kennedy
470 US Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
&
Graven
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
http://www.kennedy-graven.com
sriggs@kennedy-graven.com
C H A R T E R E D
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: August 11, 2005
TO: Mounds View City Council
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
FROM: Mary D. Tietjen
Scott J. Riggs
RE: Transfer of Property from City to EDA
Referendum Issues
This memorandum addresses the legal issues related to a potential referendum
challenging the transfer of property from the City of Mounds View (“City”) to the Mounds
View Economic Development Authority (“EDA”) for the Medtronic Development Project
(“Project”). A key question is whether the City Council would have legal grounds to deny a
referendum petition on the sale of the property and adopt a Resolution authorizing and
finalizing the transaction. In my opinion, the City Council has a sufficient legal grounds to
do both.
Factual Background
On July 11, 2005, the Mounds View City Council adopted Ordinance No. 760 authorizing
the conveyance of certain property from the City to the EDA. The EDA intends to
subsequently convey the property to Medtronic, Inc., for development and construction of
an 820,000 square foot office complex pursuant to a purchase agreement and a contract
for development between the City, the EDA and Medtronic. Residents have threatened to
challenge the City’s conveyance of property for the Project pursuant to the power of
referendum under Section 5.01 of the City Charter.1
Legal Issues
I. Is the conveyance of property a legislative act subject to referendum?
II. May the City authorize conveyance of the property under Minnesota Statutes
sections 471.64 and 465.035, without regard to city charter provisions?
III. Does Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462 preempt the city charter referendum
provision?
Legal Discussion
The following are legal arguments that would support a finding by the City Council to deny
a petition for referendum on the sale of the property.
I. The Conveyance of Property is Not a Legislative Act Subject to
Referendum.
The power of referendum is limited to acts which are legislative in character. Hanson v.
City of Granite Falls, 529 N.W.2d 485, 487 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995)(citing Oakman v. City of
Eveleth, 203 N.W. 514 (1925). To determine whether an ordinance is legislative and
subject to a referendum, the courts have distinguished between legislative, administrative
and quasi-judicial acts of a city. Id. at 488. In the Oakman case, a taxpayer sought to
require the city to hold a referendum on an ordinance authorizing the settlement of a
lawsuit against the city. The court found that the ordinance did not enact a law, but was
instead the exercise of an administrative function:
We think the measure is one that calls for investigation and discretion, and, if
such matters are not to be met and handled as a part of the daily routine of
business of a municipality, but must be submitted to the people to make a law for
each controversy that may arise, we are drifting from the ideals of representative
government. In fact, the theory of initiative and referendum was directed at
supposed evils of legislation alone . . . To allow a referendum to be invoked in
order to delay executive conduct would destroy the efficiency necessary to the
successful administration of the business affairs of a city.
Oakman, 203 N.W. at 517 (emphasis added). The Oakman court also rejected the idea
that the matter of awarding a contract is a legislative act:
The orders of the city council as to which the referendum is sought in the case at
1 Section 5.01 reads: “The people of Mounds View reserve to themselves the powers in accordance
with the provisions of this Charter to initiate and adopt ordinances and resolutions, to require
measures passed by the Council to be referred to the electorate for approval or disapproval, and to
recall elected public officials. These powers shall be called the initiative, the referendum, and the
recall, respectively.”
bar are clearly executive and not legislative in their nature. A direction to an
officer to sign a specified contract with a named person to do a defined thing for
a specified price is not a legislative act. . . It is not the laying down of a rule, a
principle or a law by which the conduct of a public officer may be guided.
Id. (emphasis added). General legislative acts lay down some permanent and uniform rule
of law, administrative acts relate to daily administration of municipal affairs, and quasi-
judicial acts are the product of investigation, consideration and deliberate human judgment
based upon evidentiary facts of some sort. Hanson, 529 N.W.2d at 488.
The Mounds View City Council adopted an ordinance authorizing the conveyance of real
property from the City to the EDA. Although Minnesota courts have not directly held that
the sale of real property is an administrative, rather than a legislative act, the case law
strongly supports this argument. As an administrative act, the sale of property is not
subject to referendum.
Moreover, the ordinance authorizing the sale is an ordinance authorizing a contract for the
conveyance of property. And, courts have held that entering into a contract is an
administrative act. The sale of property does not establish a permanent or uniform rule of
law; rather, it is an administrative act that is part of the day-to-day business activities of the
City. Also, the fact that the Council authorized the sale by ordinance should not change
the conclusion. In the Oakman case, the city adopted an ordinance approving a settlement
and the court, nonetheless, held that the ordinance was the exercise of an administrative
function. If administrative acts, such as the sale of property, were subject to referendum, it
would defeat not only the purpose of referendum, but make it highly impractical and
inefficient for the City to conduct its daily business affairs.
Under the case law, a court would likely find that the sale of real property is an
administrative, not a legislative, act. Thus, the ordinance authorizing the sale is not subject
to referendum and the City Council may deny the sufficiency of a petition on this basis.
II. State Law Allows the City to Convey Property Without Regard to City Charter
Provisions.
Two state statutes provide support for this argument.
A. Minn. Stat. § 471.64.
The first statute, Minn. Stat. § 471.64, authorizes the City to enter into a contract for the
sale of real property to another political subdivision without regard to charter provisions:
Any county, city, town, . . . or other political subdivision of the state may enter
into any contract with . . . any other political subdivision of the state for the
purchase, lease, sale, . . . of real property, without regard to statutory or charter
provisions . . .
(emphasis added). Minnesota courts have not had an opportunity to construe this statute.
However, the Attorney General concluded in two opinions that a city may disregard charter
or statutory procedural requirements when entering into a contract with another
governmental entity. In both cases, the Attorney General decided that a city could
disregard statutory and charter bidding provisions when entering into a contract for the
purchase of electricity from the federal government. See Op.Atty.Gen., 59-A-15, March 30,
1965; Op.Atty.Gen., 59-A-15, July 7, 1945.
Section 12.05 of the Mounds View Charter that provides that “[n]o real property of the City
shall be disposed of except by ordinance.” However, section 471.64 authorizes the City to
enter into a contract for the sale of property to the EDA without regard to the city charter.
Although the City Council complied with the charter and adopted an ordinance authorizing
the conveyance, Minn. Stat. § 471.64 provides authority for the Council to adopt a
resolution authorizing staff to finalize conveyance of the property to the EDA.
B. Minn. Stat. § 465.035.
The second statute that supports the argument that the conveyance of property is not
subject to charter requirements is Minn. Stat. § 465.035. That section provides:
Any county, town, city or other public corporation may lease or convey its
lands for a nominal consideration, without consideration or for such consideration as
may be agreed upon to the state or to any governmental subdivision . . . for public
use when authorized by its governing body.
The Minnesota Supreme Court addressed this statute in County of Hennepin v. City of
Hopkins, 58 N.W.2d 851 (Minn. 1953). In that case, Hennepin County conveyed property
to the village of Hopkins for park and recreation purposes. After the deed had been
recorded, the county brought an action to invalidate the conveyance based on the failure to
comply with a statute requiring the adoption and publication of a resolution defining the
terms of the sale, a bond, and other specific requirements. The court held, however, that
Minn. Stat. § 465.035 trumped the requirements in the other statute and that the county
was permitted to convey the property without complying with the other statute. See id. at
855.
The City in this case has authorized conveyance of property to the EDA for a public
purpose. Under the Court’s holding in County of Hennepin, Minn. Stat. § 465.035 would
trump the City’s charter requirements. Thus, the City may adopt a resolution authorizing
staff to finalize conveyance of the property to the EDA, despite the ordinance requirement
in the charter. Under this same reasoning, a court could also find that, in a conveyance of
property from one public entity to another, section 465.035 trumps the referendum
provision in the city charter.
III. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462 Preempts the Charter Referendum
Provision.
The City may also be able to argue that the conveyance and redevelopment of property is
governed by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462, and, therefore, Chapter 462 preempts the
referendum provision in the charter.
City charters provisions must be consistent with and are subject to state law. See State ex
rel Town of Lowell v. City of Crookston, 252 Minn. 526, 91 N.W.2d 81, 83 (1958). The
Minnesota Court of Appeals recently held that the procedures set forth in chapter 462 for
adopting and implementing laws for land use planning preempt charter provisions reserving
the right of referendum to voters to approve or disapprove land use ordinances. See
Nordmarken v. City of Richfield, 641 N.W.2d 343 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002). In Nordmarken, a
private redeveloper submitted a plan to the City of Richfield that required both a rezoning
and an amendment to the city’s comprehensive plan. The council adopted the necessary
ordinances to allow the plan to go forward. A group of citizens petitioned the council for
referendum on the rezoning and comp plan ordinances. The court of appeals held that a
referendum would be in conflict with the state law and that state law preempted the charter
with respect to land use issues.
Although Nordmarken did not deal with the conveyance of property, the same rationale
may be applicable. Chapter 462 addresses the acquisition and disposal of property in
furthering the planning goals of a city. First, section 462.353, subd. 3, authorizes a
municipality to enter into contracts with other public or private agencies in furtherance of
the planning activities authorized in sections 462.351 to 462.364. Next, Minn. Stat. §
462.356 addresses the acquisition and disposal of property in the context of a city’s
comprehensive plan:
After a comprehensive municipal plan . . . has been recommended by the planning
agency and a copy filed with the governing body, no publicly owned interest in real
property within the municipality shall be acquired or disposed of, . . . until after the
planning agency has reviewed the proposed acquisition, . . . and reported in
writing to the governing body . . . its findings as to compliance of the proposed
acquisition, disposal or improvement with the comprehensive municipal plan.
Section 462.356 requires that a city follow a specific process before selling property to
ensure that the proposed sale is in compliance with the comprehensive plan. To subject
the findings approving or authorizing a sale to referendum would usurp the process set
forth in state statute. Also, the City has complied with section 462.356. The planning
commission reviewed the ordinance authorizing the sale of property from the City to the
EDA and reported to the City Council. Because state law governs the disposal of public
property and the City has complied with that law, an argument can be made that the
charter provision subjecting the City ordinance to referendum is preempted under the
court’s rationale in Nordmarken.
Conclusion
The City Council has several bases upon which to deny the sufficiency of a referendum
petition on the sale of property from the City to the EDA. First, entering into a contract for
the sale of property is an administrative, not a legislative, act and therefore is not subject to
referendum. Second, state law authorizes the City to convey property to another
governmental entity without regard to city charter provisions. Although the City Council has
adopted an ordinance authorizing the sale, it is not prohibited from also adopting a
resolution to authorize staff to finalize the transaction. Finally, an argument can be made
that the state law governing land use planning and the disposal of public property preempts
the referendum provision in the city charter.
Thus, based upon the above-discussed rationale, it is recommended that any referendum
petition received by the City regarding the sale of property from the City to the EDA be
denied as insufficient. In addition to the City’s involvement in this matter, the city council
should also keep in mind that other parties, including Medtronic, may be able to challenge
the sufficiency of any referendum petition or potential election based upon the above-
referenced case law, statutes and discussion.
SJR-265265v1
MU205-30
RESOLUTION NO. 6581
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
SALE OF CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PROPERTY TO THE
MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council ("Council") of the City of Mounds View as
follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The City of Mounds View (the "City") has previously established the Mounds View
Economic Development Project (the "Project"), which is currently administered by the Mounds
View Economic Development Authority (the "Authority").
1.02. The Authority and City are considering approval of a tax increment financing plan
("TIF Plan") and a proposed Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 (the "TIF District") within the
Project.
1.03. The City owns certain property within the Project legally described as set forth in
Exhibit A (the “Property”).
1.04. The City and Authority have previously approved (by City Resolution No. 6564 and
Authority Resolution 05-EDA-203) a development proposal from Medtronic, Inc. (the "Developer")
for an office facility (the "Development") to be constructed on the Property which is located within
the proposed TIF District, and in connection with that proposal, the City and Authority have caused
to be prepared a Purchase Agreement and Contract for Private Development between the City, the
Authority and Developer (the “Contract”).
1.05. The Council previously reviewed and approved the Contract providing for the sale
of the Property, the construction of the Development on the Property and certain tax increment
payments to the Developer in connection with the Development, and concluded that the proposed
development was consistent with and promoted the goals and objectives for which the Project was
established.
1.06. Pursuant to the Contract, the City agrees to convey to the Authority, and the
Authority agrees to subsequently convey to the Developer, the Property described in the Contract,
subject to certain terms and conditions.
1.07. The City is authorized to convey real property pursuant to City Charter Section
12.05 to any party (as previously approved by the City in Resolution No. 6564), or pursuant to
SJR-265265v1
MU205-30
Minnesota Statutes Section 465.035 to any governmental subdivision or Minnesota Statutes Section
471.64 to any other political subdivision of the State.
1.08. The Authority is a political subdivision of the State pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
Section 469.091, Subdivision 2.
1.09. The City finds and determines that conveyance of the Property to the Authority is for
a public purpose and is in the public interest because it will further the objectives of the Project.
1.10. The City finds and determines that conveyance by the Authority of the Property to
the Developer is for a public purpose and is in the public interest because it will further the
objectives of the Project.
1.11 The City Council finds that the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 462.356,
Subdivision 2 are hereby deemed satisfied based upon the previous review of this transaction and
recommended comprehensive municipal plan amendment by the City of Mounds View Planning
Commission on February 2, 2005, and that the conveyances of the Property to the Authority and by
the Authority to the Developer are consistent with the amended comprehensive municipal plan, or
alternatively, the City dispenses with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 462.356,
Subdivision 2 and finds in the City Council’s judgment that the proposed conveyances of the
Property to the Authority and the Developer have no relation to the amended comprehensive
municipal plan of the City.
Section 2. Authorization.
2.01. The recitals set forth in this Resolution are incorporated into and made a part of this
Resolution.
2.02. The City Council finds and determines that the requirements of Minnesota Statutes
Section 462.356, Subdivision 2 are hereby satisfied, or alternatively, dispensed with based upon the
findings of the City Council.
2.03. The City Council finds and determines that the transaction herein referenced and
contemplated is for a public purpose and is in the public interest.
2.04. The City Council approves the conveyance of the Property to the Authority pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes Section 465.035 and Minnesota Statutes Section 471.64, subject to
satisfaction of all terms and conditions of the Contract, and authorizes and directs the Mayor and
Clerk-Administrator to execute the deed and related documents necessary to facilitate the
transaction referenced herein and contemplated herein, with all such actions to be in accordance
with the terms and conditions set forth in this Resolution.
2.05. The Mayor and City Clerk-Administrator, staff and consultants are hereby
authorized and directed to take any and all additional steps and actions necessary or convenient in
order to accomplish the intent of this Resolution.
SJR-265265v1
MU205-30
2.06. The findings, approvals and authorizations set forth in this Resolution are in addition
to the findings, approvals and authorizations previously approved by the City Council in Resolution
No. 6564.
Approved by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 11th day of July, 2005.
___________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________________
City Clerk-Administrator
SJR-265265v1
MU205-30
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
Outlot A and Lot 4, Block 1, North Star Industrial Park 2nd Addition, according to
the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Lot 16, Block 2, North Star Industrial Park, except the Easterly 40 feet thereof,
according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota.
That part of Tract A described below:
Tract A.
The South Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 5, Township 30 North, Range
23 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota;
Which lies northerly and westerly of the following described line: Commencing
at the center of said Section 5; thence north on an azimuth of 359 degrees 23
minutes 10 seconds (azimuth oriented to Minnesota State Plane Coordinate
System) along the north and south quarter line of said Section 5 for 781.42 feet to
the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence on an azimuth of 108
degrees 12 minutes 41 seconds, 231.14 feet; thence on an azimuth of 98 degrees
27 minutes 03 seconds, 1486.78 feet; thence run northeasterly for 447.16 feet on a
non-tangential curve, concave to the northwest, having a radius of 720 feet, a
delta angle of 35 degrees 35 minutes 02 seconds and a chord azimuth of 76
degrees 55 minutes 11 seconds; thence on an azimuth of 59 degrees 07 minutes 40
seconds, 192.89 feet; thence run northerly 398.14 feet on a non-tangential curve,
concave to the northwest, having a radius of 850 feet; a delta angle of 26 degrees
50 minutes 15 seconds and a chord azimuth of 29 degrees 26 minutes 05 seconds;
thence on an azimuth of 16 degrees 00 minutes 57 seconds, 303.65 feet to the
north line of said Tract A and there terminating;
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14 and 15, Block 1 and Lots 1, 2, 3; Lot 4 except the South 60
feet and Lot 5 except the South 222.2 feet, Block 2, LaPort Meadows, according
to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota except
those portions which lie southwesterly of a line run parallel with and distant 100
feet northeasterly of the following described line:
Beginning at a point on the west line of Section 5, Township 30 North; Range 23 west distant
688.09 feet south of the northwest corner thereof; thence run southeasterly at an angle of 142
degrees 35 minutes 45 seconds with said west section line for 1278.48 feet; thence deflect to the
left on a 3 degrees 00 minutes curve (delta angle 33 degrees 39 minutes 25 seconds) for 1121.90
feet; thence on tangent to said curve for 1100 feet and there terminating.
Item No: 8O
Meeting Date: Aug 22, 2005
Type of Business: Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Resolution 6609, a Resolution
Authorizing the Hire of ____________ to the Position of
Planning Associate
Background:
On June 13, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution 6559, a resolution authorizing staff to
advertise for the vacant planning associate position in the Community Development
Department. The position was vacated in earlier this year after the former planning
associate accepted a position with a state agency.
