HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2005/09/26
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
Monday, September 26, 2005
7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, Thomas
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC INPUT:
Citizens may speak to issues not on tonight’s agenda. Before speaking, please give your full
name and address for the minutes. Also, please limit your comments to three minutes.
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
A. Proclamation proclaiming October 2005 as Toastmasters Month In the City of Mounds View
B. Proclamation of Appreciation for the hard work and dedication of City Staff during the
September 21, 2005 storm.
7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. 7:05 PM: Consideration of the SYSCO Second Addition Preliminary Plat, the Rezoning of the
Three-Acre Piece of SYSCO Outlot A, the Disposition of the Three-Acre Piece of SYSCO Outlot A
to Sysco, and the Vacation of an Excess Easement and Excess Right of Way:
1. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6627 Approving the SYSCO SECOND
ADDITION Preliminary Plat.
2. Public Hearing, First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 761 Rezoning the Three-Acre
Piece of SYSCO Outlot A from I-1, Light Industrial, to PUD, Planned Unit Development.
3. First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 762, an Ordinance Authorizing the Disposition
of Real Property to SYSCO Minnesota.
4. First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 763, an Ordinance Authorizing the Vacation of
an Excess Drainage and Utility Easement and Excess Right of Way Associated with the
SYSCO Second Addition Plat.
5. Resolution 6645 Authorizing an Amendment to the Bridges Office Development AUAR
B. Continued Public Hearing from August 22, 2005 for Resolution 6600 A Transfer of Ownership of an
On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Jake’s Sports Café located at 2400 Highway 10. Transfer
of Ownership is from Mounds View Jake’s Inc., to Thomas Stuart.
C. Consideration of Resolution 6637 Approving Bid Package One for Fire Station Number 5 Site
Work.
D. Consideration of Resolution 6636, a Resolution Approving a Minor Subdivision of 7851 Spring
Lake Road.
E. Resolution 6601 Awarding a Construction Contract for the Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP)
Installation Project
F. Resolution 6623 Approving the Renewal of the 2005-2006 School Resource Officer Agreement
Between the Cities of Mounds View and New Brighton and ISD #621
G. Resolution 6638 Authorizing Assistant to the City Administrator Job description and appointing that
position to Desaree Crane.
H. Consideration of Holding a Special City Council Meeting prior to the Transfer of Real Property
Commonly known as The Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course.
City Council Agenda
September 26, 2005
Page 2
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS (Continued)
I. Resolution 6640 Authorizing the Payroll/Utility Billing Technician Job Description and appointing
that position to Debbie Jasper.
J. Resolution 6641 Authorizing the Transfer of Assets from The Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course
to the Mounds View Parks and Recreation Department.
K. Assess Acquisition Opportunities Associated with Harstad’s Red Oak Estates #3 Townhome
Project.
L. Resolution 6643 Disposal of Golf Course Memorial Items
M. ITEM DELETED
N. Resolution 6646 Declaring a Local Emergency as a Result of the September 21st Storm.
9. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Resolution 6612 Approving a Tobacco and a Restaurant License for City Tavern located at 2400
Highway 10 in Mounds View.
B. Resolution 6624 Authorizing an Expenditure from the DARE Fund to Train a New DARE Officer.
C. Resolution 6625 Authorizing the Purchase of 800MHz Portable Radios for the Police Department.
D. Resolution 6626 Designating the East side of Edgewood Drive from County Road H to Woodale
Drive a No Parking Area.
E. Establish an Executive Session of the City Council Immediately Following the City Council Meeting
to Consider Possible Acquisition of Real Estate
F. Set a Public Hearing for 7:05 PM, Monday, October 10, 2005 (at the New Brighton City Hall) to
Consider the Development Stage Plans, Preliminary Plat, Vacation and Rezoning Associated with
the Medtronic CRM Project.
G. Resolution 6642 Changing Public Hearing Dates for the Proposed General Fund Budget and
Property Tax Levy for Fiscal Year 2006.
H. Licenses for Approval
I. Set a Public Hearing for 7:10 PM, Monday, October 10, 2005 (at the New Brighton City Hall) to
Consider the Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance Vacating an Easement Associated
with the SYSCO Second Addition Major Subdivision.
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. August 22, 2005 City Council Minutes.
B. September 12, 2005 City Council Minutes
11. REPORTS
A. Reports of Mayor and Council
B. Reports of Staff
1. Announce that City Hall is temporarily moving to the Mounds View Community Center
2. Update of The Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course Auction.
3. Update of the NW Area Library Taskforce
C. Reports of City Attorney
12. Next Council Work Session: (Mounds View City Hall) Monday, October 3, 2005
Next Council Meeting: (New Brighton City Hall) Monday, October 10, 2005
Item 06A
Special Order of Business
Monday, September 26, 2005
City Administrator Review: ______
September 12, 2005
City of Mounds View
SUBJECT: Request for Toastmasters International Proclamation
Dear Mayor Marty -
I am requesting that October 2005 be declared Toastmasters International month in the
city of Mounds View, MN.
Toastmasters International is celebrating its 81st anniversary. Our organization was
established in October of 1924, as a non-profit organization by Dr. Ralph. He believed that
people need an organization where they can practice communication and leadership skills
in a supportive environment. The vision of the organization is to empower people to
achieve their full potential and realize their dreams. The program consists of manuals and
education modules. Members help each other via constructive evaluations. Members help
themselves via doing assignments at a pace that facilitates their learning level and style. It
is an organization that fosters effective thinking, listening and speaking.