Discussion:
Staff advertised the opening on the City’s website, on the League of MN Cities website, with
the StarTribune and with the Minnesota Chapter of the American Planning Association. The
starting annual salary advertised for the position was $36,982, which represents the current
Step 1 of the pay range. We received almost 50 applications for the position, of which seven
were selected for interview. Staff interviewed five of those candidates (two had already
found a job) and after checking employment and personal references, the position was
offered to ____________________.
Salary:
______________ would start at Step 1, which is $36,982. The City’s personnel policy
states that ___ will progress to Step 2 after 6 months, Step 3 after twelve months, Step 4
after twenty-four months and finally Step 5 after thirty-six months of employment. Again, this
progression is consistent with the City’s personnel manual. All other personnel policies
apply, no deviations have been made or offered.
Start Date:
_______________ would begin employment on or after Monday, August 29, 2005.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the City Council adopt Resolution 6609, a resolution approving the hire of
_______________ to the position of Planning Associate, effective date of August 29, 2005,
pending satisfactory background check.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
RESOLUTION NO. 6609
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPOINTING ______________ TO THE POSITION
OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING ASSOCIATE
WHEREAS, upon direction from the Mounds View City Council, the Planning
Associate position was advertised; and,
WHEREAS, 48 applications were received for the position and seven applicants
were chosen for interview; and,
WHEREAS, _____________ skills and experience were determined to most closely
match the duties and responsibilities as outlined in the planning associate job description;
and,
WHEREAS, _____________ has consented to a drivers license and criminal
background check which will be performed as a condition of employment; and,
WHEREAS, _____________ will begin employment on or after August 29, 2005 at
Step 1 of the hourly wage scale as adopted herein below:
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
$17.78 $18.89 $20.00 $21.11 $22.22
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council
appoints ______________ to the position of Planning Associate with employment to
commence on or after August 29, 2005, subject to satisfactory background checks.
Adopted this 13th day of October, 2003.
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk / Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No. 08P
Type of Business: CB
Meeting Date: August 22, 2005
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. 6610 Authorization to Advertise for
the Cable Technician Position
Background:
On August 1, 2005 Ken Gammell, Mounds View Cable Technician submitted his
letter of resignation. Mr. Gammell has resigned as of August 15, 2005. Mr.
Gammell has been with the City of Mounds View since August 5, 2002. The Cable
Technician Position is a part-time position.
Discussion:
With the resignation of Ken Gammell, the City will be without a Cable Technician.
Staff would like to start advertising for this position in the Mounds View/New
Brighton Bulletin and the City’s website. Staff will also be advertising this position in
the League of Minnesota Cities website as well. Staff is projecting a closing date
for this position to be on September 23, 2005. Staff along with members of the
Cable Committee will be going through the applications and interviews.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution granting
authorization to advertise for the Cable Technician position.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree M. Crane
RESOLUTION 6610
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR THE CABLE TECHNICIAN
WHEREAS, the Cable Technician position is a part time position and is part
of the AFSCME Bargaining group; and
WHEREAS, on August 1, 2005 Ken Gammell, Mounds View Cable
Technician submitted a letter of resignation; and
WHEREAS, Ken Gammell’s final day of employment was August 15, 2005;
and
WHEREAS, with the resignation of Ken Gammell, there is a need to fill the
Cable Technician position in order to adequately operate the cable department.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Mounds View City
Council does hereby grant authorization to advertise for the Cable Technician
position.
Adopted this 22nd day of August, 2005.
__________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No: 09A
Meeting Date: August 22, 2005
Type of Business: Consent Agenda
City Administrator Review: ______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Chief of Police, Mike Sommer
Item Title/Subject: A Resolution adopting the Ramsey
County Wide Emergency Management
Operations Plan
Date of Report: 8-22-05
Background:
Federal, State and County regulations require that all Cities develop and adopt plans for
preparing for, responding to, recovering from, and mitigating the effects of emergencies
and disasters. All cities in Ramsey County have or will be adopting the County wide
emergency operations plan. This plan makes the City Mounds View and the County
eligible to receive emergency management performance grants. This County wide
emergency operations plan has been certified as meeting or exceeding all standards for
emergency planning by the State of Minnesota Department of public safety, division of
homeland security and emergency management for Ramsey County and for any
jurisdiction within Ramsey County.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the County wide emergency operations plan as
the emergency operations plan for the city.
Respectfully submitted,
Mike Sommer
Chief of Police
RESOLUTION NO. 6602
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE COUNTYWIDE EMERGENCY
OPERATIONS PLAN
WHEREAS, Chapter 12 of Minnesota Statutes and the Robert T. Stafford Act, and the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 require all counties and
incorporated municipalities to develop and adopt plans for preparing for, responding to,
recovering from, and mitigating the effects of emergencies and disasters; and
WHEREAS, such plans are required to address all hazards and must meet no fewer
than 64 specific planning items; and
WHEREAS, such plans must be well integrated and coordinated to account for the fact
that emergencies in one jurisdiction impact on other nearby jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, the plan must include an implementation and maintenance process
including plan updates, integration of the plan into other planning documents and how
the County will activate and coordinate activities with the affected jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, Ramsey County Division of Emergency Management and Homeland
Security has indicated its willingness to coordinate these efforts should the municipality
so desire; and
WHEREAS, the plan will be shared with all municipalities, the County Board of
Commissioners and the State of Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Division of
Homeland Security and Emergency Management for coordination; and
WHEREAS, the above reasons make it desirable for the county to utilize common
planning and response elements designed to integrate our emergency preparedness,
response, recovery, and mitigation efforts; and
WHEREAS, such indication is a requirement of the National Incident Management
System (NIMS) and the National Response Plan which is the template for all
jurisdictions in the United States; and
WHEREAS, adoption of the all-hazard Emergency Operations Plan will make the
municipalities and the County eligible to receive Emergency Management Performance
Grant (EMGP) grants; and
WHEREAS, this Countywide Emergency Operations Plan has been certified as meeting
or exceeding all standards for emergency planning by the State of Minnesota
Department of Public Safety, Division of Homeland Security and Emergency
Management for Ramsey County and for any jurisdiction within Ramsey County that
chooses to adopt this plan as their municipal Emergency Operations Plan; and
WHEREAS, this resolution does not preclude the [city or township] from preparing its
own plan in the future should it desire to do so; now, Therefore Be It
RESOLVED, that the City of Mounds View supports the county-wide all-hazard
Emergency Operations Plan development effort, and, be it further
RESOLVED, that the City of Mounds View hereby adopts this Countywide Emergency
Operations Plan as the Emergency Operations Plan for the city, and, be it further
RESOLVED, that the City of Mounds View requests that the Ramsey County Division of
Emergency Management and Homeland Security coordinate all-hazard Emergency
Operations Plan development and maintenance efforts for the City in the future.
Adopted this 22nd day of August 2005.
______________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(ATTEST)
_______________________________
Kurt Ulrich
City Clerk/Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No: 09B
Meeting Date: August 22, 2005
Type of Business: CA
City Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree M. Crane, Administrative Assistant
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6607 Approving a Restaurant License for
Caribou Coffee located at 2585 Highway 10
Caribou Coffee is requesting a restaurant license to operate at 2585 County Road 10. A
final inspection of the property was conducted on August 5, 2005, and the results were
satisfactory. Caribou Coffee has submitted all required application and fees.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Restaurant License for Caribou Coffee
located at 2585 Highway 10.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree M. Crane
RESOLUTION 6607
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
A Resolution Approving a Restaurant License
for
Caribou Coffee Company
WHEREAS, all City of Mounds View businesses wishing to operate
certain types of businesses must apply to the City for business licenses; and
WHEREAS, Caribou Coffee has applied for a Restaurant License; and
WHEREAS, Caribou Coffee has submitted the proper paperwork and
fees; and
WHEREAS, all City of Mounds View business licenses must be approved
by the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City
Council does hereby approve a Restaurant License for Caribou Coffee located at 2585
Highway 10.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the licensing
period shall be from August 23, 2005-June 30, 2006.
Adopted this 22nd day of August, 2005
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No: 09C
Meeting Date: 08/22/05
Type of Business: CA
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6611, Approving an Agreement with Ms. Susan
Huston to Provide Interim Cable Coordination Services
Background
Mr. Ken Gammell resigned as City Cable Coordinator effective August 15, 2005. Prior to
his leaving, he recommended that Ms. Susan Huston be retained as an interim
coordinator until the position is hired. The hiring process for a permanent part-time
employee will take about 45-60 days.
Prior to the hiring of Ken Gammell, Ms. Huston served as the interim cable coordinator on
a contract basis. The terms of the proposed contract are the same as before, where the
City would pay $20 per hour for her services with no benefits.
Discussion
Attached is Resolution 6611 approving an agreement with Ms. Susan Huston to provide
interim cable coordination services for the City until a person is hired for the position as a
regular part-time employee.
The City will pay the contract amount of $20 per hour for services to schedule and
coordinate cable production and programming during this period. The anticipated
number of hours for the contract is 10-15 hours per week, but in no event shall hours
worked be in excess of 20 hours per week without prior written authorization by the City
Administrator. To exceed 20 hours would require City Council approval. As a contract
employee, Ms. Huston will be responsible for all her benefits and expenses, and will need
to submit an invoice to the City for services.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council approve Resolution 6611 approving an
agreement with Ms. Susan Huston to provide interim cable coordination services as
indicated.
RESOLUTION NO. 6511
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT
WITH MS. SUSAN HUSTON TO PROVIDE INTERIM
CABLE COORDINATION SERVICES
WHEREAS, the Cable TV Technician for the City of Mounds View has
resigned effective August 15, 2005; and
WHEREAS, filling the position is a process that normally takes 45-60 days
to complete; and
WHEREAS, staff has requested authorization to continue to fill the
position on a temporary basis utilizing a contract employee; and
WHERAS, Ms. Susan Huston has worked on a temporary basis with the
City in the past and is qualified to perform the cable coordination duties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council
authorizes staff to enter into an agreement with Ms. Susan Huston as a contract employee
for a period ending no later than November 1, 2005; or earlier if the regular position is
filled; and not to exceed twenty hours per week without Council approval for an extension
and at a wage not to exceed $20.00 per hour for the same period.
Adopted this 22nd day of July, 2005.
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No: 09E
Meeting Date: August 22, 2005
Type of Business: CA
City Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree M. Crane, Administrative Assistant
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6612 Approving a Tobacco and
Restaurant License for City Tavern located at 2400
Highway 10
Jake’s Sports Café is transferring ownership to Thomas Stuart. Mr. Stuart will be changing
the name of the establishment to City Tavern. A Fire Inspection has been done on the
establishment (currently called Jake’s Sports Café) and has passed that fire inspection.
The establishment will be re-inspected when the transferring of ownership is finalized.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Tobacco and Restaurant License.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree M. Crane
RESOLUTION 6612
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
A Resolution Approving a Tobacco and Restaurant License
for
City Tavern
WHEREAS, all City of Mounds View businesses wishing to operate
certain types of businesses must apply to the City for business licenses; and
WHEREAS, Thomas Stuart (City Tavern) has applied for a Tobacco and
Restaurant License in order to transfer ownership from the current owner; and
WHEREAS, Thomas Stuart (City Tavern) has submitted the proper
paperwork and fees, and
WHEREAS, all City of Mounds View business licenses must be approved
by the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City
Council does hereby approve a Tobacco and Restaurant License for City Tavern
located at 2400 Highway 10.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the licensing
period shall be from August 23, 2005-June 30, 2006.
Adopted this 22nd day of August, 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
July 11, 2005 6
Mounds View City Hall 7
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 8
7:15 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, June 13, 2005 City Council Agenda. 22
23
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney To Approve the Monday, June 13, 2005 agenda as 24
presented. 25
26
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 27
28
5. PUBLIC INPUT 29
30
Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated that it is his understanding that there are more 31
detailed documents now available that are relevant to the Medtronic proposal. He stated that he 32
has the original synopsis of the proposal adding that he would like to have a copy of the detailed 33
documents. 34
35
City Administrator Ulrich stated that he would be able to provide Mr. McCarty with a copy 36
tomorrow. 37
38
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated that he would like to share a bit of information with 39
the Council. He stated that he owns 40-acres on Highway 65 and several large developers are 40
interested in developing the land. He indicated that he asked one of the developers why they 41
weren’t interested in making a deal on this land to develop it. He stated that the response he 42
received was that there was no way any of the developers could compete or get the kind of 43
concessions that Medtronic got to develop the roads and land. He noted that the comment was 44
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
made that they got a good deal adding that when you think about the concessions the City is 1
getting it is a tremendous amount and he thanked the Council. 2
3
Carol Mueller, 8343 Groveland Road, referenced the current issue of the Sun Focus Newspaper 4
stating that it has a great, well written, non-biased, factual article about the June 20th Town Hall 5
meeting. She stated that it includes a lot of good quotes from both the residents and the Council 6
adding that it is her hope that the public knows that this information is available in the Sun Focus 7
Newspaper. She suggested that the Council read the article noting that it would be worth their 8
time to see it. She stated that it does help to put things into perspective. She noted that she also 9
read the May/June Mounds View Matters newsletter that included the City of Mounds View 10
Mission and Value Statement. She referenced Item 3, Ethics and Integrity stating that she agrees 11
with the statement and reviewed with Council. She expressed concerns stating that she is 12
wondering if perhaps the value statement, in its’ entirety, was have been set aside in our 13
eagerness to get rid of a drain on the City budget. She stated that she believes the public was not 14
treated fairly when the decision was made last August to empower the City Staff to do everything 15
they needed to do to work out a plan with Medtronic for the property. She stated that if the 16
decision, at that point in time, was to go forward, that in essence meant that the property was for 17
sale. She stated that the City does lose integrity when the City sells something to a private party 18
without offering it up for bids the way it normally should happen. She acknowledged that 19
Medtronic is a wonderful company and she acknowledged that many are saying that the golf 20
course is a huge drain on the City adding that she questions the ethics and integrity of the way all 21
of this was put together. She stated that for the record, she is not for or against this, she is just 22
thinking the City lost sight of their values and some of the vision. She noted that Dan was not 23
able to attend this evening but has a quote from Dan, he told her that a baby born on June 27th 24
would go through preschool, elementary, middle and high school along with college, and 25
possibly start their own family before they would see the tax benefit of this 25-year tax increment 26
funding deal. She stated that this is a rather profound statement noting that our children would 27
be quite old before realizing any benefits. 28
29
Council Member Stigney stated that he couldn’t disagree more with what Ms. Mueller just said. 30
He stated that to attack the integrity and ethics of the Council is inappropriate unless you have 31
direct statements to make. He noted that she referred to the process of going out for bids and 32
clarified that the City does not own the property and it would be hard to go out and ask for bids 33
on property that the City does not hold the title. He indicated that the Sun Focus article Ms. 34
Mueller referenced specifically states this as the reason the City did not go out for bids on the 35
property. He stated another reason why the Council wouldn’t want to go out and ask for the 36
highest bid is that it could be an asphalt company and asked if Ms. Mueller felt that would be a 37
better option than Medtronic. He clarified that it is not his intent to put her down but she is 38
attacking the integrity of the Council and he feels that the Council did have entirely good 39
integrity as far as what was directed to Staff to see what negotiations could be worked out with 40
Medtronic and identify the legislative issues through the process. He acknowledged that Ms. 41
Mueller is not happy with the plan adding that it is his hope that it does take affect. 42
43
Ms. Mueller stated that if the City did not have the power or authority to take bids for the 44
property how does the City have the authority or power to sell the property. She stated that if it is 45
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
a public property shouldn’t the public have a say in what happens to it. She asked the Council if 1
they could let the residents of this City help them make a decision that is going to impact the City 2
for generations to come. 3
4
Council Member Stigney acknowledged that they have a very different opinion to what 5
Medtronic brings to the City versus the golf course adding that is all he has to say. 6
7
Mayor Marty stated that he does not see Ms. Mueller’s statement as an attack. He stated that she 8
was just clarifying her understanding of the City’s vision and value statement. 9
10
Council Member Thomas stated that she does not consider it an attack adding that when someone 11
suggests that the Council set aside their integrity and ethics when the project began, this is not 12
the most positive statement to make. She assured Ms. Mueller that no one ever set aside their 13
values or integrity adding that the Council discussed all of this and their publication throughout 14
the entire process. She assured her that this was always number one. 15
16
Ms. Mueller clarified that if a private interest were to approach the City with a proposal to 17
purchase the Community Center and property for their development, has the City set a precedent 18
where the City can do again whatever they choose, within this body of our City Council, and the 19
same thing could happen again. She asked what would happen if a developer wanted to purchase 20
Silver Lake Park, could the City sell this public property as well. 21
22
Council Member Thomas explained that the City did not set a precedent this is how a City 23
functions everywhere. She explained that the Council does not consider an enterprise function in 24
the same way that they view the parks. She stated that it involves an entirely different thought 25
process and function. She assured Ms. Mueller that the Council did not establish any precedent 26
that wasn’t already established. She stated that the park analogy doesn’t work for anyone up here 27
at this point. 28
29
Ms. Mueller stated that she does not have the benefit of everything involved, but as a resident of 30
the City, what we consider public property, she assumed was owned by the City, and it is her 31
hope that this is not setting a trend. 32
33
Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated that his old Irish Grandfather used to talk to him 34
about common sense and statements that he makes noting that he tries to adhere to his advice 35
whenever he can. He stated that it appears to him that common sense seems to be lacking when 36
he hears that Council didn’t put it out for bid because they didn’t own the land yet it certainly 37
didn’t stop them from chasing Medtronic around the block. 38
39
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 40
41
A. Review Fire Department Building Plans – Fire Chief Zikmund. 42
43
Fire Chief Zikmund explained that the purpose for the presentation this evening is to receive 44
feedback from the Council noting that next Monday he would be presenting to the Spring Lake 45
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 4
Park City Council and the following Thursday to the Blaine City Council. He indicated that the 1
Architects are ready to move forward with the construction design and provided the Council with 2
an overview of the site plan and floor plan of the building. He reviewed the tentative schedule 3
stating that they have closed on the property and now own it free and clear. He stated that the 4
ideal situation is that they would be back to the Blaine City Council on August 18th for the first 5
bid package, which includes the excavation, footings and foundation. He stated that the process 6
would start right away if the proposal is approved at the September 15th meeting with actual 7
construction beginning sometime in October. 8
9
Fire Chief Zikmund provided the Council with an overview of the floor plan noting their 10
priorities were the apparatus bay, the training space, office space and storage with a secondary 11
priority on the apparatus mechanics bay. He explained that they are trying to replicate what they 12
have at Station 1 noting that they currently have six full time administrative employees at Station 13
1 and eventually over time they want to place four to five at this location. He stated that 14
between Station 3 and 5 they have five apparatus bays noting that they remain at five although 15
the entire space is larger and allows the ability to park trucks in between the bays. He stated that 16
the far end bay is the apparatus maintenance noting that they are now into $100,000 a year on 17
apparatus maintenance and believe that they could fund this position just through the savings and 18
would be included as a 2007 budget proposal. 19
20
Fire Chief Zikmund reviewed the equipment, utility functions and storage space with the 21
Council. He stated that the training room is currently setup to seat 100 adding that they are 22
currently at 72 and in the process of recruiting. He stated that this is also a multi-purpose room 23
that would be available to the public for different activities. He reviewed the lobby area; 24
conference rooms, restroom area, storage rooms, fitness/recreation area and kitchen/lounge areas 25
with Council. He stated that they envision this building to be a 50-year building noting that they 26
keep all of their records for fire and personnel. He stated that this is their 61st year in maintaining 27
records for the fire department. He explained that this design has been scaled back from the 28
original proposal adding that they have also built in a police/ambulance office noting that they 29
have a good working relationship with Allina and can now provide a paramedic service to the 30
City. He stated that it is in the best interest of the City and the Citizens to have advanced life 31
support with paramedics stationed at the Station. 32
33
Fire Chief Zikmund reviewed the proposed landscaping and station parking stating that it 34
basically fits with the current plan. He referenced the geo-thermal well field and explained that it 35
takes advantage of the ground temperatures to heat and cool. He stated that it is an incredibly 36
efficient system with high upfront costs adding that the paybacks are typically over a three to 37
five-year period in energy savings. He noted that it is an approximate $100,000 up front cost 38
compared to the traditional adding that the recovery rates are incredible. He stated that as of the 39
meeting this morning they are $67,000.00 under budget as they did scale back in several areas of 40
the project. He reviewed the proposed elevation with the Council noting that they broke the 41
building into two parts and reviewed the layout and materials. He stated that he has asked the 42
architects to use the Blaine City Hall as the basis for the building design noting that the brick 43
would be on the stationary and contemporary glass on the right side where conference rooms and 44
offices are located. 45
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 5
1
Council Member Thomas referenced the mezzanine level and asked for further clarification of 2
its’ purpose. 3
4
Fire Chief Zikmund explained that the mezzanine level over the southern part of the building 5
would include the generator room, the mechanics room and a file box storage area; the 6
mezzanine level over the central part of building would have a dual purpose, it would include the 7
central supply area and an unfinished space that would give them the potential to put three to four 8
dorm spaces in the area for overnight duty. 9
10
Council Member Flaherty referenced the training facility and asked for further clarification. 11
12
Fire Chief Zikmund stated that primary purpose is to provide a training area and office area. He 13
stated that it would replace the current training facility at Station 3. He stated that the training 14
facility would be primarily classroom training adding that they would also do some low level 15
hands-on training at this facility. He stated that they have agreements with Fridley and Brooklyn 16
Center in addition to having access to the National Sports Center when they need larger training 17
areas. 18
19
Mayor Marty clarified that the Fire Chief’s office is currently located at Station 1 and asked if he 20
would be moving his office to the new location. 21
22
Fire Chief Zikmund confirmed that his office is currently located at Station 1 adding that he does 23
not have any plans to relocate at this time. He explained that there has always been an unwritten 24
understanding that the administration offices would remain at Station 1 noting there may be a 25
time where they would consider placing a Deputy Chief at this location but there is no need to 26
move his office to this location. 27
28
Mayor Marty asked if the mini-pumper would be kept at the new location or would it remain at 29
the Blaine City Hall. 30
31
Fire Chief Zikmund stated that the mini-pumper would stay at the Blaine City Hall. He 32
explained that they currently have seven individuals at this location. He further explained that 33
they are currently working on the PRA Legislation allowing City Firefighters that are not in the 34
Public Safety. He stated that they currently have to be in Public Safety to be part of the Police 35
and Fire Fund as a recruitment and retention tool. He stated that the policy process has stalled 36
and will take another two years. He stated that this is an integral part of the process noting that 37
they are hoping to increase the number of individuals once the legislation is passed. 38
39
Mayor Marty stated that if they have anyone out in the audience that would like to be a Fire 40
Fighter feel free to contact Fire Chief Zikmund at Station 1. 41
42
Fire Chief Zikmund provided the Council with an update on the engines and command vehicle 43
noting that the engines were approved to go out for bid by the City of Blaine. He stated that the 44
bids are due back on August 18th and will bring the bids to all three Councils for consideration. 45
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 6
He stated that the Command Vehicle is on hold because the Mayor of Blaine had serious 1
recovery issues from surgery and asked that the item be held until he is able to return. He stated 2
that he would keep the Council informed of the progress. 3
4
7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS. 5
6
Council Member Flaherty had the following questions: 7
• Page 19, Other Professional Service Fees, - He stated that they are very vague and he was not 8
able to find all of them. He stated that he counted six services used and asked that more 9
detail be included with the description of the expense. 10
11
Director Ericson explained that some of the expenses are in departments other than his and is not 12
sure what the expenses are for. He stated that this is in the Central Services Account and it 13
would have to be reviewed. 14
15
Ms. Burg asked who the Vendor is. 16
17
Council Member Flaherty stated that he went through each and was not able to identify them 18
within the Just and Claims report. 19
20
Ms. Burg stated that she would research this section and provide Council with a more detailed 21
description of the services. 22
23
• Page 5, Check No. 116425 – Best Access System for re-keying locks. He asked why they 24
had to have locks re-keyed. 25
26
Ms. Burg explained that this expense is connected to the Police Department. She stated that 27
several locks were re-keyed and she would get further clarification from the Police Chief. 28
29
Council Member Thomas had the following question: 30
• Page 7, Check #116442 for DS Productions. She asked if this was for the projection screen 31
and video system for the Community Center or was this done for security. 32
33
City Administrator Ulrich explained that this was for additional video cameras for surveillance at 34
the Community Center. He stated that they also purchased a portable screen for the Community 35
Center. 36
37
Council Member Stigney had the following question: 38
• Page 7, Video System Upgrade – He stated that there are two invoices listed that add up to 39
roughly $6,700.00. He stated that it was his understanding that they were only purchasing a 40
couple of security cameras and asked how it got up to $6,700.00. 41
42
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 7
City Administrator Ulrich stated that he would have to research the expenses and would provide 1
Council with an update on the details. He stated that they did have an audio system upgrade 2
noting that he would clarify the details and update the Council. 3
4
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Flaherty To approve the Just and Correct Claims as presented. 5
6
Ayes - 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 7
8
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 9
10
A. Resolution 6577 Approve 2004 Certified Annual Finance Report. 11
12
Aaron Nielsen, Audit Manager, thanked Staff for the assistance in the audit process. He 13
referenced three documents including the Financial Statement, which was prepared by the City, 14
the second is the Special Purpose document and the third document is the Management Report. 15
He provided the Council with an overview of the Management Report noting that the report they 16
issued is an unqualified opinion, which is the cleanest opinion they could provide. He reviewed 17
the government auditing standards noting that they have no instances of non-compliance to 18
report. 19
20
Mr. Nielsen stated that in the final opinion they have identified three separate findings, one for 21
claims and disbursements, one related to group insurance and one related to administrative 22
penalties. He stated there are additional details included in the Special Purposes Audit Report. 23
He stated that there were no changes in this years’ Significant Account Policies for this years 24
report noting that this is the second year the City is reporting a financial document under the 25
Gasby 34 Reporting model. He noted that under Audit Comments there are items identified 26
during the process that they would like to see improvements made. He stated that it also includes 27
suggestions that Staff could use to determine what would be most viable in their use for reporting 28
purposes. 29
30
Mr. Nielsen referenced the resolution documentation noting that he does believe there is enough 31
information presented to Council that allows them to identify and understand what is being 32
presented and passed although in the minutes, what they read to identify what is happening there 33
are certain cases where they are not clear on what is actually happening with respect to certain 34
projects and how they would be financed. He stated that the other instances involve the bid and 35
quote process for projects. He stated that they want to be sure that they are following the bid 36
laws versus the less restrictive quote process. 37
38
Mr. Nielsen noted page three moves into funding Cities in Minnesota and at the time of printing 39
the report to make the June 30th deadline there wasn’t any finalized legislation to report on. He 40
stated that they have identified the property taxes and have disclosed the market values in the 41
cities have been increasing and reviewed the percentages with Council. He referenced page four 42
noting that it presents a table and graph of the City of Mounds View property by type and 43
reviewed the average tax rate noting that it was consistent with the rates in 2003. 44
45
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 8
Mr. Nielsen noted page five and six discusses the governmental funds including the General 1
Funds and it includes the revenue per capita in 2004. He reviewed the individual funds, general 2
funds and cash balances with Council. He noted that City has been able to maintain and increase 3
the cash and fund balances despite the legislative cuts, which is important with the size of the 4
growth and the size of the operations. He stated that the overall impact to the General Fund was 5
very close to the anticipated final budget and reviewed with Council. He referenced the 6
Enterprise Funds stating that it has remained relatively stable noting that it has improved due to 7
decreases in some of the contract agreements from 2003 to 2004. He stated that it is very 8
important to monitor the utility rates to make sure they are charging a rate that would generate 9
replacement costs and to cover the overhead costs. 10
11
Mr. Nielsen stated that there was an improvement in the operating costs for 2004 over 2003 and 12
reviewed with Council. He reviewed the Golf Course operating funds stating that it is an 13
enterprise fund treated by the City. He stated that they did report a net increase in assets of 14
$116,000 after reporting a reduction of net assets in 2003 of $248,000.00. He stated that the 15
increase in assets is largely due to a transfer from the Community Capital Fund, as approved by 16
Council, and also because of the billboard revenues. He stated that the improvement in 17
operations helped the interfund borrowing between the Golf Course Fund and the Community 18
Capital Project Fund by $37,000.00 this year. He reviewed the Citywide Financial Statement 19
presentation noting that the Gasby 34 model does require a separate review of the financial 20
statements as separate entities adding that there is an additional discussion and analysis included 21
for their review. He stated that the City’s total net assets did increase by $2.3 million and 22
reviewed the overall City activities. 23
24
Mayor Marty stated that this is a good report noting that the deadline for reporting was June 30th. 25
He explained that the former Finance Director was concerned that the City would have to apply 26
for an extension and asked if they were able to meet the deadline. 27
28
Mr. Nielsen stated that they did apply for an extension but it was denied by the State. He stated 29
that they worked hard to meet the June 30th deadline and it was submitted on time. 30
31
Council Member Flaherty referenced page 4, Schedule of Findings and Recommendations 32
regarding the segregation of duties stating that it surprised him to see the recommendations that 33
the City continue to segregate duties wherever it can adding that it was his thought that cross-34
training was a good process and asked why they recommended further segregation of duties. 35
36
Mr. Nielsen explained that there is a need to have someone separately reviewing and approving 37
the work to ensure that it checks and balances. 38
39
Council Member Flaherty asked how they track payments to the sub contractors. 40
41
Mr. Nielsen reviewed the tracking process noting that before making final payment to a general 42
contractor a confirmation from the State must be received to ensure that all taxes have been 43
deducted from their payroll checks. 44
45
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 9
City Administrator Ulrich referenced the administrative penalties listed noting that the Police 1
Department has been utilizing the administrative penalty process versus using the State Tickets 2
for moving violations. He stated that a number of cities have discontinued this practice due to 3
potential legal issues it could present adding that the Legislature was supposed to address this 4
issue last year and never did. He stated that the City has continued with this process adding that 5
the City should have the discussion as to whether this practice should be dropped from the Police 6
Department. He indicated that this issue would be included as an agenda item for the September 7
work session. 8
9
Mayor Marty asked if this process is now against the law. 10
11
City Attorney Riggs clarified that nothing has actually changed adding that there was supposed to 12
be some legislation addressing this noting that it is being done on a piece mail process. He 13
indicated that the City of Mounds View has been using this process for several years in addition 14
to several other Cities who are still using this process. He noted that several Cities have 15
discontinued using this process adding that this is something that Council should review and 16
decide if this is an appropriate process to continue to use for traffic violations. He stated that the 17
Courts are saying that the process should not be used adding that traffic offenses should run 18
through the Minnesota Court process. He stated that this has not been definitively answered 19
adding that this is something that Council should be aware of and review. 20
21
Mr. Nielsen noted that he was reviewing the comment in Claims and Disbursements adding that 22
he had confused it with another statutory requirement for contracts and clarified that what they 23
are looking to ensure that the language is included within the contract and that the contractors are 24
being paid in a timely fashion. 25
26
City Attorney Riggs explained that the majority of the City’s contracts do include the language. 27
He indicated that some of the outside engineering type situations did not include the language 28
adding that this has been corrected. He explained that technically, statutorily, they are not 29
required to have the language but they are subject to the requirement of filing a form IC134 30
before final payment is paid. He stated that he and the League does recommends including this 31
language into the contract so that it is consistent with what the auditor is saying. He stated that 32
this has been done with the contracts where the City does have control of the drafting process. 33
34
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Thomas To Approve Resolution 6577 and waive the reading 35
Approving the 2004 Certified Annual Finance Report. 36
37
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 38
39
B. 7:05 p.m. Public Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance 760 Authorizing 40
the Sale of Land Comprising The Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course to 41
the Mounds View Economic Development Authority. 42
43
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that on June 27, 2005 the Mounds View 44
Economic Development Authority and the City Council considered and adopted the resolutions 45
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 10
approving the sale of the land comprising The Bridges Golf Course to Medtronic and the contract 1
for private development. He stated that the items that have transpired since June 27th include the 2
first meeting of the County road J project group met on July 6th; Ramsey County has executed an 3
agreement between itself and S.E.H. for pre-design activities, which began on July 8th and they 4
are currently doing soil borings along County Road J so this aspect of the project is moving 5
forward. He explained that in order to allow the sale of the land to Medtronic the City will be 6
conveying the property to the EDA and the ordinance is attached for Council review. 7
8
Mayor Marty opened the Public Hearing at 8:26 p.m. 9
10
Barbara Haake, 3024 County Road I, stated that when they had Ehlers present there was a 11
reference to $11 million dollars that would be used for a parking ramp in Blaine and asked how 12
the $11 million would be used to purchase the land in Blaine. 13
14
City Administrator Ulrich explained that there is approximately $24 million in TIF eligible 15
expenses and the amount of the City’s subsidies is $14.8 million. He stated that under the 16
agreement the TIF eligible expenses within Mounds View would be paid for first. He stated that 17
part of the Special Legislation allowed tax increment monies to be expended within the project 18
area, which includes the City of Blaine, in the acquisition of properties, which is the $11 million 19
dollars referenced. He stated that if, after all of the Mounds View expenses have been paid, that 20
there is still a portion of the $14.8 million that still has to be paid, it would also be paid for out of 21
the TIF dollars generated by the project, which could include a portion of the $11 million 22
referenced. 23
24
Ms. Haake stated that there is a contamination clause in the purchase agreement that is being 25
executed between the City of Mounds View and Medtronic and she asked if the City states that 26
they are holding Medtronic harmless in the event of future contamination on the land. 27
28