We would like to invite the mayor out to a Toastmasters club meeting of the AdLibbers
Toastmasters club in Mounds View to present the Proclamation to the club if granted or we
a member of the Mounds View club could attend your council meeting to receive the
proclamation. Let us know if either of these options work for you and what your standard
process is.
A Proclamation by the City of Mounds View will be a tool to inspire both members and non-
members to celebrate our anniversary.
I am sending suggested wording for the proclamation.
Please confirm receipt of this message. My contact information is noted below.
Respectfully,
Lonnie Yohannes
Toastmasters District 6 Public Relations Officer
l.yohannes@worldnet.att.net
2117 Terrace Drive
Burnsville, MN 55337
H 952-890-2977
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P R O C L A M A T I O N
Whereas, the vision of the Toastmasters International organization is to empower
people to achieve their full potential and realize their dreams; and
Whereas, since the Toastmasters organization began in 1924, more than three
million men and women have benefited from its communication and leadership programs.
Members of Toastmasters benefit from improved communications skills, better meeting
facilitation skills, and leadership skills. Increased self-confidence is an added dividend;
and
Whereas, meetings include both prepared and extemporaneous speaking.
Speeches are evaluated emphasizing positive immediate feedback and ideas for
improvement, all within a supportive environment. Members receive educational manuals
from Toastmasters International which offers guidelines for speeches; and
Whereas, the mission of Toastmasters club is to provide a mutually supportive and
positive learning environment in which every member has the opportunity to develop
communication and leadership skills, which in turn foster self-confidence and personal
growth; and
Whereas, there is 1 Toastmaster club in the City of Mounds View, Minnesota.
Now, Therefore, I, Mayor Rob Marty, Mayor of the City of Mounds View, Minnesota,
do hereby proclaim October 2005 as
Toastmasters Month In the City of Mounds View
And call upon all citizens of this city to join us in commending this observance and
celebrating the 81st anniversary of the Toastmasters International organization.
Presented this 26th day of September, 2005.
Rob Marty, Mayor
(seal)
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P R O C L A M A T I O N
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2005, a severe weather system went
through the City of Mounds View destroying many trees, power lines, and
damaging many homes; and
WHEREAS, Public Works, the Police Department, SBM Fire
Department, and City Hall Administrative Staff implemented a plan for
communication and safety for all Mounds View residents and businesses; and,
WHEREAS, many long hours were spent clearing roads and areas of
tree and hazardous debris; and
WHEREAS, this team effort and dedication was crucial to the well being
of the residents and businesses in the City of Mounds View.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, I, Mayor Rob Marty, and
the City Council of the City of Mounds View and its residents appreciates the
hard work and dedication of the Public Works, Police Department, SBM Fire
Department, and City Hall Administrative Staff for its team effort, dedication
and hard work during the September 21, 2005 severe weather system.
Given under my hand and Seal of the City of Mounds View, this 26th of
September, 2005.
Rob Marty, Mayor
(SEAL)
Item No. 08B
Type of Business: CB
Meeting Date: September 26, 2005
City Administrator Review: ______ City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree Crane, Administrative Assistant
Item Title/Subject: Continued Public Hearing from August 22, 2005 to
Consider Resolution 6600 A Transfer of Ownership of an
On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License from Jake’s Sport’s
Café located at 2400 Highway 10 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. A Public Hearing was opened on August 22, 2005 at 7:25pm
for public comment for this transfer of license. No Public Comment was made. 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 from the Minnesota Department of Criminal Apprehension for Thomas Stuart
came back as satisfactory.
Utility Billing Inquiry (City of Mounds View)
Jake’s Sports Café does owe the City of Mounds View $1,433.89, and they did state to
Finance that they would have the payment to the City by Friday (9-23).
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 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 recommends that the City Council approve City Tavern’s On Sale Intoxicating
Liquor License pending receipt of their Certificate of Insurance. .
Respectfully Submitted,
Desaree 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 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 receiving a Certificate of Insurance.
Adopted this 26th day of September, 2005.
________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No. 08G
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: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6638 Authorizing Assistant to the City
Administrator Job Description and Appointing
that Position to Desaree Crane.
Meeting Date: September 26, 2005
The Administrative Assistant to the Administration, Desaree Crane, assumed many
of the duties of the Assistant City Administrator with the vacancy of that position at
the end of 2002. Resolution 5977 was passed by the City Council, which provided
additional compensation to the Administrative Assistant position at a rate of ten
percent (10%).
Labor Relations has performed an assessment of the Assistant to the City
Administrator position. There is no Stanton Job Classification directly matching the
duties and requirements of the Mounds View Assistant to the City Administrator.
Consequently, the Assistant to the City Administrator job description was sent to
Labor Relations for an assessment. The results of the assessment indicate that
the position is scaled at a recommended 385 HAY Points, with a maximum (Step
5) of $56,000 for 2005. Desaree Crane is currently compensated at $22.63/hr
($47,070.40), which includes the 10% compensation. This is a difference of
$8929.60 a year or about 19 percent (19%) below the recommended level.