City Attorney Riggs explained that this was forwarded to her via email and explained that it 29
states that the City has a $200,000.00 cap with a limited scope and time. 30
31
Ms. Haake noted that under Item 3, M-4 Exhibit, it does set the limitations and the City does 32
agree to indemnify everyone and it sounds like it is forever. She noted that the M-7 Exhibit 33
states that the EDA hereby fully and forever covenants not to sue and that they would release and 34
discharge the indemnity, which would be Medtronic. She clarified that even in the future 35
sometime, regardless of whatever is found, the City is capped at and is responsible for at least 36
$200,000.00 and asked who would be responsible for paying the difference if something is 37
discovered twenty years down the road. 38
39
City Attorney Riggs stated that the landowner would be responsible for any additional expenses 40
above the $200,000.00, which would be Medtronic. 41
42
Ms. Haake clarified that the City did get a better deal than what was offered in New Brighton. 43
44
City Attorney Riggs stated that after basing this on the phase 1 and phase 2 processes that it is a 45
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 11
better deal that what was discussed in New Brighton. 1
2
Ms. Haake stated that she did ask for additional information on July 2nd regarding the referendum 3
and what the citizens need to do. She asked how many signatures would they need for the 4
petition. 5
6
City Administrator Ulrich stated that he did forward an email today noting that they would need 7
approximately 989 signatures. 8
9
Ms. Haake indicated that she was referred to Chapter 8205, Secretary of State for the Petitions, 10
noting that it states how the petition has to be worded and it does state that they could paraphrase 11
the question that would be on the ballot yet the City Charter, under 5.07, states that the wording 12
of the referendum by petition shall state at the head of each page the exact text of the measure to 13
be considered by the electorate. She asked if she should go by the City Charter 5.07 and include 14
the exact wording used on the petition at the top of the ballot. 15
16
City Attorney Riggs stated that this would make the most sense and is what was discussed in the 17
email sent by City Administrator Ulrich. He suggested that they use that form noting that it is 18
consistent and interpretive based on the Minnesota Rule 8205-1010. He stated that this would be 19
the safest and most credible approach because everyone will know and understand what they are 20
voting on. 21
22
Ms. Haake stated that a meeting is scheduled at Hillview Park tomorrow evening, Tuesday, July 23
12, from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 pm. and also Thursday, July 14th, 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. for residents 24
to come out and sign the petitions. She stated that they also plan to walk the neighborhoods 25
noting that so far, based on the phone calls, she has heard feedback from residents who are 26
concerned about what she is doing and also wanted clarification as to what the referendum is all 27
about. She reviewed the calls with the Council noting that the results could prove to be very 28
interesting. 29
30
Cindy Sudeska, Hillview Road, stated that the golf course is nice to have adding that she also 31
believes that Medtronic is a good company. She stated that she is not against either of the 32
options noting that there is benefit with both. She stated that given a choice there is more 33
expenses with the golf course adding that to the south the City would probably see an increase in 34
general business for the area and agreed that there would probably be an increase in the area 35
traffic. She stated that she really believes that the people of Mounds View should have good 36
understanding of what a TIF District is adding that if they were to look at Medtronic’s financial 37
statement they would see that Medtronic’s profit for one year is approximately $2 billion, which 38
is their discretionary income and in comparison, the average income for the City of Mounds 39
View is approximately $40,000. She explained that if they were to further compare the $2 billion 40
in discretionary income for Medtronic to the discretionary income for Mounds View it would 41
equate to approximately $ .02. She stated that she wants what is fair and reasonable for both 42
sides and would like to see Staff do further exploration to find a fair deal that is good for both 43
sides. She expressed concerns stating that she could actually visualize taxes going up because of 44
Medtronic and she does not feel that she or any other resident should be expected to subsidize 45
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 12
any company. 1
2
Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated that the process is actually going fast noting that 3
Ramsey County is already out there digging holes. He suggested that the City take a breather and 4
take some time to try and find some common ground. He asked that the Council wait for the 5
petition before taking any further action noting that it could possibly delay the project for a year 6
or more. He stated that he is trying to get his mind wrapped around the details of the contract 7
agreement and referenced the $8.6 million stating that it is his understanding that the Legislation 8
requires the City to kick in approximately $1 million, which in his mind brings the overall total 9
to $9.6 million, yet Medtronic is only paying a park dedication fee of $865,000. He noted that 10
currently there is noting coming in for the fixed assets adding that the City could possibly 11
consider moving the clubhouse to another location in the City. He noted that he is at a loss as to 12
where they would be able to relocate the clubhouse or how they would move it adding that a 13
mover would probably tell them that it couldn’t be done on a slab. He reviewed all of the golf 14
club assets including the out buildings, the irrigation systems, and the lighting noting that the list 15
goes on. He expressed concerns that the bottom line shows a gain of $4.6 million for 72.2 prime 16
acres noting that the location is right at the top of the list for development possibilities. He stated 17
that this project is crying out for citizen involvement noting that he was not sure if the Council 18
would have the ability to back away from the agreement at this point. He stated that it seems as 19
if the tail has been wagging the dog for a long time and is concerned that this is only going to get 20
worse, much worse, if the petition is successful. He asked Council to consider delaying action on 21
this issue until the petition process has been completed. 22
23
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated that he hopes and prays that the City Council does 24
not back off from the Medtronic decision. He stated that the golf course has cost the City too 25
much money and is in need of repairs. He stated that he can’t believe that anyone would want to 26
keep something that is costing the City money. He stated that it is his understanding that the City 27
Council has received all of the facts and figures needed to make their decision adding that 28
Medtronic would bring jobs to the community and State during a time when many companies are 29
leaving the State. He stated that he cannot understand why people believe that this is a bad deal 30
for the City of Mounds View when no other development would come in here and get the same 31
kinds of concessions from the State. 32
33
William Werner, 2765 Sherwood Road, stated that he has been holding off on making any 34
statements for a long time adding that he would like to clarify the financial shape of Mounds 35
View. He indicated that in the last two years taxes have increased by over 20-percent and asked 36
why the City keeps increasing the taxes it only shows that the City needs money. He indicated 37
that there is a $4 million debt for the golf course over the last ten years and expressed concerns 38
that the golf course has never broken even and has also had to borrow money. He stated that the 39
street fund has been spent down, which in turn leaves no money for the necessary repairs. He 40
noted that past City Councils have hired poor golf managers in the past noting that faulty 41
construction at the golf course led the City to a lawsuit that cost the City $300,000 for a $150,000 42
settlement. He stated that the City taxpayers were advised to approve $3.3 million for a new 43
community center that was promised would make money for the City noting that losing money is 44
ok, no other community center makes money either. He explained that he is dredging up the past 45
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 13
to show that one should learn from history and not repeat the same mistakes. He stated that some 1
of the very people, from past Councils who steered this City to its’ present financial condition, 2
are now the loudest to give the advice as to why bringing in Medtronic is not a good deal. 3
4
Mayor Marty closed the Public Hearing at 8:50 p.m. 5
6
Mayor Marty stated that when the City had the land appraised last fall it was appraised at $10 7
million, the sale price to Medtronic was $8.65 million and since then the Legislature asked for an 8
additional $1 million and Medtronic stepped up to say they would pay the additional $1 million, 9
which brought the total sale amount to $9.65 million. He restated that the land was appraised last 10
fall at $10 million and asked why the City is selling it for less than the appraised value. He noted 11
that he has felt, all along, that the City should go out for bids adding that currently there is only 12
one player in the game. He stated that based on minutes from the last meeting it was quoted that 13
other offers had come in and Staff had deemed that the quotes were not justifiable. He clarified 14
that this was a decision made by Staff, in their own words, not the Council. He stated that he is 15
sure that all members of the Council have received many letters, calls and emails from all sides 16
of the issue and he feels that with an issue of this magnitude that the decision should be made by 17
the citizens. He noted that a couple of years ago the Council discussed the need to hire two 18
additional police officers. He stated that this was brought before the Council and it was shown 19
that the decision would affect the citizens and taxes noting that it was suggested that this should 20
be placed on a ballot through a referendum. He stated that the citizens did stand behind this 21
decision and ultimately the City did hire two additional police officers. He stated that with 22
respect to the current issue, it has been pointed out that in today’s dollars it would lower taxes by 23
one or two dollars over a 25-year period. 24
25
Mayor Marty stated that if Medtronic were coming in, paying for the golf course and not asking 26
for TIF this would be a much better deal. He acknowledged that this would go onto the tax rolls 27
right now but it would not affect the taxes until the TIF is paid off. He stated that the Economic 28
Development District for the TIF that would be used was capped at 8-years, which was extended 29
by the Legislature, through special legislation, to 25-years. He stated that this is their prerogative 30
noting that he does not believe this is a good deal for the City. He explained that if it was an 8-31
year period it wouldn’t be as bad noting that in 8-years the revenue from the taxes would come 32
back to the City sooner. He stated that one of the items mentioned by Ehlers is that in order to 33
have a cap of $14.8 million they were concerned that it would actually take 25-years to pay off. 34
He stated that if they were to get back into a series of tax compression for business taxes it could 35
take the full 25-years or longer. He stated that the City was in this position approximately five to 36
six years ago noting that it has been falling off. He stated that with the new legislature and senate 37
the City ends up back in a situation like this. He stated that he does feel the City is premature 38
noting that other land in the area, such as Roseville, for $300,000 an acre; land in Blaine for 39
$250,000 an acre, land in Lino Lakes selling for $200,000. He stated that the land in Blaine and 40
Lino Lakes are both land-locked, whereas the golf course is prime location off 35W and Highway 41
10/610 adding that he cannot support Mounds View selling the land for $120,000 an acre. He 42
believes the City could get a better deal. 43
44
Council Member Thomas stated that she never actually questioned the decision. She stated that 45
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 14
when the City put the police officer positions out to referendum it was because it would have 1
been a significant tax increase that would have been born financially by the residents of this City 2
in a significant one-year tax increase that would continue on. She further clarified that it wasn’t 3
that they were voting on two police officers it was a voting on paying the two police officers, 4
which is a big difference. She referenced the trading of public land and asked if the Council 5
recalled the land swap for Walgreen’s and asked if the City did a referendum because the City 6
took public property and gave it to a private business and traded over. She clarified that the City 7
owns property and is expected to manage property the City does not go to referendum to manage 8
property, not even to a sale. She acknowledged that this huge and is probably the largest issue 9
the Council will face, whether it rises to the issue of a referendum is for the people to decide. 10
She stated that she is very happy to see so many people involved and this active in a City issue. 11
She noted that this is the most activity she has seen in years and is excited to see Mounds View 12
residents so active. She stated that if it does go to a referendum, that is a separate issue to 13
address at that time. She stated that she believes she is fully capable of making a decision based 14
on property evaluations noting that she believes the City is probably getting the best deal the City 15
could get. She is confident in this and stands by her decision. 16
17
Council Member Gunn stated that she spent most of her day sitting at the computer reading 18
emails and reviewing her notes from the Town Hall meetings. She stated that she has also spent 19
a lot of her spare time and lunch breaks discussing City politics with residents. She stated that 20
based on her emails and the responses from residents at the Town Hall meeting she found that 21
approximately 90-percent of the residents are in favor of this project. She stated that she has to 22
listen to the people adding that she also feels that she has made the right decision for the City of 23
Mounds View. 24
25
Council Member Stigney stated that he keeps hearing a comparison that should be better and 26
worth more. He explained that the appraisal of the land is for land located in Mounds View, not 27
Blaine, Lino Lakes or Roseville. He stated that his only concern is with the appraisals they 28
received for land located in Mounds View adding that fair appraisals were given, the City has 29
done a negotiation with Medtronic and he believes the City has come up with a good deal for the 30
City of Mounds View. He asked what the golf course has done for the City and answered 31
nothing, until 2014, maybe, if the City is lucky. He stated that he does not believe that the golf 32
course would bring in big dollars noting that the City would receive $4.6 to $5 million that would 33
come into the City immediately, yet no one mentions this. He stated that the City could utilize 34
the money to help lower taxes and asked how the residents could just throw this out the window 35
to go with a golf course that is losing money. He noted that it is also capped at $14.8 million 36
adding that as the years go by the $14.8 million by today’s dollars would be a lot less every year 37
because they are capped at that value. He stated that Medtronic is the one taking the beating for 38
the cap adding that Medtronic is also providing $8.65 for the park fund and $1 million for 39
MnDOT. He stated that it is mind-boggling to keep hearing the spin and asked why they would 40
keep a golf course that is losing money over Medtronic. He stated that if anyone could show him 41
how the golf course would actually make money he would be willing to sign the petition. 42
43
Council Member Flaherty noted that when this deal originally came to the table it was nowhere 44
close to what it is today. He assured the residents that the Council has worked very hard on this 45
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 15
issue and if anyone thinks the Council has lost their integrity, ethics or values they are sadly 1
mistaken. He stated that he has thought long and hard on all of the issues and concerns and that 2
he took in all comments, feedback and information and made the best decision he could for the 3
City with the information he had received. He explained that he compared the golf course’s 4
previous earnings to what it is today; he reviewed and studied the benefits Medtronic could add 5
to this community; and he considered what the people had to say about the golf course and about 6
Medtronic. He agreed with Council Member Stigney adding that no one wants to say anything 7
about the $5 million the City would receive, all they want to talk about is the $43,000 a year in 8
property taxes and that isn’t enough. He stated that he believes the deal the City has now with 9
Medtronic is as good a deal as the City is going to get. 10
11
Council Member Thomas stated that there is one correction that is necessary to make. She 12
referenced Mayor Marty’s statement that the Council was not in on the decision regarding other 13
properties and other offers and expressed concerns that he would make this statement. She 14
agreed that Staff could say, in their opinion that the options did not rise to the level the City 15
should be pursuing. She acknowledged that this was Staff’s opinion adding that they brought the 16
options to the meeting to review with Council. She stated all five Council Members were at this 17
meeting and all agreed that the options did not rise to the level of what the City should pursue. 18
She stated that they discuss how the plan could be divided and how things could be done. She 19
stated that the Council did discuss all of the issues and asked how Mayor Marty could say that 20
the Council did not take part in the discussion. She stated that Council did agree in a group 21
consensus that the offers received did not rise to the level of pursuit. 22
23
Council Member Stigney stated that not only did the options not rise to something the Council 24
should consider, nothing was brought forth that had the wear withal to do anything about the 25
County Road J corridor, the road improvements or the bridge. He stated that it took legislative 26
action noting that Medtronic worked real hard to get legislative action on all these issues. He 27
stated that just because someone says they are interested, they wouldn’t have been able to provide 28
the access. He stated that with Medtronic there would be access and improvements that are 29
needed on County Road J. 30
31
Mayor Marty referenced the golf course losing money, as Bill Werner mentioned, after the golf 32
course opened they had a law suit. He stated that the City won the lawsuit but still had to pay 33
attorney fees and court fees, which put the golf course behind before it ever got started. He 34
stated that they have the billboards noting that the contracts were negotiated and the billboards 35
were put in place last year. He stated that six billboards generated approximately $250,000 a 36
year with a 4-percent inflation factor built in for a twenty-year period. He stated that last fall the 37
land was appraised at $10 million and asked what the land would be worth ten years from now 38
noting that property values continue to go up. He stated that no one on the Council liked the idea 39
of the billboards adding that they saw it as a means to avoid raising property taxes to pay for the 40
golf course. He stated that right now with the bond debt and the internal loans the City owes 41
approximately $4.2 million, which includes everything. He stated that the billboards are up there 42
for twenty years and in order to negotiate out of the billboard contract, now in the current 43
agreement the billboards will be in Mounds View for thirty years. He stated that they can only fit 44
three billboards north of Highway 10, which means the other three billboards will be placed 45
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 16
somewhere south of Highway 10. He stated that the billboard contract on each billboard doesn’t 1
start until the billboard is placed, which means the contracts could run well beyond the thirty 2
years. 3
4
MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Gunn To Approve the Second Reading and the Adoption of 5
Ordinance 760 Authorizing the Sale of Land Comprising The Bridges of Mounds View Golf 6
Course to the Mounds View Economic Development Authority and waive the reading. 7
8
City Administrator Ulrich called a roll call vote as follows: 9
10
Mayor Marty – Nay 11
Council Member Stigney – Aye 12
Council Member Gunn – Aye 13
Council Member Flaherty – Aye 14
Council Member Thomas – Aye 15
16
City Administrator Ulrich stated that the motion passes 4 to 1. 17
18
Ayes-4 (Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, Thomas) Nays-1 (Marty) Motion carried. 19
20
C. Resolution 6540, Approving a Comprehensive Land Use Amendment for The 21
Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course Site. 22
23
Director Ericson stated that this is something that originated back in 2003 when the City rezoned 24
the property from public facilities designation to industrial. He explained that Minnesota Statues 25
indicate that the Comprehensive Plan and zoning should be consistent with each other noting that 26
earlier this year, in January, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to review the 27
designation of the golf course and come up with an amendment that would be appropriate given 28
the zoning of the property and the possible future reuse of the property. He stated that in 29
February 2004 the Planning Commission adopted a resolution, which would recommend the 30
office designation as the appropriate land use. He stated that subsequent to the Planning 31
Commission recommendation the amendment was forwarded to the Metropolitan Council, who 32
took significant time to review the amendment and found issues associated with other agencies 33
including transportation issues. He noted that at the same time the City was going through the 34
AUAR process on the same land, so they were looked at in the same light in terms the potential 35
impacts. He stated that on April 27th the Metropolitan Council did recommend and approve the 36
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Amendment to office. He stated that the City held a 37
public hearing on May 23, 2004 and there is a resolution before Council that would effectuate the 38
change from outdoor sport/recreation and passive outdoor to office. He stated that this is 39
something that could be acted on regardless of what happens with the Medtronic project and is 40
something that is necessary based on the fact that the City rezoned the property in 2003. He 41
acknowledged that there are some ties to the previous item adding that this something that has to 42
occur regardless for statutory compliance. 43
44
Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated that he is so glad that the Council wrote into the 45
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 17
Charter that citizens have a right to address issues before the Council. He stated that he is 1
unaware of any communication with the City of Blaine, particularly with the fact that they are 2
going to lose some revenue producing properties to be turned into a parking lot. He asked what 3
Blaine’s reaction was to the changes in the Comprehensive Plan for Mounds View and asked if 4
they reviewed the changes or did they respond to the City Council or Tom Ryan. 5
6
Director Ericson confirmed that the City of Blaine supported the City of Mounds View’s request 7
to change the future land use to office. 8
9
Mr. McCarty asked if they support it knowing that a portion of their industrial land would be 10
taken away. He stated that he didn’t know it until the last minute noting that the first map he saw 11
was in relationship to the property in Mounds View. He asked if the City of Blaine knew, at the 12
time of their approval, that the impact from the development would extend beyond Mounds 13
View’s border to the extent of removing tax producing buildings and properties from their City. 14
He asked if they were aware of this at the time and did they make specific approval to that 15
condition. 16
17
Director Ericson stated that the City of Blaine was aware of that activity and the potential for 18
redevelopment within their own community. He stated that these are two separate issues noting 19
that Blaine was aware of it and they did support the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the 20
proposed development. 21
22
Mr. McCarty indicated that he is not against this adding that the Council should be commended 23
for the investments they have made in the parks system. He indicated that the City has spent over 24
$500,000 in parks improvements and that he applauds them for their investment and hard work 25
with the parks system but he does not understand how members of this City Council can 26
constantly bang the drum that the City is putting $40,000 a year into a golf course that is about to 27
be removed and yet at the same time vote in over $231,000, since 2001, for the North Suburban 28
Tourist Bureau. He stated that it is a little difficult to understand when the Council is approving 29
$57,000 per year for the North Suburban Tourist Bureau and then whine about $40,000 for a 30
good recreational facility, such as the golf course, that serves everyone from the developmentally 31
disabled to the hearing impaired and senior citizens. He stated that he is having a hard time 32
understanding this. He stated that he doesn’t care where the money comes from it is still the 33
citizen’s money, no matter where it comes from. 34
35
Economic Development Coordinator Backman clarified that the money that go to the CPB are 36
based on a 3-percent lodging tax noting that there are very specific uses for those monies. 37
38
Barbara Haake, 3024 County Road I, referenced the Comprehensive Land Use Amendment and 39
asked if there was specific zoning that the City was required to put in place by the courts in order 40
to be able to place the billboards. 41
42
City Attorney Riggs stated that he does not see a direct tie and explained that the property, based 43
on what the court said, had to match the use that was actually being made. He further explained 44
that the public facility zoning was not consistent with the business-type setting and that was the 45
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 18
distinction. He stated that Council reviewed this issue and determined that the district would be 1
named based on the actual use, which is consistent with what zoning is. He stated that it actually 2
applies to the land use. 3
4
Ms. Haake clarified that currently there are two zonings on the property. She asked if the entire 5
area would now be zoned as office. 6
7
Director Ericson explained that the office designation would be consistent with the industrial 8
zoning and the zoning would be consistent with the office designation. 9
10
Ms. Haake stated that, if by chance the referendum does succeed at the election in November and 11
the golf course stays, would this land use amendment cause the golf course to become a non-12
conforming use in this area. 13
14
Director Ericson explained that there would not be a need to do a subsequent Comprehensive 15
Plan amendment noting that there are a number of properties in the City where the City has taken 16
the position that the future long-term use should be something other than what it is. He stated 17
that it could remain a golf course forever, even with the office use designation. 18
19
Mary Berg, The Bridges Golf Course, responded to Council Member Stigney and referenced 20
page 14 of the current audit report, stating that the report outlines the golf course expenses 21
including the debt services. She noted that it shows $856,000 for expenses and $700,531 for the 22
revenue with a $300,000 amount that has to be kept in the account to cover the debt services. 23
She noted that this is another interfund loan that has to be paid back by 2017 with interest. She 24
pointed out that this year the revenue from the billboards was supposed to be $252,000 and if you 25
subtract the $155,000 you would have approximately a $90,000 profit. She stated that the only 26
reason she wanted to point this out was due to Council Member Stigney’s challenge that if they 27
could show him a profit he would consider signing the petition. 28
29
Council Member Stigney asked when the golf course would break even with the debt and losses. 30
31
Ms. Berg stated that everything would be paid off in 2017. 32
33
Council Member Stigney concurred that everything would be paid off in 2017 adding that the 34
golf course wouldn’t come close to breaking even until that time. He stated that this is part of his 35
concern noting that this is when a possible profit from the golf course would be seen, if there 36
even is a profit. 37
38
Ms. Berg stated that unfortunately no other options were considered to sell a small portion of the 39
golf course without TIF to bring in tax revenue today. She stated that it could be making tax 40
revenue with a portion of the golf course adding that these ideas were brought to the Council. 41
She acknowledged that some of the current Council Members were not members of the Council 42
at that time, but the options were disposed of when the Medtronic project came in. 43
44
Mr. McCarty stated that he appreciates Council Member Stigney’s junkyard dog approach 45
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 19
because he kept the Council on the straight and narrow in many instances, however, as a 1
businessperson he needs more education. 2
3
Council Member Stigney asked for a call to order, he does not need an education from Duane 4
McCarty on how to run a business. 5
6
Mr. McCarty stated that if he were running a business his mind would not be locked in on the 7
simple day to day income and outgo, he would include in the business rolling stock, inventory 8
and real estate assets. He agreed that it would be 2017 before everything that catches up adding 9
that if they were to calculate the value of the property and include that calculation into the total 10
value of the operations of the property it would be worth over $16 million within the next twenty 11
years if you were to add a simple 3-percent growth. He stated that they know very well it would 12
be much more than that. He apologized to the Mayor stating that he did not mean to upset the 13
Council or hurt Council Member Stigney’s feelings. He explained that the Council has to get 14
beyond simple sales, income and costs adding that they need to include all assets. He stated that 15
the asset they are giving up for the Medtronic deal is a whale of an asset in terms of future value 16
of that property. He stated that to think that that property was appraised at $10 million and the 17
City is selling it for $8.6 based on one or two appraisals and three appraisals are the norm. He 18
stated that this is why people are concerned. He stated that he believes the Council is trying to do 19
their best but somehow they have found themselves in a corner and he fears for the way this is 20
going to turn out. 21
22
Council Member Stigney referenced the future use of the golf course noting that the City has an 23
18-month timeframe to sell or develop noting that after 18-months it is all gone. He stated that 24
maybe by 2017 they might have the wear withal to go back to the Legislature and get it all 25
changed again, noting that he does not believe that would happen. 26
27
Mayor Marty clarified that the 18-months is on the MnDOT property and the driving range is 13-28
acres adding that the City does have property in the area that is not controlled under the MnDOT 29
covenants. 30
31
Council Member Stigney clarified that Mr. McCarty believes that the City should hang on to the 32
golf course and piece meal it out in the long-term and he does not agree with that. 33
34
Council Member Thomas asked the Council to get back to the agenda item addressing the 35
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment. 36
37
Ms. Haake stated that she did calculate out the value of the property in terms of $35,000 an acre, 38
over 25-years at 5-percent increase, it would be worth $57,568 million. 39
40
Mayor Marty stated that it was pointed out that the Planning Commission made a unanimous 41
decision on February 2, 2005 and since February more information has come in and the Council 42
did not have much information until approximately three weeks ago. He stated that he was 43
approached by several of the Planning Commissioners expressing their concerns on this issue. 44
He stated that they explained that what they reviewed in February is not what they envisioned at 45
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 20
this time and they wanted to know what they could do to change this. He explained that this is 1
just a matter of information. 2
3
Council Member Thomas asked why this matter of information would be appropriate to this 4
venue. She stated that having served on the Planning Commission she knows how to go about 5
getting answers to a question as it would be brought forward and discussed with the Planning 6
Commission to readdress the issues, should it be necessary. She stated that she does not believe 7
that speaking for nameless individuals, who have recourse to do so with the Planning 8
Commission, should they wish too. She stated that something seems inappropriate here noting 9
that if the Planning Commissioners wish to readdress this with the Planning Commission she 10
would encourage them to do so as this is the appropriate body to do that. She stated that to go to 11
the Mayor and have the Mayor announce it at a meeting is not the proper forum. 12
13
Mayor Marty noted that he felt totally different about this in February adding that as things have 14
come to fruition he began to believe that this is not the best deal for the City of Mounds View. 15
16
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Gunn. To approve Resolution 6540 and waive the reading, 17
Approving a Comprehensive Land Use Amendment for The Bridges of Mounds View Golf 18
Course Site. 19
20
Ayes-4 Nays-1 (Marty) Motion carried. 21
22
D. Resolution 6541 Accepting and Approving the Final Draft of The Bridges 23
Office Development Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Document. 24
25
Director Ericson stated this item was authorized by the Economic Development Authority on 26
September 13, 2004 as a means to address the potential development out at The Bridges Golf 27
Course. He stated that the City authorized RLK/SYSCO to work on the AUAR, which they have 28
done. He stated that they have published the preliminary and final drafts of the AUAR noting 29
that the City has received a lot of positive feedback from agencies. He stated that there has been 30
a lot of participation and teamwork coordination with the Cities of Blaine and Shoreview, Anoka 31
County, Ramsey County, MnDOT, and the Department of Natural Resources. He stated that a lot 32
of meetings were held and a lot of information was shared back and forth throughout the process. 33
He stated that the area of primary concern, which was common across all agencies, was the 34
transportation impacts given that County Road J does not function right now at peak 35
performance. He stated that there are issues with regards to the deficiencies with the 36
transportation system and RLK has put together a transportation impact plan. He noted that they 37
have actually received some funding from the State of Minnesota to do some improvements to 38
County Road J and the bridge over 35W. He stated that the AUAR documents are available for 39
Council’s acceptance and approval. He indicated that earlier public meetings it was prefaced that 40
the Council’s approval of this document does not, in any way, obligate the Council to take any 41
action on the Medtronic development. He explained that it is simply is an assessment of the 42
impact at the golf course if a development should occur. He stated that the issue is before 43
Council again noting that the public hearing was held on May 23, 2005 and they are back for 44
acceptance and approval of this document. 45
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 21
1
Council Member Thomas clarified that this is the same as the Spring Creek Regional Pond report 2
and Council is just accepting the document they are giving the Council. 3
4
Carol Mueller stated she is very concerned about the impact study not including the residential 5
streets. She stated that it is apparent that the feeling was that the main access roads would be 6
County J, Central Avenue, 35W and US Highway 10 noting that she believes the new employees 7
in town would use the inner streets including Silver Lake Road, Long Lake Road, and Red Oak 8
Drive. She stated that she is very concerned that they do not have the means to enforce and 9
control the speeds. She stated that people run stop signs as it is and with the potential for 10
additional 3000 to 6000 vehicles on their streets she believes this is something that definitely 11
should be reviewed and considered. She stated that she really hopes that with the improvements 12
the City is planning to do on County Road J that the City would consider repairing the potholes 13
and the existing roads. She asked that the City not narrow the roads and plan to do serious traffic 14
controls to make sure the streets are still safe for the pedestrian residents. 15
16
Director Ericson stated that Ms Mueller brings up some good points noting that the City did ask 17
RLK to examine the transportation impacts not only on a regional transportation basis but also 18
for the internal road system within Mounds View. He stated that given the proximity to 35W, 19
US Highway 10, Highway 65 and County Road J that it would be highly unlikely that there 20
would be any appreciable impact to the Mounds View roadways. He agreed that there could be 21
some people, who live in New Brighton or other surrounding areas, that could use internal street 22
systems but it would be unlikely that they would try to navigate through the residential areas 23
rather than utilize another easier traveled roadway. He stated that the bottom line with the RLK 24
memo, that was included in the Council packet that they believe that any local traffic would be 25
negligible adding that if there are concerns with a lot of traffic going into Mounds View that 26
maybe some of these people would stop at local businesses to make purchases. 27
28
Council Member Thomas noted Ms. Mueller’s comments stating that this is a problem the City 29
would have to address regardless. She assured Ms. Mueller that the Council has talked a lot 30
about the residential road problems noting that no matter what goes on with the improvements 31
for County Road J it is something the Council does have to review. 32
33
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road asked if the billboards should support a golf course or 34
should the golf course support itself. 35
36
Mayor Marty stated that if the golf course can’t support itself due to lawsuits and bonds the City 37
then has to find another way to finance it so that the residents aren’t taxed for it. 38
39
Mr. Jahnke stated that he does not personally believe that using the excuse that the City lost the 40
lawsuit that it should make a difference after ten years. He stated that every business experiences 41
bumps adding that his question was not answered. He asked if the City believes that billboards 42
should support a golf course. He stated that figures show that the golf course won’t support itself 43
without the billboards. 44
45
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 22
Mayor Marty stated that he did not want the billboards to support the golf course noting that it 1
was either the billboards or tax the citizens. 2
3
Mr. Jahnke stated that maybe the City should get rid of the golf course and use the billboards as a 4
revenue source for the City. 5
6
Mayor Marty stated that this is a good point noting that the City has six billboards that they are 7
getting $250,000 a year, with a 4-percent inflation factor. He noted that the City is only getting 8
$15,000 per billboard for the first ten years and $25,000 per billboard for the second ten years, 9
which is only a pittance of the contract the City currently has. 10
11
Council Member Thomas noted to Mr. Jahnke that she does not want to cut him off adding that 12
this is not the item the Council is currently discussing. She asked the Council to get back to the 13
agenda item they are supposed to be discussing. 14
15
City Administrator Ulrich noted that there are several typos that should be corrected. 16
17
Mayor Marty stated that he spoke with John Diedrich regarding a letter written by Vernon, a 18
summary by RLK. He stated that it did address the traffic concerns in the City noting that it 19
touched on the issues saying that the traffic would travel to the more main arterials. He stated 20
that letters from MnDOT, also included in this report, state that the general growth for this area is 21
more than what the freeway system can handle even if funding is obtained to reconstruct the 22
interchange, the intersections map operates poorly if the freeway is congested. He noted that as 23
he said to Mr. Diedrich if the freeways are congested people find other ways to go. He noted that 24
during morning and afternoon rush hours the City does get traffic through the area. He stated 25
that it was pointed out that a lot of this is a reverse-commute adding that it was also pointed out 26
how many of the Medtronic employees live in the surrounding areas. He stated that they are 27
talking about 2000 up to 6000 employees once it is built out and no matter how you look at it, it 28
will increase the traffic on our streets. 29
30
Council Member Gunn stated that if you look at the reports the majority of the congestion is not 31
from our area and it will not be that significant from having Medtronic there. She explained that 32
it is from the growth that is happening in Blaine, Ham Lake, Andover and Lino Lakes. She 33
stated that Blaine has a lot of new homes going in and now they have the TCAAP area to 34
consider, which would add more congestion on 35W than Medtronic. She stated that they would 35
not have all 6000 employees driving through the Mounds View area adding that the people who 36
do that do it now. She expressed concerns stating that sometimes it is made to look a lot worse 37
than what it going to be. She stated that you can’t say that 6000 employees are going to be 38
driving up and down the local roads, it is not going to happen. 39
40
Council Member Thomas agreed that the City already has a traffic problem and will continue to 41
have traffic problems noting that she would like to get as many of the cars into Mounds View as 42
they can because many of these cars would stop at local businesses. She stated that the City is 43
already aware of the traffic issues and must be addressed, but this is a separate problem. 44
45
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 23
Mayor Marty clarified that he did not say that they would have 6000 people using the local roads 1
adding that the freeways are already past capacity and this is a concern. 2
3
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Stigney. To approve Resolution 6541 Accepting and Approving the 4
Final Draft of The Bridges Office Development Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) 5
Document as amended and waive the reading. 6
7
Ayes-4 Nays-1 (Marty) Motion carried. 8
9
E. Resolution 6574 Severance Payment for Marla Manypenny. 10
11
City Administrator Ulrich stated that this is authorizing severance payment for Marla 12
Manypenny. He explained that it would include payment for vacation, comp time and sick leave 13
for a total of $449.49. 14
15
MOTION/SECOND. Marty/Thomas. To Approve Resolution 6574 Severance Payment for 16
Marla Manypenny. 17
18
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 19
20
F. Resolution 6579 Revising the Policy for Employee Appreciation Events and 21
5-year Employment Milestone Gift Certificates. 22
23