Reclassifying this position has been budgeted for 2006 and the budget for 2005
would need to be reallocated to cover the position in the amount of $5,106.40. The
breakdown of budgeting this position is as follows:
PERA FICA Medicare Wrk Comp Total Hr Wage
Proposed Pay
Rate $ 26.93 $ 1.49 $ 1.67 $ 0.39 $ 0.25 $ 30.73
Present Pay
rate $ 22.63 $ 1.25 $ 1.40 $ 0.33 $ 0.21 $ 25.83
Hourly Rate Difference $ 4.91
July 1 - Dec 31 1040 hours X $4.91 = $5,106.40
Desaree Crane has been performing the duties of the Assistant to the City
Administrator job for over 2 and a half years and is currently at Step 5 of the salary
range. During this time period, work responsibilities for this position have included
City Elections, human resource duties, plus additional managerial and
administrative duties commensurate with the position description. Desaree Crane
meets all requirements under the Assistant to the City Administrator Job
Description. Attached is the job description for your review.
The Human Resources Committee did review this job description and it was
recommended that Desaree Crane be reclassified to the Assistant to the City
Clerk/Administrator.
Recommendation
Staff is recommending this position to be reclassified to Desaree Crane at Step 5.
Since Ms. Crane has been performing these duties for a substantial period of time,
Staff is recommending that this reclassification be effective on July 1, 2005. This
is an exempt, non-union position.
Respectfully submitted,
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
RESOLUTION NO. 6638
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY
ADMINISTRATOR JOB DESCRIPTION AND APPOINTING THE POSITION TO
DESAREE CRANE
WHEREAS, the Administrative Assistant to the Administration, Desaree
Crane, assumed many of the duties of the Assistant City Administrator with the
vacancy of that position at the end of 2002; and
WHEREAS, Resolution 5977 was passed by the City Council, which
provided additional compensation to the Administrative Assistant position at a
rate of ten percent (10%) effective March 1, 2003; and
WHEREAS, during this time period, work responsibilities for this position
have included City Elections, human resource duties, plus additional managerial
and administrative duties commensurate with the position description; and
WHEREAS, Desaree Crane has been performing the duties of the
Assistant to the City Administrator job for over 2 and a half years and is currently
at Step 5 of the salary range; and
WHEREAS, Labor Relations has performed an assessment of the
Assistant to the City Administrator job description and the results of the
assessment indicate that the position is scaled at a recommended 385 HAY
Points, with a maximum (Step 5) of $56,000; and
WHEREAS, Desaree Crane meets all requirements under the Assistant to
the City Administrator Job Description; and
WHEREAS, the salary range and steps for this position shall be:
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
$44,800 $47,600 $50,400 $53,200 $56,000
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Desaree Crane be
reclassified into the Assistant to the City Clerk/Administrator position.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Desaree Crane
be placed at Step 5 of the scale effective July 1, 2005.
Adopted this 26th day of September, 2005.
___________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No. 8H
Meeting Date: September 26, 2005
Type of Business: CC
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; EDA: EDA Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mounds View City Council
From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Holding a Special City Council
Meeting prior to the Transfer of Real Property,
commonly known as the Bridges of Mounds View Golf
Course.
Date of Report: September 26, 2005
Background:
As you are aware, on July 11, 2005 the City Council approved the second
reading of Ordinance 760 authorizing the sale of the land comprising the Bridges
of Mounds View Golf Course to the Mounds View EDA. Subsequently, on
August 31, 2005 the Purchase Agreement and Contract for Private Development
between Medtronic, Inc. and the City of Mounds View was executed. As part of
the closing process there are several items that require City Council
consideration and action prior to the expected transfer of the real property to
Medtronic. These include, but are not limited to, the approval of new leases with
Clear Channel, action related to the quit claim deed, and a license agreement
with Medtronic pertaining to the public auction. Scott Riggs, the City’s Attorney,
will discuss the items more fully at the Council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
Kurt Ulrich
City Administrator
\\Trout\CommDev\Economic Development\COUNCIL\Item 8H Special CC Mtg. prior to Transfer of Real Property
(Bridges) 9.26.05.doc
Item No. 08I
Type of Business: CB
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City Administrator Review _______ City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6640 Authorizing the Payroll/Utility
Technician Job Description and Appointing that
Position to Debbie Jasper
Meeting Date: September 26, 2005
The Payroll/Utility Technician, Debbie Jasper, has assumed several important
human resource duties since the vacancy of the Assistant City Administrator at the
end of 2002. The Payroll/Utility Billing Technician was asked to take over these
duties, and for those duties continues to be compensated an additional 5% of her
base pay (Resolution 6006). The Human Resource duties that were added to the
position deal with payroll. Debbie Jasper has performed these duties for just over
2 years. There is no Stanton Job Classification directly matching the duties and
requirements of combining Payroll/Utility Billing and some Human Resource duties.
This job description was sent to Labor Relations for an assessment. The HAY
points issued was 183 points, which is consistent with Debbie Jasper’s current pay.
The Payroll/Utility Billing Technician will stay the same (which includes the 5%
compensation). Her rate of pay is currently at Step 5 $21.47/hr or $44,657.60/yr.
Debbie Jasper meets all requirements of this job description. This is a non-union
position and non-exempt position. Attached is the job description for your
reference.
Recommendation
Staff is recommending this position to be reclassified to Debbie Jasper effective
July 1, 2005 at Step 5.