City Administrator Ulrich stated this was reviewed at last City Council work session. He 24
explained that the direction was to look at an amendment, which also provided the return 25
employee an option of a $50 gift certificate in lieu of a plaque. He noted that this was inserted 26
into the resolution and the revised policy. He stated that in also doing this it was found out that 27
the employee appreciation event is to be held at the Mounds View Banquet and Conference 28
Center and the amendment added City Hall Park because a couple of the events were held at City 29
Parks. He stated that the language has been added to allow the event to be held at City Parks. He 30
stated that this is to inform people that it is the policy of the City to give employees $5.00 gift 31
certificates for each of the five years of their service. He stated that Resolution 6579 has been 32
presented for City Council approval. 33
34
Council Member Gunn noted that the amendment requires a correction. She stated that it 35
currently states that events would be held at the Mound City Parks and it should read Mounds 36
View City Parks. 37
38
Council Member Stigney asked if he could make an amendment that the employee gift 39
certificates be applicable to Mounds View City businesses. 40
41
MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Marty To Approve Resolution 6579, Revising the Policy for 42
Employee Appreciation Events and 5-Year Employee Milestone Gift Certificates as amended and 43
to include language that states that the Employee Gift Certificates be made applicable to Mounds 44
View City Businesses. 45
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 24
1
Ayes–2 (Stigney, Flaherty) Nays –3 (Marty, Thomas, Gunn) Motion Denied. 2
3
Council Member Thomas expressed concerns stating that many employees live in this area but 4
many of them don’t adding that it is good to support the local businesses but this part is a little 5
bit beyond what is necessary. She stated that if they don’t live in this area the City is placing a 6
bind on employees that would find it difficult to do. She asked who is to determine what is 7
appropriate or inappropriate. She stated that this is going beyond what the City should do. 8
9
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Thomas To Approve Resolution 6579, Revising the Policy for 10
Employee Appreciation Events and 5-Year Employment Milestone Gift Certificates and amend 11
the language to reflect Mounds View City Parks, not Mound City Parks. 12
13
Ayes -3 (Marty, Thomas, Gunn) Nays-2 (Stigney/Flaherty) Motion carried. 14
15
G. Consider Appointing a Candidate for the Finance Director Position. 16
17
City Administrator Ulrich stated that the City Council is considering two candidates for the 18
Finance Director Position. He stated that the interviews have been completed and at this point 19
the Staff recommendation would be to move forward with one of the candidates, get an 20
authorization to make an offer to the selected candidate and bring it back to Council at the next 21
regular meeting for formal approval of the hiring package. He stated that he has personally 22
called all of the references for the candidates noting that both are good candidates and qualify for 23
the position. He stated that Bob Sundberg has the best experience for Mounds View at this time 24
and that they should make an offer to Mr. Sundberg at this time. 25
26
Council Member Stigney stated that he believes Mr. Bier gave the best responses to the questions 27
he asked and his personality would fit much closer to what they have in the City. He stated that 28
he is very dedicated and is a CPA. He noted that the other gentleman has only been in his last 29
position for a year and is moving on again noting that he does have reservations about that. He 30
believes that Mr. Bier is the best candidate for the position. 31
32
Council Member Gunn agreed with Council Member Stigney for most of the same reasons. She 33
stated that she was impressed with his answers and agrees that his personality would fit better 34
with the staff. 35
36
Council Member Flaherty stated that he would prefer Mr. Sundberg noting that he is currently 37
doing the kind of work that they are looking for and believes that Mr. Sundberg would hit the 38
ground running. 39
40
Council Member Thomas stated that she is not sure of her decision yet. She stated that she is 41
concerned about the size of the pool of candidates the Council had to choose from. She stated 42
that she did speak with both candidates noting that she was not able to go as in depth with Mr. 43
Bier as she was with Mr. Sundberg. She stated that both candidates have skills that would 44
benefit the City adding that Mr. Bier in more intermixed with a variety of skill sets in his 45
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 25
background. She stated that at this point she feels that Mr. Bier has a more global/broader view 1
and she is leaning towards Mr. Bier as the candidate due to his broader view of what should be 2
accomplished within the City. 3
4
Mayor Marty stated that he spent approximately twenty minutes with Mr. Sundberg and 40 5
minutes with Mr. Bier. He stated that he feels both are very capable and that he is impressed 6
with both candidates. He stated that Mr. Sundberg referenced the software also mentioned by 7
Mr. Hansen and that he suggested utilizing the Roseville server and that he also indicated that the 8
software would be a considerable savings for the City. He stated that Mr. Sundberg was very 9
knowledgeable about the application and process adding that he recently went through the same 10
kind of process with the City he is currently working with. He stated that he also spoke with Mr. 11
Hansen noting that he worked for him while working for the City of Brooklyn Center and Mr. 12
Hansen did stated that Mr. Sundberg is a very quick learner and that he gained considerable 13
experience in the area of TIF while working for the City of Brooklyn Center. He stated that he 14
believes that Mr. Sundberg would transition more comfortably into the position than Mr. Bier 15
noting that it would be less of a learning curve for Mr. Sundberg. 16
17
Council Member Gunn clarified that she is not opposed to Mr. Sundberg but would like to know 18
why Staff feels he would be the better choice. 19
20
City Administrator Ulrich explained that their decision was based on his experience with the City 21
government process and agreed that the learning curve would be considerably higher for Mr. Bier 22
in comparison. 23
24
Council Member Stigney stated that overall he prefers Mr. Bier adding that Mr. Bier left him 25
with a really good feeling that he would do what it takes to get things done and he really does 26
want this job. He stated that he did ask Mr. Sundberg about TIF and tax rebates noting that Mr. 27
Sundberg left him with the impression that he does not like doing things with TIF. He stated that 28
he felt the need to determine who would be best overall for the City and believes that person is 29
Mr. Bier 30
31
MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Gunn To recommend to Staff that Mr. Bier be considered as the 32
candidate for the Finance Director and have the City Administrator bring back final 33
recommendations to the next regular City Council meeting. 34
35
Ayes-3 Nays-2 (Marty/Flaherty) Motion carried. 36
37
9. CONSENT AGENDA. 38
39
Council Member Thomas asked to pull Item 9C, Resolution 6576 Approving the Tobacco and 40
Gasoline License for Gas for Less located at 2525 Highway 10. She asked where is the City at 41
with the license as far as how long it is going to be in place since the property is going to be 42
purchased by Snyder’s. She asked if there would be a pro-ration on the fee or is this for the full 43
year and they don’t get it. 44
45
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 26
City Administrator Ulrich stated that it would be an annual fee that they would have to pay. He 1
explained that they wanted to be open during the July 4th weekend and they did not get their 2
paperwork in on time, as they had planned to close in June. He explained that they had to have a 3
license or at least one pending in order to stay open. He stated that it is anticipated that they 4
would close within the next thirty days. He stated that no pro-ration of the license was indicated, 5
only that they would have to apply for a new license. 6
7
MOTION/SECOND Thomas/Stigney To Approve Resolution 6576 Approving the Tobacco 8
and Gasoline License for Gas for Less located at 2525 Highway 10 9
10
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried 11
12
Council Member Stigney asked to pull Item 9D, Resolution 6578 Approving a Contract for the 13
Scheduled Replacement of a Street Sweeper. He agreed that it is a nice sweeper but there is 14
nothing wrong with the one they are currently using. He stated that he personally feels that when 15
the City is experiencing, like last year, a 27.5-percent increase in the median value of a house in 16
Mounds View that now is the time to go out and buy a new sweeper. He stated that they could 17
purchase a new one when the old one breaks. He stated that he does not support the purchase at 18
this time, which why he pulled it. 19
20
Council Member Flaherty stated that the budget for this year has been approved by the City 21
Council noting that this item was included as a budgeted expenditure for this year. He stated that 22
this request should go forward as part of what has already been approved. He noted that the 23
sweeper is $12,000.00 more than what was budgeted and asked where the additional funds would 24
come from. 25
26
City Administrator Ulrich stated that the additional funds would come from the Capital 27
Equipment Fund. 28
29
Council Member Stigney stated that he did not vote for the budget approval and never has. He 30
stated that it irritates him to no end when he sees a replacement request just because it was 31
included in the budget. He stated that he actually questions whether it should even be included in 32
the budget at all. 33
34
Mayor Marty acknowledged Council Member Stigney’s concern and explained that the current 35
sweeper is 15-years old and is past its prime. He noted that they have been using the sweeper all 36
summer and they have been using it to vacuum the sewers. He stated that the additional sweeper 37
would cut staff time and would allow the staff to do twice as much work within the City. 38
39
MOTION/SECOND Stigney/ To Postpone Purchase of this Item at this time until the Current 40
Sweeper breaks down and there is a justifiable reason to replace the equipment. 41
42
Motion denied for lack of a Second. 43
44
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 27
MOTION/SECOND Marty/Gunn To Approve Resolution 6578 Approving a Contract for the 1
Scheduled Replacement of a Street Sweeper and waive the reading. 2
3
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Stigney) Motion carried 4
5
Council Member Gunn asked to pull Item 9F, Resolution 6565 Approving and Authorizing the 6
Conversion to an IP (Internet Protocol) based Phone and Voice Mail System with the City of 7
Roseville, as part of the City Hall Renovation Project, and Approving the Draft Joint Powers 8
Agreement and Draft Cost Recovery Agreement (contingent upon review by legal counsel) with 9
the City of Roseville for Use and Support of the IP System. She explained that she has concerns 10
regarding the IP systems and the 911 connection. She stated that she has heard that there might 11
be some problems with the 911 connection and where it would be connected. 12
13
City Administrator Ulrich acknowledged that this is an issue with some of the systems but it is 14
not an issue with this one. 15
16
Council Member Stigney asked if they have gotten any answers regarding the cell phones. 17
18
Mayor Marty noted that the phones would be from Nextel and it shows 67 phones for six months 19
that would be $18,456.82 with a 1000-minute plan. He noted that this would be a basic phone 20
service. 21
22
MOTION/SECOND Stigney/Gunn To Postpone Approval of Resolution 6565 to direct 23
Staff to review and verify the costs for the Conversion to an IP (Internet Protocol) based Phone 24
and Voice Mail System with the City of Roseville, as part of the City Hall Renovation Project 25
and the Draft Joint Powers Agreement and the Draft Cost Recovery Agreement (contingent 26
upon review by legal counsel) with the City of Roseville for Use and Support of the IP System. 27
28
Ayes-1 (Stigney) Nays-4 (Marty, Thomas, Gunn, Flaherty) Motion denied. 29
30
MOTION/SECOND Gunn/Flaherty To Approve Resolution 6565 Approving and Authorizing 31
the Conversion to an IP (Internet Protocol) based Phone and Voice Mail System with the City of 32
Roseville, as part of the City Hall Renovation Project, and Approving the Draft Joint Powers 33
Agreement and Draft Cost Recovery Agreement (contingent upon review by legal counsel) with 34
the City of Roseville for Use and Support of the IP System 35
36
Ayes-4 Nays-1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 37
38
A. Licenses for Approval 39
B. Establish Special Council Work Session for 7:00pm, July 18, 2005 at City Hall to 40
Discuss Work Plan and Review Schedule for County Road J Reconstruction. 41
C. Removed for Separate Vote. 42
D. Removed for Separate Vote. 43
E. Set a Public Hearing for July 25, 2005 at 7:05 pm to Consider an Amendment to 44
the Walgreen’s PUD Related to Allowed Uses on the Vacant Parcel Behind 45
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 28
Walgreen’s 1
F. Removed for Separate Vote. 2
3
MOTION/SECOND Thomas/Flaherty To approve Consent Agenda Items A, B and E. 4
5
Ayes–5 Nays-0 Motion carried 6
7
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. 8
9
A. City Council Minutes, June 13, 2005 10
11
Mayor Marty had the following corrections to the minutes: 12
• Page 7, Line 8, should read ‘proper ventilation ‘of’ the air conditioning’ 13
• Page 11, Line 37, place a comma after ‘his’ 14
• Page 12, Line 7, should state ‘Headquarters ‘for’ R&D. 15
• Page 12, Line 9, ‘CDRM’ should be ‘CRM’ 16
• Page 12, Line 11, reads ‘Council Member Thomas stated that according to the TIF files the 17
filed’ it should read: ‘Council Member Thomas stated that the TIF files were filed with the 18
Legislature and that phase one would be 1200 moved jobs and the remaining would be new 19
jobs. 20
• Page 12, line 23, insert “Mayor Marty stated that if taxes went up $400.00, then with 21
Medtronic the taxes would only go up $398.00.’ 22
• Page 13, Line 3, should read ‘Louisa’ 23
• Page 13, Line 16 and Line 25, should change “Hart’ to ‘Hartstad’ 24
25
Council Member Gunn had the following correction to the minutes: 26
• Page 13, Line 21, states ‘Council Member Gunn clarified that if they do get the approval 27
to go off Long Lake Road then Greenwood be closed’ 28
Should read ‘Council Member Gunn clarified that if they do get the approval to go off 29
Long Lake Road then Greenwood ‘would’ be closed.’ 30
31
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Marty To approve the City Council Minutes, June 13, 2005 as 32
amended. 33
34
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 35
36
B. June 27, 2005 City Council Meeting Minutes will be presented at the July 25, 37
2005 City Council Meeting. 38
39
11. REPORTS 40
41
A. Reports of Mayor and Council 42
43
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 29
Council Member Stigney noted that earlier in the evening it was said that one of the golf course 1
problems and reason it doesn’t make money is due to the lawsuit and the outstanding legal debts. 2
He recalled that last year the Council voted to pay off the debt of $262,000.00 so that debt has 3
been wiped out of the golf course. 4
5
Council Member Thomas stated that the Legislature does have a deal noting that all of the 6
Committees were supposed to complete the actual language for the global deal by 5:00 p.m. 7
today to allow Staff time to assemble the bills to be heard this next Wednesday. She stated that 8
they were not done when she left and it is her hope that they were able to draw it to a close and 9
be able to complete by the end of this week. She stated that she is not sure if everything that 10
would have been done in the regular session was done in the special sessions adding that she 11
believes that they would only be adjusting the budget items. She indicated that there is an 12
additional $46 million put to LGA in the tax bill noting that how it would apply and what 13
formula would be used had not been decided at the time she left the meeting. 14
15
Council Member Flaherty stated that he was surprised to find out that the City does not sponsor 16
or budget for the Festival in the Park. He stated that he would like to know the history and asked 17
if this could be included as an agenda item in a Council work session. 18
19
Council Member Gunn noted that the Festival in the Park is coming up and would update the 20
Council as they get the schedule more solidified. She noted that August 20th is the Golf 21
Tournament and August 21st is the Festival in the Park. 22
23
Mayor Marty asked City Administrator Ulrich for a copy of the Springsted Feasibility Report for 24
the golf course that was done in the 2000-2001 timeframe. 25
26
City Administrator Ulrich clarified that the report he is referencing outlines the deficit and how it 27
would be financed. 28
29
B. Staff 30
31
City Administrator Ulrich referenced the City Hall remodel project noting that the project would 32
necessitate moving Staff from this building to other locations while the work is being completed. 33
He explained that the Police department would move to the Ramsey County Sheriff’s department 34
at Arden Hills and the City Council would have to utilize a different facility for the City Council 35
meetings. He stated that he has put out inquiries to both Arden Hills and New Brighton to see if 36
they could utilize their Council Chambers. He explained that the reason they wouldn’t want to 37
utilize a conference room at the Community Center is because the Cable TV access is less than 38
desirable. He explained that they would need four technicians to handle the truck and it would 39
be similar to what they had to do for the meeting held on June 20th and it would be more feasible 40
to utilize another Council Chambers. He stated that if Council has a preference the Arden Hills 41
location is three miles closer than New Brighton, but if they use Arden Hills the Council would 42
have to change the Council meeting night from Monday to another night due to conflicts. 43
44
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 30
Mayor Marty stated that he would prefer to keep the same meeting night unless it doesn’t work 1
out with New Brighton. 2
3
Council Member Thomas asked if it would be possible to do it in other building locations and 4
utilize the cable truck. 5
6
Mayor Marty clarified that the need for a larger crew, the time to set up and manage it would be 7
an issue. 8
9
City Administrator Ulrich stated that the current plan is to move the Office Staff to the 10
Community Center because the phone system would be easier to install and the utilities are 11
already there along with all of the computer connections that are already in place. He stated that 12
the other option would be to lease space adding that to lease space would expensive. He 13
indicated that the Canyon Grill asked not to pay rent for the six months that the City would 14
occupy the space. He stated that the cost for rent would be approximately $5000.00 a month plus 15
utilities plus $6000.00 for a T1 line for six months. He stated that there would be no big cost 16
breaks due to the extra costs and asked Council for their feedback. 17
18
Mayor Marty asked if the Canyon Grill would still be catering on the weekends. 19
20
City Administrator Ulrich stated that they would want to keep the weekend dates and they would 21
allow community groups to use the banquet rooms during the week. 22
23
Mayor Marty asked where staff would set up and would they have to pack up each day. 24
25
City Administrator Ulrich explained that City Staff would setup in Conference Room A and D. 26
He noted that there are three large offices that the Church currently occupies that would be 27
vacated and City Staff would co-locate into these offices. 28
29
Council Member Thomas stated that she is all for the Community Center location but she is not 30
ok with free rent. 31
32
City Administrator Ulrich stated that one of the issues the Canyon Grill has is going from the 33
$3000.00 to $5000.00. He asked what would be an acceptable number for the rent reduction. 34
35
Mayor Marty stated that $2500.00 would be an acceptable figure. 36
37
Council Member Flaherty asked how much space would they lose. 38
39
City Administrator Ulrich stated that it is hard to calculate because they have events that are open 40
at certain times of the day. 41
42
Mayor Marty stated that it would be an advantage to the City just to keep the office space closely 43
located and easy to find. He stated that he would be ok with reducing their rent by $2500.00. 44
45
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 31
Director Ericson provided the Council with an update noting that the City has reached an 1
agreement with the Snyder’s developers and have a stormwater management plan that addresses 2
all stormwater issues. He stated that it would be consistent with Rice Creek Watershed 3
requirements and would not involve any deep stormwater pits. He stated that they have a real 4
good plan. He stated that he has no update on the Hartstad development adding that it would 5
probably be on the Watershed District agenda for July 27th. He stated that they posted notice for 6
the Planning Associate position in the newspaper this weekend and already have people 7
interested in the position. He provided the Council with a large map with the route changes for 8
the Metropolitan Transit System. He stated that the routes and services for Mounds View did not 9
change and all services will continue to be maintained. 10
11
Council Member Flaherty referenced the 'for sale' on the property across the street and asked 12
what the City is looking for on the property. 13
14
Director Ericson clarified that the City does not own that piece of property noting that it currently 15
belongs to Walgreen’s. He noted that this item was included on this evening’s agenda for the 16
planned unit development amendment. He explained that this property is allowed one use and 17
that is for a restaurant. He indicated that City Staff has been working to help develop this lot 18
noting that developers and real estate agents have stated that the reason there are no takers is due 19
to the location and no visibility to Highway 10. He stated that on the next Council agenda there 20
would be an amendment request to allow for office use at this location. He stated that the 21
Caribou coffee shop will be opening on August 6, 2005 and are currently in negotiations with 22
other possible tenants. 23
24
Council Member Stigney asked how much they are asking for the property. He suggested finding 25
out the asking price as a possibility for the City to purchase the open land. 26
27
Director Ericson stated that he did not know what they were asking adding that the City did ask a 28
couple of times in the past to donate the property to the City if they wanted to. He stated that he 29
would research what they are asking for the property and update the Council. 30
31
C. Reports of City Attorney 32
33
City Attorney Riggs stated that they clearly have a multi-prong process with this referendum. He 34
noted that they now finally have an ordinance in place and the Charter allows challenges to 35
ordinances in certain situations and it requires a petition to come in. He stated that they do not 36
have the petition yet but the assumption is that the citizens will bring it forward. He explained 37
that when this happens it will fall on him and City Administrator Ulrich to determine the 38
adequacy of the petition based on the information that has been supplied to Ms. Haake including 39
the appropriate statutes, the appropriate sections of the Charter and the appropriate sections of the 40
Minnesota Rules. He stated that the next step in the process of reviewing is determining whether 41
the question is a valid question for the ballot. He stated that case law is not favorable of this kind 42
of question being placed on a ballot. He stated that he wants to be sure that the Council 43
understands that there is a clear difference between administrative acts and legislative acts. He 44
stated that it pretty clearly falls under the administrative context and Council should be aware of 45
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 32
this fact because then it would come back to Council. He stated that if it were a valid petition on 1
all of the grounds, potentially it still wouldn’t be a question that would go to a ballot because of 2
this issue because of Minnesota case law. 3
4
City Attorney Riggs stated that people have asked if there are alternative ways of approving this 5
whole transfer of property. He explained that potentially, under State law, there is an alternative 6
option noting that there are a couple of provisions that are not utilized often that allows transfer 7
by resolution regardless of what it says in the City’s Charter and regardless of what it says in 8
other State Statutes. He further explained that this is something the Council could utilize only 9
for transfers between public entities, which would be the City and the EDA. He stated that it 10
would not apply to any transfer to Medtronic itself but again that transfer is not subject to Charter 11
because it is dealing with the EDA, which is a very different context. He stated that he has 12
discussed this with Director Ericson and City Administrator Ulrich and let them know that he 13
would update the Council that this is something that could be considered if they want to deal 14
with it simply by resolution. He stated that these are two issues that could fall out from this 15
based on the potential that the City would receive some type of petition for referendum. 16
17
Council Member Stigney clarified that they would pass an ordinance and then turn around and 18
pass some type of resolution. 19
20
City Attorney Riggs stated that he doesn’t see any reason at this point that Council couldn’t adopt 21
a resolution that would follow these two statutory provisions. He explained that this is just 22
another method to approve the transaction and the project itself. He stated that either would have 23
the same effect noting that the question is that if they have some form of petition that is deemed 24
valid on all of these grounds, the reason he brings this up is to show that in the administrative 25
versus legislative context, the Legislature has created these two statutory provisions and the 26
courts have interpreted it as a valid way to do it, yet when you read it, it clearly looks 27
administrative. He stated that it does bolster the argument that there is an issue with the final 28
question and it makes the comment that if the petition is brought before the Council and is 29
deemed valid on all grounds that it would have to be reviewed at that time. 30
31
Council Member Stigney asked if it would be beneficial to have a resolution come before the 32
Council. 33
34
City Attorney Riggs stated that if that is Council’s wish something could be put together. 35
36
Council Member Gunn asked who validates the question. 37
38
City Attorney Riggs explained that the Minnesota Supreme Court has looked at this issue to 39
determine what is the legislative authority that has been given to Cities for referendum or recall 40
noting that in this case, specifically referendum. He stated that they have clearly said that the 41
only questions that can go before the vote of the electorate are actual true legislative questions 42
noting that there are a lot of questions that are considered administrative that are not valid. He 43
stated that the Courts have bounced these kinds of questions in the past stating that they cannot 44
deal with them. He stated that this is something that is strictly reserved for the elected authority, 45
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 33
which in this case is the City Council in this matter and cannot be handed off to the citizens, 1
whether it is by requested petition or otherwise. He stated that it is clear when reviewing the list 2
of items that the sale of land is within that context. 3
4
Council Member Stigney noted that there has been some discussion around the heading of the 5
petition and whatever the heading is would go on to the ballot. He asked who would make this 6
decision. 7
8
City Attorney Riggs explained that this is one part of a multi-pronged process. He stated that the 9
information given to Ms. Haake was a very specific provision, Minnesota Rules Section 10
8205.1010 that provides a list of ten to fifteen items that are required to be included in a petition 11
that comes in under this type of circumstance and are based on the Minnesota Election laws. He 12
stated that it is a little inconsistent with what the City’s Charter says noting that the Charter says, 13
in essence you put on the ordinance and say what it is and what it says in the rules is that the 14
actual question is placed on the ballot. He stated that in an email from City Administrator Ulrich 15
to Ms. Haake it was suggested that they do both because the question is whether they are going to 16
adopt an ordinance and it would cover both issues and would be clearly compliant with the 17
Minnesota Rules and the City Charter. He stated that the final decision would fall to the City 18
Council. He stated that it sits with Staff to determine whether they have a valid petition or not 19
and it would then be brought to Council for a final decision. 20
21
Council Member Stigney stated that it might be desirable to proceed with a resolution. 22
23
Mayor Marty stated that if they did this by resolution they would be circumventing the Charter to 24
make an end run so that the citizens couldn’t petition to go to a referendum. 25
26
City Attorney Riggs agreed that they could look at it this way noting that the Council could also 27
look at it in a way that would question whether they are looking at something that wouldn’t go 28
forward anyways. He stated that typically the Council does not issue an opinion until the petition 29
comes in adding that there have been other circumstances of land sales like this where it has been 30
deemed manifestly invalid for a ballot question, which is the opinion that goes out. 31
32
Mayor Marty clarified that the Charter has no control over the EDA. 33
34
City Attorney Riggs explained that the Charter does not have control over the EDA noting that 35
the EDA is a separate public entity under Minnesota Statute Section 469.091 and once the EDA 36
is created it becomes a separate corporate body. He explained that the Charter section language 37
that Mr. McCarty mentioned earlier, Section 2.02 of the Charter speaks of only Advisory and 38
Administrative Commissions. He stated that the EDA is a legal subdivision of the State of 39
Minnesota, similar to the City Council. 40
41
Council Member Thomas asked what the Council would have to do to get a ruling on the 42
administrative versus legislative context. She asked if there is a question that asks if this 43
ordinance is valid for referendum that they could put to the AG’s office and get an opinion on it. 44
45
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 34
City Attorney Riggs stated that he did not know if there is likelihood that they would get an 1
opinion directly from the AG. He explained that in the past the way they have gone is that they 2
have been challenges to the petition itself or petitioners who have not had their ballot question 3
move forward. He stated that what usually comes out of that is some type of cleratory judgment. 4
5
Council Member Thomas stated that since they have an ordinance in place could they get a ruling 6
on the ordinance and ask if this is a valid referendum item. 7
8
City Attorney Riggs stated that he does not have an answer because the question he would have 9
is whether it is really right because they don’t have a petition in place saying that there could be a 10
challenge. 11
12
Council Member Thomas noted that at the time when the paperwork is drawn, at that point they 13
could go forward noting that it does take awhile to get an opinion back adding that if the petition 14
has the legal language then it is legal to put out noting that it would not be a legal petition for 15
signatures if it doesn’t already have the legal language. 16
17
City Attorney Riggs explained that he hasn’t dealt with this in-depth noting that every one of the 18
main cases where they have the valid petition presented it then becomes a case where it cannot be 19
put on the ballot because of these cases. He stated that they could explore the possibilities and 20
report back at the next work session. He stated that the problem is that it still typically requires 21
two parties and there has to be an adverse party where a decision has been made against it or 22
requesting some form of judication where it is pending and without the petition pending before 23
Council it would be difficult to get it into Court to get a declaratory action noting that none of 24
this happens until all of the work has been done. 25
26
Council Member Gunn stated that she knows there is another group out there talking about doing 27
a counter position in favor of the project. She asked what they would do if this happens. 28
29
City Attorney Riggs stated that he is not sure that a petition that could be done right for some 30
type of action but they would be an adverse party that would review and challenge it as 31
something that is not right for going to a vote. 32
33
Council Member Thomas stated that there is no language for a counter petition in our ordinance 34
but there is a provision that would make it an initiative all on its’ own. She stated that they 35
would have a petition for the ordinance and they would have an initiative and both would be 36
separate. 37
38
Council Member Flaherty stated that he is in no way in favor of short-circuiting this petition 39
whatsoever. He stated that he believes that the residents need to know that they should have their 40
ducks in a row before they present this petition and that it is not easy. He stated that he would 41
not accept Council short-circuiting this petition. 42
43
City Attorney Riggs explained that he and Staff couldn’t tell the residents what the language is 44
for this question. He stated that he cannot represent them either as it would be an ethical 45
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 35
violation to the Council. He stated that he could only give out information to make them aware 1
of the issues. 2
3
Council Member Stigney stated that this could open up some legal challenges if it doesn’t meet 4
legal requirements that it is a valid petition or that could be challenged and things keep dragging 5
out it could harm the developer. He stated that Council should cover their bases legally and 6
proceed with a resolution as it might circumvent a dragged out legal challenge on some of these 7
issues. 8
9
Council Member Gunn asked if this would automatically stop the referendum process. 10
11
Council Member Thomas stated that she feels that it is too soon noting that they could have this 12
in a back pocket if they end up in a completely deadlocked position. She stated that the City 13
already has a multi-prong thing going and if we add one more thing we won’t know what street 14
we are on. 15
16
Council Member Stigney asked City Attorney Riggs if they should move forward or not. 17
18
City Attorney Riggs stated that he does not have a good answer noting that the Council is 19
treading on areas that are difficult because they have so many potential adverse parties involved 20
and they also have potential dollars at stake. He stated that typically this is where they would be 21
able to get some type of restraining order or legal action but they have nothing actionable to 22
move forward with. He agreed that a resolution like this would arguably look like a short-circuit 23
effort but it also makes it clear that this is an administrative act. He stated that he did not know if 24
this would be the best route adding that this would be a policy question because it is another legal 25
basis for potentially doing this. He stated that it is out there and there have been interpretations 26
and appears to be valid as an alternative method. He stated that if the petition is valid and 27
everything checks out, there is no question that they would end up with an adverse party on one 28
side or the other. He stated that it is pretty clear, based on case law in place, that this is not a 29
legislative act, it is an administrative act that probably does move forward to ballot, which would 30
be the recommendation at that point in time. He stated that he is trying to point out that there is a 31
lot of work that would have to go into this over the next month and may still not get to the same 32
point, whether this is valid to place on the ballot or not. 33
34
Mayor Marty clarified that by transferring this to the EDA they have already pretty much short-35
circuited the process of citizens having anything to do with it. 36
37
City Attorney Riggs clarified that he is saying that they have other statutory provisions that 38
would allow them to do this because they are transferring to the EDA and wouldn’t if they 39
transferred to a private party. He stated that the fact is those cases still deal with the sale of land 40
or administrative acts and it wouldn’t make any difference whether they were deeding directly to 41
the developer or any other developer out there, it would still be an administrative act. He stated 42
that but for Section 12.05 of the Charter, they would not need a motion to approve the land sale 43
because they have made that decision to deal with the project and approve this agreement. He 44
stated that they would not be going through this process under 12.05 but for the fact that there is 45
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 36
language in the Charter, which is where the courts would step in and say no this is an 1
administrative act and they are only doing this because there is language in the Charter that says 2
to do this. He stated that legislative items have to be far reaching, long standing and they have to 3
affect the citizens. He stated that the ordinance is enforceable against everyone and everyone has 4
to abide by it noting that the ordinance that they adopted tonight will be published next week and 5
once it is published and the deed occurs the ordinance no longer has any validity and doesn’t go 6
into the City code as a codified ordinance, it goes into the back as a land transfer. He stated that 7
there are a number of provisions in the Charter that are overruled by State law and offered to 8
review with Council at a work session. He stated that the process is valid and citizens have the 9
right to move forward with any type of petition noting that this is a difficult hurdle to deal with 10
because they usually don’t meet the standards. 11
12
Council Member Gunn asked if Council could direct Staff to write up the resolution for their 13
review. She stated that the Council is aware that this process is going to happen and suggested 14
that they let this part happen and they have the resolution if it is needed. 15
16
Council Member Flaherty stated that his is still very against trying to short-circuit the petition 17
adding that he would much prefer that this to go to referendum than to circumvent. He stated 18
that he wants to be sure that they know the guidelines. 19
20
Council Member Gunn agreed that it does need to go forward noting that City Attorney Riggs did 21
state that there is a probability that it won’t fly. 22
23
Council Member Thomas stated that it is premature at this point to set it up adding that there are 24
bigger questions that should be answered. She asked if Staff is going to require the entire 25
ordinance and is the ordinance Council just passed going to be part of the petition. She clarified 26
that the language of the petition must contain the ordinance. 27
28
Council Member Gunn asked if the City would have to pay for the entire ordinance to be placed 29
on the ballot and if so they need to start working on the process. 30
31
Council Member Thomas asked when the petition would have to be in and when is it appropriate 32
to ask if this is a legislative or administrative act. She stated that they need to get this 33
information from Staff and then move forward. 34
35
Council Member Stigney clarified that the committee that signs up for the petition must be 36
residents and should be included on each page of the petition. He asked who is allowed to go out 37
and obtain signatures. 38
39
City Attorney Riggs reviewed the petition requirements and confirmed that they have to be 40
citizens of Mounds View and registered to vote. He stated that they also have to sign an affidavit 41
certifying that those are the people that signed in front of them. He stated that this is clarified in 42
Section 5.02 of the City Charter. 43
44
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 37
12. Next Council Work Session: Special Meeting, July 18, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. 1
Next Council Meeting: Monday, July 25, 2005 2
3
13. ADJOURNMENT 4
5
Council agreed by consensus to adjourn the City Council Meeting of July 11, 2005 at 11:27 p.m. 6
7
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 8
9
Transcribed and recorded by: 10
11
12
Bonnie Sullivan 13
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 14
Item No: 11B(2)
Meeting Date: August 22, 2005
Type of Business: Reports
City Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree M. Crane, Administrative Assistant
Item Title/Subject: Work Session Agenda for Tuesday, September 6, 2005
Attached is a draft of the Work Session scheduled for Tuesday, September 6,
2005. Many of these items may take anywhere from a half hour to an hour each to
discuss (if not more). Staff wanted to see if the City Council would be interested in
starting the September 6th Work Session Meeting an hour early (start time of 6pm
instead of 7pm). If the City Council decides to start this Work Session earlier than
scheduled, then please announce this at the end of this meeting so that residents
know the change in time. This agenda will be posted as required.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree Crane
“DRAFT”
SJR-268835v1
MU205-30
1
Item No: 08
Meeting Date: October 3, 2005
Type of Business: Special Session
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution _______ Approving the Sufficiency of Petition in
Opposition of Ordinance 760, an Ordinance Authorizing Disposal
by Sale of Real Property Owned by the City of Mounds View to the
Mounds View Economic Development Authority
Background:
On Monday, August 15, 2005, staff proceeded with determining the validity of the
petition against Ordinance 760, an Ordinance Authorizing the Disposal by Sale
of Real Property owned by the City of Mounds View to the Mounds View
Economic Development Authority. The City Council adopted Ordinance 760,
which is scheduled to take effect on August 19, 2005, pursuant to the City
Charter. The petition contains 1,930 signatures. On August 22, 2005, the City
Council adopted Resolution 6608, determining that the referendum petition was
insufficient, finding the referendum question invalid, and declaring that such
question shall not be certified for a special election.
According to 5.02 of the City Charter it states:
Section 5.02. General Provisions for Petitions. A petition provided for under this chapter
shall be sponsored by a committee of five registered voters of the City whose names and
addresses shall appear on the petition. A petition may consist of one or more papers, but
each separately circulated paper shall contain at its head, or attached thereto, the
information specified in sections 5.05, 5.07 or 5.08 which apply, respectively, to initiative,
referendum and recall. Each signer shall be a registered voter of the City and shall sign their
name and give their street address. Each separate page of the petition shall have appended
to it a certificate by the circulator, verified by oath, that each signature appended thereto was
made in their presence and that the circulator believes them to be the genuine signature of
the person whose name it purports to be. The person making the certificate shall be a
resident of the City and registered to vote.
In order to validate the petition, staff developed a database to track each resident that
signed the petition. This was to track any duplicate signatures, and to have a record of
determining sufficiency. Each resident was checked on the Ramsey County Registered
Voter Master List. This list contains all registered voters in the City of Mounds View.