Respectfully submitted,
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
RESOLUTION NO. 6640
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PAYROLL/UTILITY TECHNICIAN AND
APPOINTING THE POSITION TO DEBBIE JASPER
WHEREAS, the Payroll/Utility Technician, Debbie Jasper, has assumed
several important human resource duties in regard to payroll since the vacancy
of the Assistant City Administrator at the end of 2002; and
WHEREAS, Resolution 6006 was passed by the City Council, which
provided additional compensation to the Payroll/Utility Billing Technician at a rate
of five percent (5%) effective April 1, 2003; and
WHEREAS, Debbie Jasper has been performing these duties for over 2
years and is currently at Step 5 of the salary range; and
WHEREAS, Labor Relations has performed an assessment of the
Payroll/Utility Technician job description and the results of the assessment
indicate that the position is scaled at a recommended 183 HAY Points, with a
maximum (Step 5) of $21.47/hr; and
WHEREAS, Debbie Jasper meets all requirements under the
Payroll/Utility Technician; and
WHEREAS, the salary range and steps for this position shall be:
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
$17.18/hr $18.25/hr $19.32/hr $20.41/hr $21.47/hr
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Debbie be reclassified into
the Payroll/Utility Technician.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Debbie Jasper
be placed at Step 5 of the scale effective July 1, 2005.
Adopted this 26th day of September, 2005.
___________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No. 8N
Meeting Date: September 26, 2005
Type of Business: Council Business
City Administrator Review _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Mike Sommer, Police Chief
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6646 Approving the Declaration of a
Local State of Emergency as a Result of a High
Winds, Heavy Rain, and Hail on September 21, 2005
Background:
On September 21, 2005 the City of Mounds View experienced a storm with high
winds, hail and heavy rain. The stormed caused extended power outages in
about 1/3 of the City, uprooted trees throughout the city some of which landed on
homes or cars, downed power lines, and resulted in a significant amount of tree
debris.
Discussion:
A local emergency may be declared only by the Mayor of a municipality for the
purpose of activating the city emergency operation plan and authorizing aid and
assistance. The local emergency declaration empowers the City to enter into
contracts and incur obligations necessary to combat the emergency by protecting
the health and safety of persons and property and providing emergency
assistance to those in need without compliance with time consuming procedures
and formalities prescribed by law pertaining to the performance of public work.
The storm of September 21, 2005 created a significant amount of debris, which
will require cleanup. The scale of the cleanup will be such that city funds will be
necessary to finance the cleanup. Declaring a local emergency is necessary in
order for the city to receive financial aid, should it become available, for the
cleanup.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council declare a local emergency as a result of
the storm of September 21, 2005.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mike Sommer, Police Chief
RESOLUTION 6646
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW EMERGENCY DECLARATION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View has sustained severe losses
of a major proportion, brought on by high winds, rain, and hail on September 21,
2005, and
WHEREAS, The City of Mounds View is a public entity within the
State of Minnesota, and
WHEREAS, the following conditions exist in the City of Mounds
View as a result of the disaster:
1. Electrical power outages for approximately 1/3 of the City
2. Numerous power lines down throughout the City.
3. Flooding in low areas of the City.
4. Trees uprooted and branches down creating a large amount
of debris throughout many areas of the city
5. Downed trees caused damage to homes, and cars in many
areas of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mayor of the City of Mounds
View acting on behalf of and for the people of Mounds View declare that a state
of emergency exists within Mounds View, with all the powers and responsibilities
attending thereto as provided by Chapter 12, Minnesota Statute, and The City of
Mounds View resolution titled City of Mounds View Emergency Declaration dated
9-22-05.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(SEAL)
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item No: 09A
Meeting Date: September 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 September 27, 2005-June 30, 2006.
Adopted this 26th day of September, 2005
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No: 9B
Type of Business: Consent Agenda
Meeting Date: September 26, 2005
Administrator Review: _____ City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Mike Sommer, Police Chief
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6624 Authorizing an expenditure from the DARE
fund for DARE Officer Training
Date of Report: September 26, 2005
Background
The Mounds View Police Department has offered D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance
Education) courses in conjunction with the Mounds View School District at Pinewood
Elementary school for the past 16 years. This drug use, crime prevention, and violence
prevention program has received wide support in the community from teachers, parents, and
students. The Mounds View Police Department is dedicated to continue to offer this
invaluable popular program in the Pinewood school to fifth grade students.
Officer Terry Broos has transferred to working as a patrol officer which created a vacancy in
the D.A.R.E. / Crime Prevention Officer position. This position has been filled by Officer
Kasey Keckeisen. Officer Keckeisen has received the necessary training to fulfill the duties
of crime prevention Officer and is in need of completing the required training to serve as a
D.A.R.E. instructor. This course is not offered locally, so unfortunately it is more expensive to
obtain the required training. The city maintains a D.A.R.E account which is funded from
grants and Ramsey County court fines. The purpose of the D.A.R.E account is to fund
expenses associated with having a D.A.R.E. program including training of D.A.R.E. officers.
The basic D.A.R.E. Officer training course is two weeks in length and as mentioned earlier is
not offered in a local area or local state. There is no fee for the course of instruction,
however, since the course is out of state, the costs associated with training an Officer include
transportation lodging and meals for the two week period. This cost is estimated to be
$3500. Staff seeks council approval to fund the costs necessary for this training from the
D.A.R.E. fund.
Recommendation
Staff recommends council approve an expenditure of approximately $3500 from the D.A.R.E.
fund to be used for the D.A.R.E. Officer training.
___________________________
Mike Sommer
Police Chief
RESOLUTION 6624
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIAING AN EXPENDITURE FROM THE D.A.R.E. FUND FOR
D.A.R.E. OFFICER TRAINING.