“DRAFT”
SJR-268835v1
MU205-30
2
After this was completed, Staff checked all determined Non-Registered voters on the
Minnesota Statewide Voter Registration System. This system is updated daily, and has
the most updated information on registered voters. Names were rejected if they had
the incorrect or missing address, incorrect or missing year of birth, illegible names, or if
they were not registered.
Subsequent review of the rejected names that were challenged by the petition
committee revealed that twenty-five of the names were valid based upon information
provided on the petition. The primary cause of these errors was the incorrect transfer
of names from the petition to the electronic data base.
Discussion:
Original petition numbers: Resubmitted Petition Numbers:
Number of Signatures: 1,193 Number of Signatures: 1,193
Non-Registered Voters: 214 Non-Registered Voters: 192
Number of Illegible Signatures Number of Illegible Signatures
Duplicates and Invalid 34 Duplicates and Invalid 28
Number of Registered Voters: 945 Number of Registered Voters: 997
The petition needed 989 signatures in order for it to be a sufficient petition. According
to Section 5.03 of the City Charter it states:
Section 5.03. Determination of Sufficiency. The committee shall file the completed petition
in the office of the Clerk-Administrator. The required number of signers shall be at least
fifteen percent for initiative and referendum, and for recall, at least twenty-five percent of
the total number of electors who cast their votes for president at the last presidential election.
Immediately upon receipt of the petition, the Clerk-Administrator shall examine the petition
as to its sufficiency and report to the Council within ten days. Upon receiving the report, the
Council shall determine by resolution the sufficiency of the petition.
The last presidential election was in 2004, and 6,597 residents cast their votes. Fifteen
percent of 6,597 is 989.55.
“DRAFT”
SJR-268835v1
MU205-30
3
After the initial Council findings, the petition was resubmitted on September 26, 2005, under
the following Charter provision:
Section 5.04. Disposition of Insufficient or Irregular Petition. If the Council
determines that the petition is insufficient or irregular, the Clerk-Administrator shall
deliver a copy of the petition, together with a written statement of its defects, to the
sponsoring committee. The committee shall have thirty days in which to file
additional signature papers and/or to correct the petition in all other particulars,
except that, in the case of a petition for recall, the committee may not change the
statement of the grounds on which the recall is sought. Within five days of receipt of
the corrected petition, the Clerk-Administrator shall again report to the Council. If the
Council finds that the petition is still insufficient or irregular, the Clerk-Administrator
shall file the petition and notify the sponsoring committee. The final finding that the
petition is insufficient or irregular shall not prejudice the filing of a new petition for the
same purpose, nor shall it prevent the Council from referring the subject matter of
the petition to the voters at the next regular or special election.
In accordance with the Mounds View City Charter, additional signatures were submitted on
September 26, 2005, regarding the petition for a referendum in the amount of 41 signatures,
bringing the total number of signatures submitted regarding the petition for a referendum to a
total of 997 signatures. Therefore, the petition initially submitted on August 15, 2005, and
supplemented on September 26, 2005, requesting a vote as to the adoption of Ordinance
No. 760, does include the requisite number of signatures required pursuant to the Mounds
View City Charter.
However, based upon the an opinion from the City Attorney (dated august 11, 2005),
attached as Exhibit A, it is recommended that the City Council find that the question posed in
such referendum petition manifestly invalid and that the question posed in the referendum
petition not be placed on the ballot of a future City special election. Upon Council action, the
City will inform the petitioners of the findings of the City Council in regard to the referendum
petition.
Recommendation:
“DRAFT”
SJR-268835v1
MU205-30
4
RESOLUTION NO. ________
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION DETERMINING THE SUFFICIENCY OF REFERENDUM
PETITION PURSUANT TO CITY CHARTER; PROVIDING FOR THE
DISPOSITION OF SAID PETITION; FINDING THE REFERENDUM
QUESTION INVALID; AND DECLARING THAT SUCH QUESTION
SHALL NOT BE CERTIFIED FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION
WHEREAS, Section 5.07 of the Mounds View City Charter provides that an ordinance
adopted by the City Council may be subjected to a petition for a referendum prior to the date
when the ordinance takes effect; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 760 which was scheduled to
take effect on August 19, 2005, pursuant to the Mounds View City Charter; and
“DRAFT”
SJR-268835v1
MU205-30
5
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 5 of the Mounds View City Charter a petition for a
referendum as to Ordinance No. 760 has been received by the City; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Mounds View City Charter, City staff previously reviewed
and determined that the petition submitted to the City was insufficient because the number of
valid signatures submitted was less than the required number; and
WHEREAS, the referendum petition seeks a vote as to the final adoption of
Ordinance No. 760 which authorizes the sale of real property by the City of Mounds View to
the Mounds View Economic Development Authority; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received an opinion from the City Attorney which is
attached and set forth as Exhibit A to this resolution and incorporated herein by reference;
and
WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the City Attorney that an ordinance dealing with the
sale of land is an administrative act (among other reasons) of the City Council that is not
subject to referendum pursuant to Minnesota law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted Resolution No. 6608, wherein the
City Council determined the sufficiency of referendum petition pursuant to the Mounds View
City Charter, provided for the disposition of said petition, found that the referendum question
was invalid, and declared that such question should not be certified for a special election; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Mounds View City Charter, additional signatures were
submitted on September 26, 2005, regarding the petition for a referendum in the amount of
41 signatures, bringing the total number of signatures submitted regarding the petition for a
referendum to a total of _____________ signatures.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds
View that the recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this
Resolution as if fully set forth herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mounds View
hereby finds the petition initially submitted on August 15, 2005, and supplemented on
September 26, 2005, requesting a vote as to the adoption of Ordinance No. 760 to include
the requisite number of signatures required pursuant to the Mounds View City Charter; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council hereby finds that the question posed
in such referendum petition is manifestly invalid; and
“DRAFT”
SJR-268835v1
MU205-30
6
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council hereby finds that the question posed
in such referendum petition will not be placed on the ballot of a future City special election;
and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that City staff is authorized to take
all necessary action consistent with the City Charter and State law to inform the petitioners of
the findings of the City Council as to the referendum petition submitted concerning Ordinance
No. 760.
Approved by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this ______ day of
September, 2005.
___________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________________
City Clerk-Administrator
(seal)
“DRAFT”
EXHIBIT A
OPINION OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY ATTORNEY
Kennedy
470 US Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
&
Graven
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
http://www.kennedy-graven.com
sriggs@kennedy-graven.com
C H A R T E R E D
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: August 11, 2005
TO: Mounds View City Council
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
FROM: Mary D. Tietjen
Scott J. Riggs
RE: Transfer of Property from City to EDA
Referendum Issues
This memorandum addresses the legal issues related to a potential referendum
challenging the transfer of property from the City of Mounds View (“City”) to the Mounds
View Economic Development Authority (“EDA”) for the Medtronic Development Project
(“Project”). A key question is whether the City Council would have legal grounds to deny a
referendum petition on the sale of the property and adopt a Resolution authorizing and
finalizing the transaction. In my opinion, the City Council has a sufficient legal grounds to
do both.
Factual Background
On July 11, 2005, the Mounds View City Council adopted Ordinance No. 760 authorizing
the conveyance of certain property from the City to the EDA. The EDA intends to
subsequently convey the property to Medtronic, Inc., for development and construction of
an 820,000 square foot office complex pursuant to a purchase agreement and a contract
for development between the City, the EDA and Medtronic. Residents have threatened to
“DRAFT”
challenge the City’s conveyance of property for the Project pursuant to the power of
referendum under Section 5.01 of the City Charter.1
Legal Issues
I. Is the conveyance of property a legislative act subject to referendum?
II. May the City authorize conveyance of the property under Minnesota Statutes
sections 471.64 and 465.035, without regard to city charter provisions?
III. Does Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462 preempt the city charter referendum
provision?
Legal Discussion
The following are legal arguments that would support a finding by the City Council to deny
a petition for referendum on the sale of the property.
I. The Conveyance of Property is Not a Legislative Act Subject to
Referendum.
The power of referendum is limited to acts which are legislative in character. Hanson v.
City of Granite Falls, 529 N.W.2d 485, 487 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995)(citing Oakman v. City of
Eveleth, 203 N.W. 514 (1925). To determine whether an ordinance is legislative and
subject to a referendum, the courts have distinguished between legislative, administrative
and quasi-judicial acts of a city. Id. at 488. In the Oakman case, a taxpayer sought to
require the city to hold a referendum on an ordinance authorizing the settlement of a
lawsuit against the city. The court found that the ordinance did not enact a law, but was
instead the exercise of an administrative function:
We think the measure is one that calls for investigation and discretion, and, if
such matters are not to be met and handled as a part of the daily routine of
business of a municipality, but must be submitted to the people to make a law for
each controversy that may arise, we are drifting from the ideals of representative
government. In fact, the theory of initiative and referendum was directed at
supposed evils of legislation alone . . . To allow a referendum to be invoked in
order to delay executive conduct would destroy the efficiency necessary to the
successful administration of the business affairs of a city.
Oakman, 203 N.W. at 517 (emphasis added). The Oakman court also rejected the idea
that the matter of awarding a contract is a legislative act:
1 Section 5.01 reads: “The people of Mounds View reserve to themselves the powers in accordance
with the provisions of this Charter to initiate and adopt ordinances and resolutions, to require
measures passed by the Council to be referred to the electorate for approval or disapproval, and to
recall elected public officials. These powers shall be called the initiative, the referendum, and the
recall, respectively.”
“DRAFT”
The orders of the city council as to which the referendum is sought in the case at
bar are clearly executive and not legislative in their nature. A direction to an
officer to sign a specified contract with a named person to do a defined thing for
a specified price is not a legislative act. . . It is not the laying down of a rule, a
principle or a law by which the conduct of a public officer may be guided.
Id. (emphasis added). General legislative acts lay down some permanent and uniform rule
of law, administrative acts relate to daily administration of municipal affairs, and quasi-
judicial acts are the product of investigation, consideration and deliberate human judgment
based upon evidentiary facts of some sort. Hanson, 529 N.W.2d at 488.
The Mounds View City Council adopted an ordinance authorizing the conveyance of real
property from the City to the EDA. Although Minnesota courts have not directly held that
the sale of real property is an administrative, rather than a legislative act, the case law
strongly supports this argument. As an administrative act, the sale of property is not
subject to referendum.
Moreover, the ordinance authorizing the sale is an ordinance authorizing a contract for the
conveyance of property. And, courts have held that entering into a contract is an
administrative act. The sale of property does not establish a permanent or uniform rule of
law; rather, it is an administrative act that is part of the day-to-day business activities of the
City. Also, the fact that the Council authorized the sale by ordinance should not change
the conclusion. In the Oakman case, the city adopted an ordinance approving a settlement
and the court, nonetheless, held that the ordinance was the exercise of an administrative
function. If administrative acts, such as the sale of property, were subject to referendum, it
would defeat not only the purpose of referendum, but make it highly impractical and
inefficient for the City to conduct its daily business affairs.
Under the case law, a court would likely find that the sale of real property is an
administrative, not a legislative, act. Thus, the ordinance authorizing the sale is not subject
to referendum and the City Council may deny the sufficiency of a petition on this basis.
II. State Law Allows the City to Convey Property Without Regard to City Charter
Provisions.
Two state statutes provide support for this argument.
A. Minn. Stat. § 471.64.
The first statute, Minn. Stat. § 471.64, authorizes the City to enter into a contract for the
sale of real property to another political subdivision without regard to charter provisions:
Any county, city, town, . . . or other political subdivision of the state may enter
into any contract with . . . any other political subdivision of the state for the
purchase, lease, sale, . . . of real property, without regard to statutory or charter
provisions . . .
(emphasis added). Minnesota courts have not had an opportunity to construe this statute.
However, the Attorney General concluded in two opinions that a city may disregard charter
“DRAFT”
or statutory procedural requirements when entering into a contract with another
governmental entity. In both cases, the Attorney General decided that a city could
disregard statutory and charter bidding provisions when entering into a contract for the
purchase of electricity from the federal government. See Op.Atty.Gen., 59-A-15, March 30,
1965; Op.Atty.Gen., 59-A-15, July 7, 1945.
Section 12.05 of the Mounds View Charter that provides that “[n]o real property of the City
shall be disposed of except by ordinance.” However, section 471.64 authorizes the City to
enter into a contract for the sale of property to the EDA without regard to the city charter.
Although the City Council complied with the charter and adopted an ordinance authorizing
the conveyance, Minn. Stat. § 471.64 provides authority for the Council to adopt a
resolution authorizing staff to finalize conveyance of the property to the EDA.
B. Minn. Stat. § 465.035.
The second statute that supports the argument that the conveyance of property is not
subject to charter requirements is Minn. Stat. § 465.035. That section provides:
Any county, town, city or other public corporation may lease or convey its
lands for a nominal consideration, without consideration or for such consideration as
may be agreed upon to the state or to any governmental subdivision . . . for public
use when authorized by its governing body.
The Minnesota Supreme Court addressed this statute in County of Hennepin v. City of
Hopkins, 58 N.W.2d 851 (Minn. 1953). In that case, Hennepin County conveyed property
to the village of Hopkins for park and recreation purposes. After the deed had been
recorded, the county brought an action to invalidate the conveyance based on the failure to
comply with a statute requiring the adoption and publication of a resolution defining the
terms of the sale, a bond, and other specific requirements. The court held, however, that
Minn. Stat. § 465.035 trumped the requirements in the other statute and that the county
was permitted to convey the property without complying with the other statute. See id. at
855.
The City in this case has authorized conveyance of property to the EDA for a public
purpose. Under the Court’s holding in County of Hennepin, Minn. Stat. § 465.035 would
trump the City’s charter requirements. Thus, the City may adopt a resolution authorizing
staff to finalize conveyance of the property to the EDA, despite the ordinance requirement
in the charter. Under this same reasoning, a court could also find that, in a conveyance of
property from one public entity to another, section 465.035 trumps the referendum
provision in the city charter.
III. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462 Preempts the Charter Referendum
Provision.
The City may also be able to argue that the conveyance and redevelopment of property is
governed by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462, and, therefore, Chapter 462 preempts the
referendum provision in the charter.
City charters provisions must be consistent with and are subject to state law. See State ex
“DRAFT”
rel Town of Lowell v. City of Crookston, 252 Minn. 526, 91 N.W.2d 81, 83 (1958). The
Minnesota Court of Appeals recently held that the procedures set forth in chapter 462 for
adopting and implementing laws for land use planning preempt charter provisions reserving
the right of referendum to voters to approve or disapprove land use ordinances. See
Nordmarken v. City of Richfield, 641 N.W.2d 343 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002). In Nordmarken, a
private redeveloper submitted a plan to the City of Richfield that required both a rezoning
and an amendment to the city’s comprehensive plan. The council adopted the necessary
ordinances to allow the plan to go forward. A group of citizens petitioned the council for
referendum on the rezoning and comp plan ordinances. The court of appeals held that a
referendum would be in conflict with the state law and that state law preempted the charter
with respect to land use issues.
Although Nordmarken did not deal with the conveyance of property, the same rationale
may be applicable. Chapter 462 addresses the acquisition and disposal of property in
furthering the planning goals of a city. First, section 462.353, subd. 3, authorizes a
municipality to enter into contracts with other public or private agencies in furtherance of
the planning activities authorized in sections 462.351 to 462.364. Next, Minn. Stat. §
462.356 addresses the acquisition and disposal of property in the context of a city’s
comprehensive plan:
After a comprehensive municipal plan . . . has been recommended by the planning
agency and a copy filed with the governing body, no publicly owned interest in real
property within the municipality shall be acquired or disposed of, . . . until after the
planning agency has reviewed the proposed acquisition, . . . and reported in
writing to the governing body . . . its findings as to compliance of the proposed
acquisition, disposal or improvement with the comprehensive municipal plan.
Section 462.356 requires that a city follow a specific process before selling property to
ensure that the proposed sale is in compliance with the comprehensive plan. To subject
the findings approving or authorizing a sale to referendum would usurp the process set
forth in state statute. Also, the City has complied with section 462.356. The planning
commission reviewed the ordinance authorizing the sale of property from the City to the
EDA and reported to the City Council. Because state law governs the disposal of public
property and the City has complied with that law, an argument can be made that the
charter provision subjecting the City ordinance to referendum is preempted under the
court’s rationale in Nordmarken.
Conclusion
The City Council has several bases upon which to deny the sufficiency of a referendum
petition on the sale of property from the City to the EDA. First, entering into a contract for
the sale of property is an administrative, not a legislative, act and therefore is not subject to
referendum. Second, state law authorizes the City to convey property to another
governmental entity without regard to city charter provisions. Although the City Council has
adopted an ordinance authorizing the sale, it is not prohibited from also adopting a
resolution to authorize staff to finalize the transaction. Finally, an argument can be made
that the state law governing land use planning and the disposal of public property preempts
the referendum provision in the city charter.
“DRAFT”
Thus, based upon the above-discussed rationale, it is recommended that any referendum
petition received by the City regarding the sale of property from the City to the EDA be
denied as insufficient. In addition to the City’s involvement in this matter, the city council
should also keep in mind that other parties, including Medtronic, may be able to challenge
the sufficiency of any referendum petition or potential election based upon the above-
referenced case law, statutes and discussion.