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Police Department has conducted D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse
Resistance Education) courses designed to help detour students from violence and use of
illegal drugs since 1989,and;
WHEREAS, this program has proven to be popular in the community and the Police
Department wishes to continue offering D.A.R.E. course, and;
WHEREAS, the Police Department is in need of training a new Officer to be certified to
instruct D.A.R.E., and;
WHEREAS, there is no fee for the training course, however, since the required training is
offered out of state only, the costs associated with the training include transportation lodging
and meals. The cost estimated for this is expected to be approximately $3500. Funding for
the costs associated with this training is available in the Mounds View Police Department
D.A.R.E. account. The D.A.R.E. account is funded from grants and Ramsey County court
fine costs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council for the City of Mounds View
approves an expenditure of approximately $3500 from the D.A.R.E. fund to cover the costs of
training a Officer to be certified to instruct D.A.R.E. courses.
Adopted this 26th day of September 2005.
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No: 9C
Type of Business: Consent Agenda
Meeting Date: September 26, 2005
Administrator Review: _____ City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Mike Sommer, Police Chief
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6625 Authorizing the Purchase of 800MHz
Portable Radios for the Police Department
Date of Report: September 26, 2005
Background
In anticipation of transitioning to an 800MHz public safety radio system, all police and fire
agencies in the Ramsey County have placed orders for both portable and mobile 800MHz
radios. These orders are all administered by Ramsey County. The portable radios order for
Ramsey County police and fire departments have been purchased and are currently
warehoused. The Police Department has budgeted $13,440 for the purchase of portable
800MHz radios for 2005. The Police Department applied for and was awarded a grant from
the Minnesota Department of public safety office of Justice programs in the amount of
$12,500, which is dedicated solely for the portable radio purchase. In order to utilize this
grant the funds must be expended by the city by September 30, 2005.
The total cost for the portable radios for the Police Department it is $67,519.60. Of the total
costs, Ramsey County, through federal grants, will cover $51,870.00 and the city of Mounds
View is liable for $15,649.60 of the cost. The portable radios will be purchased by utilizing
the $12,500 grant funds the police department received and $3,149.60 from the police budget
funds dedicated for this purchase in the 2005 budget.
Recommendation
Staff recommends council approve the purchase of the 800MHz portable radios from Ramsey
County funded by an expenditure of $3,149.60 from the Police Department budget, and the
$12,500 grant from the Minnesota Department of public safety.
___________________________
Mike Sommer
Police Chief
RESOLUTION 6625
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF 800 MHZ PORTABLE RADIOS FOR
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Police Department has placed an order through Ramsey
County for the purchase of 800MHz radios which will be necessary when the new public
safety radio system is completed, and;
WHEREAS, the Police Department has budgeted funds for this purchase in the 2005 budget,
and has also been awarded a grant from the Minnesota safety office of Justice programs
which has been designated specifically for the purchase of 800MHz portable radios, and;
WHEREAS, in order to utilize the grant, the funds for the portable radios must be expended
before September 30, 2005, and;
WHEREAS, the total cost for the 800MHz portable radio order for the Mounds View Police
Department radios it is $67,519.60. Of this total, Ramsey County, through federal grants is
covering $51,870. This leaves the total costs to the city of Mounds View for the 800MHz
portable radio order at $15,649.60. This cost will be covered by a combination of $12,500
from the received grant and $3,149.60 from the Police Department budget.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council for the City of Mounds View
approves an expenditure of $15,649.60 to Ramsey County for the purchase of the 800MHz
portable radios required for the Police Department. This finding will come from two sources;
$3,149.60 from the Police Department budget and $12,500 from the received Minnesota
Department of public safety office of Justice programs grant fund.
Adopted this 26th day of September 2005.
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No. 9D
Meeting Date: September 26, 2005
Type of Business: Consent Agenda
City Administrator Review _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Mike Sommer, Police Chief
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6626 Approval of Prohibition of Parking
on Edgewood Drive from County Road H to Woodale
Drive and Designating a Drop Off and Pick Up Zone.
Background:
School officials from Edgewood Middle School, the School Resource Officer
assigned to Edgewood Middle School and the City Public Works Department
have identified a need to create a no parking zone and a drop off and pickup
zone along Edgewood Drive that would benefit both Edgewood Middle School
and the City. The current parking situation has created some safety concern.
Presently cars are allowed to park on the east side of Edgewood near the school,
due to this, parents drop off their children on the west side of Edgewood Drive
who must cross two lanes of ongoing traffic to get to school. Additionally,
because cars are parked on the east side of Edgewood, city sanding and plowing
vehicles do not have adequate access to the street; this further exacerbates the
safety issue for school children. To remedy this situation staff suggests creating
no parking areas, and a drop off and pick up area for parents to safely pick up
their children.
Discussion:
The no parking area would be created by placing no parking signs on the east
side of Edgewood Drive from County Road H to Woodale Drive. The east side of
Edgewood from County Road H to the North driveway of the School would be
designated a drop off and pick up area.
In the event of a large event that required parking on the street, with permission
from the City, the no parking signs could be covered for the event, which would
allow temporary parking permission. Also, if a citizen had an emergent need to
park on the street the citizen could request permission from the police
department to park for the special circumstance.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving No Parking
along the east side of Edgewood Drive from County Road H to Woodale Drive,
with a drop off and pick up zone designated on the East side of Edgewood from
County Road H to the North Driveway of Edgewood School.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mike Sommer, Police Chief
RESOLUTION 6626
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVAL OF PROHIBITION OF PARKING ON EDGEWOOD DRIVE FROM
COUNTY ROAD H TO WOODALE DRIVE.
WHEREAS, School Officials, the Police Department, and the Public
Works Department have identified safety issues with regard to the parking and
drop off and pick up areas along Edgewood school, and
WHEREAS, these safety issues can be remedied by designating
no parking areas and designating a pick up and drop off zone for students; and
WHEREAS, the Public Works and Police Departments and
Edgewood School Officials have reviewed the segment of Edgewood Drive near
the school and recommend that the City post ”No Parking” signs and No
Parking/Pick up and Drop Off Only” signs on the East side of Edgewood Drive to
create a safer situation for parking and movement of students entering and
exiting the school.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1. Parking shall be prohibited on the East side of Edgewood Drive
from County Road H to Woodale Drive. The area from County
Road H to the North driveway of Edgewood School shall be
designated by signage as a pick up and drop off zone only.
2. The Mounds View Public Works Department is hereby authorized
to purchase the necessary signage and erect said signage as per
the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devises.
Adopted this 26th day of September 2005.
____________________________________
ATTEST: Rob Marty, Mayor
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No: 09H
Meeting Date: September 26, 2005
Type of Business: CA
City Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Barb Benesch, Administrative Assistant
Item Title/Subject: CONTRACTOR LICENSES FOR APPROVAL
Please consider the following contractor licenses for approval. All contractor licenses will
expire on December 31, 2005. All applicants have submitted appropriate fees and proof of
insurance. Those companies that are “new” include applicants that have never been licensed
with the City or they may have been licensed with the City in the past, but were not licensed in
2004. Those companies renewing their license were licensed, at a minimum, in the year 2004.
The type of license they are applying for follows the company name.
Czars of Tar, Inc. Asphalt Renewal
Knight Heating & Air Conditioning HVAC Renewal
Lakes Mechanical Services HVAC New
Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3
4
Regular Meeting 5
August 22, 2005 6
Mounds View City Hall 7
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 8
7:53 P.M. 9
10
11
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 12
13
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 14
15
3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, and Thomas 16
17
NOT PRESENT: 18
19
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 20
21
A. Monday, August 22, 2005 City Council Agenda 22
23
Mayor Marty requested to delete Agenda Item 9.F.2. and to reschedule it to a different meeting 24
since the review forms were received just today. 25
26
Mayor Marty asked about Agenda Item 9.F.1. to hold an executive session to discuss threatened 27
lawsuit and demand letter. City Attorney Riggs suggested this issue be discussed at that time. 28
29
Mayor Marty moved Agenda Item 6A to be considered immediately following Agenda Item 4 30
since they have already been in attendance for over an hour waiting for this meeting to start. 31
32
Mayor Marty noted there are a lot of people in attendance to speak and advised that each speaker 33
will be allowed three minutes minus time spent by staff or Council to provide answers. 34
35
Mayor Marty asked about rearranging other agenda items to address matters for which 36
consultants need to be in attendance. 37
38
Commissioner Thomas requested to move Agenda Item 7, Just and Correct Claims, to be 39
considered after Agenda Item 8, Council Business 40
41
With regard to Council Business Item 8E, City Administrator Ulrich advised that the property 42
transfer has not yet taken place on that property. He explained that staff will recommend 43
opening the public hearing and then continuing it to the next meeting for action. He also 44
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
recommended that Consent Agenda Item 9E, Licensing for City Tavern, be deleted from the 1
agenda. 2
3
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Approve the Monday, August 22, 2005 agenda as 4
amended. 5
6
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 7
8
5. PUBLIC INPUT 9
10
This item was considered following Agenda Item 6. 11
12
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 13
14
A. Presentation by Northwest Youth and Family Services to discuss their 15
services offered 16
17
Kay Andrews, Director of Northwest Youth and Family Services, and Mary Sue Hanson, 18
Suburban Ramsey Family Collaborative, provided presentations advising of the services 19
provided, gaps in services, funding sources, and desire to work with the City of Mounds View to 20
assure that no youth or family remain at risk. 21
22
Mayor Marty stated he is familiar with Northwest Youth and Family Services and pointed out 23
that over the years, when looking at the budget and the amount of aid that Mounds View receives 24
in comparison with all other cities, he believes that Mounds View far out receives any of the 25
other cities in the coalition. He stated he has always maintained this is one of the best 26
investments in Mounds View. 27
28
Ms. Andrews advised that the thrift store in Mounds View Square has been reconfigured. The 29
Grand Reopening is scheduled for September 8, 2005, from 4-7 p.m. She invited all to attend to 30
see the reconfigured store and enjoy the entertainment. She also encouraged people to drop off 31
their surplus items so they can be recycled, noting that youth do the work. 32
33
Mayor Marty pointed out that for many of the kids, this is their first job and used as a training 34
facility for marketing and using a cash register so they are able to get a job somewhere else. 35
36
Councilmember Thomas stated she has visited the store several times and greatly respects the 37
program because the kids learn not only business skills but also interpersonal skills on how to 38
compliment and be critical while still being supportive of individuals. It also teaches the kids 39
how to speak up for themselves and interact with others. Councilmember Thomas stated this 40
program changes their perspective and gives them a new environment. 41
42
Mayor Marty noted they are also open for adult volunteers. Ms. Andrews stated that is correct 43
and announced they are open Tuesday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. and on Saturday 44
from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
1
5. PUBLIC INPUT 2
3
Barbara Haake, 3024 County Road I, stated she wanted to address the Festival in the Park that 4
was held yesterday. She stated this Festival has been held for many years and noted the letter 5
from Medtronic that was an invitation from them to come to Festival in the Park. She read a 6
portion of the letter that indicated: “We’ve arranged to sponsor the fireworks of the grand finale 7
of the Mounds View Festival in the Park on the evening of August 21st and it is our hope that the 8
fireworks will capture our excitement of becoming part of the community. Please consider this 9
your personal invitation to attend.” She asked how Medtronic can write a letter to invite 10
residents to a Festival that is already theirs. She stated she is annoyed that Medtronic took over 11
the Festival, had a booth, and put their sign next to the music stage, which may lead one to 12
assume they also, perhaps, sponsored the music as well. She asked if this is what we want to 13
look like and expressed concern that the “M” in Mounds View will stand for Medtronic. Ms. 14
Haake stated that getting free balloons and free fireworks should not win over votes for their 15
project. 16
17
Ms. Haake stated she, along with many others, has been working on the Medtronic proposal for 18
five months and what is driving her is principal. She wants to get a fair deal for the citizens of 19
Mounds View and that is important for economics of Mounds View. She stated she dealt with 20
principals in the Legislature and may have lost some friends but felt she did her best. She stated 21
she wants this project to be the best it can be. She noted there are many viewpoints that will be 22
expressed in the meeting tonight and maybe concerns will be answered. 23
24
Councilmember Gunn responded by saying that she takes offense at Ms. Haake’s statements. 25
She explained that the Festival committee members talk to each business, asking for money to 26
put on the Festival. She stated that she asked, they gave, just like Bethlehem Baptist who had the 27
whole field. She asked if Ms. Haake had pointed out that there were Bethlehem Baptist blue t-28
shirts all over the place. Councilmember Gunn stated Medtronic sponsored the fireworks and 29
Saturn sponsored the music but forgot their sign so she allowed Medtronic to put their sign on 30
the fence. She noted that the sign was taken down when it was time for the fireworks so no one’s 31
view would be blocked. Councilmember Gunn stated the Medtronic sign was a good one, and 32
the saying on it was her idea. She stated the Festival received money from Bethlehem Baptist, 33
Saturn, and Medtronic. They are the three main sponsors and it is not a Medtronic festival but a 34
Mounds View Festival and Medtronic donated just like the rest of the people. 35
36
Mayor Marty noted that the City is currently in contract negotiations with Medtronic and asked if 37
there is a conflict since Councilmember Gunn is the Chairperson of the Festival. 38
39
Councilmember Gunn asked the audience not to “boo” her. She then excused herself from the 40
Council chambers for a few minutes. 41
42
Councilmember Thomas clarified that the City is not under contract negotiations. The 43
negotiations are done, it was voted on, and the City is now in the development process. She 44
cautioned Mayor Marty to be careful of his question and how it is worded. 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 4
1
Mayor Marty asked if Medtronic had paid the Festival sponsorship prior to the negotiations. 2
3
Mary Scotch, 7806 Gloria Circle, said no one is putting anyone on the spot but the question is, 4
did Medtronic sponsor in the previous years before now. Councilmember Thomas stated she is 5
not on the committee and does not know. 6
7
Ms. Scotch stated that is a fair question. Councilmember Thomas stated that was not the 8
Mayor’s question and that is why she urged caution. 9
10
Mr. Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated that Medtronic has not been a sponsor in the 11
past. He stated the community is hurt when put head-to-head with neighbors in a negative way 12
and he is begging the Council to take a stand, sit down with Medtronic, and talk this out. He 13
stated he does not think the contract has been signed, noting City Administrator Ulrich stated it 14
was just finalized from the July 8th draft. Mr. McCarty asked all to go back to their roots, noting 15
Mounds View is full of nice people, as is Medtronic. He stated when driving someone out as 16
sweet as Councilmember Sherry Gunn, then that is the wrong thing to do. He asked for a standby 17
for two weeks and stated he will be happy to debate Mr. McCombs and search what their project 18
really means. Mr. McCarty stated Mounds View is an involved community and residents care 19
very deeply. Residents support a continuum of recreational programs and the golf course if a part 20
of that. He stated he thinks the City can put that together with Medtronic and again asked the 21
Council to give residents two weeks to sort it out in calm and civil manner. 22
23
Councilmember Stigney stated this is a “cheap shot” on Medtronic by Ms. Haake and personally 24
thanked Medtronic for their contribution to the Festival in the Park for the fireworks. He stated 25
he hopes Medtronic also contributes in the future. If it was their first contribution, he welcomes 26
it and thinks Ms. Haake’s attack was out of line. 27
28
Councilmember Thomas stated she works very hard to stay calm, rational, keep working 29
relationships with people, and not let things get into personal attacks. In response to Mr. 30
McCarty’s request, she stated that two weeks will not do anything because the Council has 31
looked at those options and made the decision. Councilmember Thomas stated she will not go 32
back and do it again. The Council is done with the negotiations and the matter was voted on so 33
there is no negotiating anymore or participating in negotiations. She stated that whether this can 34
be talked out as rational adults and everyone stay calm, that is the stage where we are at. The 35
decision is made 36
37
Councilmember Flaherty stated that no one took more time on this and no one has had more 38
compassion than him and all worked very hard to look at all the variables so everything was 39
taken care of when the Council took the vote. 40
41
Mayor Marty stated he also did a lot of work, as did Councilmember Flaherty. He stated even 42
when he met with Roger McCombs he was trying to negotiate. But that is the consensus. 43
44
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 5
Ken Glidden, 5240 Edgewood Drive, stated he has now heard that “negotiations are completed, 1
the contract is in place, and that is the end of the story.” He stated he was not aware that was the 2
case and believes there are other matters before the Council that need to be dealt with before that 3
statement can be made. He stated it was published several times that Medtronic will make a one 4
time donation of $100,000 to School District 621 which has an annual budget of slightly under 5
$100 million a year for 2005 an 2006. Given the estimated property tax of $46,000 a year under 6
TIF, if they paid their normal estimate property tax of $563,000 a year without TIF, the school 7
district would receive roughly $160,000 a year. He asked Medtronic to pay their fair share 8
because the school district would benefit far more than from a one-time contribution of 9
$100,000. Mr. Glidden stated that is just the impact to the school district but there may be 10
additional funds for the City and the Northwest Youth and Family Services. 11
12
Councilmember Thomas explained that part of the TIF process is that the school district has to 13
approve any new TIF and the school district enthusiastically supported the development, 14
knowing that this and future tax base would not happen without this project. 15
16
Mr. Glidden asked if they knew the amount of taxes they were giving up. Councilmember 17
Thomas stated they knew the figures and that this would not happen without the project. 18
19
Mr. Glidden asked what the school district made their decision on to give up roughly $160,000 a 20
year. 21
22
Mayor Marty asked City Administrator Ulrich to respond. 23
24
City Administrator Ulrich explained the school district looked at the increase in the market value 25
for levies placed by the school district. And, even though the project is in a TIF District, it was 26
important to the school district that the increase in the market value levy (for the total value of 27
the project) go on the levy base, which will lower the taxes for everyone within the district. 28
29
Mayor Marty stated that to his knowledge he, as Mayor and President of the EDA, has not yet 30
signed a contract. City Administrator Ulrich stated the terms of the development agreement have 31
been approved by the Council but is not yet executed. He explained the document is over 100 32
pages in length and there are “I’s to dot, T’s to cross,” and pages to number 33
34
Jan Brink, 7800 Gloria Circle, gave her three minutes to Barbara Haake 35
36
Ms. Haake asked about the interest payment on $14.8 million and how the interest rate would be 37
paid. She informed the audience that there are a series of questions at the podium that anyone 38
can ask. She suggested that City Attorney Riggs had previously stated that there would be no 39
interest on the $14.8 million but then Medtronic crossed that off the July 8th contract and put in 40
5% interest. She asked how the City can not negotiate something less than 5% interest or no 41
interest whatsoever. 42
43
Sid Inman, Ehlers & Associates, stated he is not familiar with the contract draft referred to by 44
Ms. Haake that did not have interest. He stated he is also not aware of any type of contract where 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 6
a developer would install improvements and not be paid interest. He stated that a 5% interest 1
rate is probably 250 basis points lower than the current average lending rate. Most are at 650-2
675 so 5% is a lower interest rate by market standard. He stated he can provide many examples, 3
if requested by the Council, but does not have them with him this evening. 4
5
Ms. Haake stated Medtronic has agreed to pay $9.65 million for the Bridges and asked why $1 6
million of the purchase cost is relabeled as reimbursement by Medtronic, in place of sale price, 7
which in effect lowers the park dedication fee by $100,000. It also places $150,000 back on 8
trails that they get to use. 9
10
Mayor Marty stated he also has that question. 11
12
City Administrator Ulrich explained the $865,000 is based on what Medtronic is paying the City 13
of Mounds View for the property. Part of the negotiations is that a portion of the park dedication 14
($150,000) would be used to improve the adjacent land for public use that would also be 15
available to SYSCO and Medtronic employees as well as the public. 16
17
Ms. Haake stated the legislation indicated that the $1 million was to be paid in the revertor clause 18
and paid for by the City of Mounds View. She asked if Medtronic is paying $9.6 million, then 19
why is the City not getting another $100,000 from them. 20
21
Dan Hall, 2200 Highway 10, stated he was one of the first people who wants to keep things civil 22
because all are interested in what is best for the citizens of Mounds View. He stated he would 23
not like to be told over the last two months that he was not looking out for what is best for 24
Mounds View and was being duped and taken advantage of by Medtronic. Mr. Hall noted this 25
type of comment is coming from the “nice side” but he does not see the same tactics being used 26
by the proponents who want to sell the golf course to someone to make it profitable. He stated it 27
is his belief that Mr. McCarty, Ms. Haake, and Mr. Amundsen want to stall it long enough so 28
Medtronic will go to another city. He stated it is evident to him that they are “grasping at 29
straws.” He stated when you accuse people of dealing under the table and taking bribes, how can 30
you expect a civil conversation and work going back and forth. He stated he agrees with the 31
majority of the Council that due diligence has been done and the Council has done a good job. 32
33
Cindy Sobasik, 2146 Hillview Road, stated she believes that moving forward puts the residents 34
of Mounds View at risk for unwarranted and unwelcomed liability and it astounds her to think 35
that residents could be priced out of their homes. She stated that Bethlehem Baptist Church 36
made a $25,000 donation in place of tax money generated since it is in a TIF district. SYSCO, 37
who provides more jobs to residents, took a small TIF and it will be repaid in two years, which to 38
her seems reasonable. However, she is concerned with subsidizing a multi-million dollar 39
company that can afford to pay taxes and should be demonstrating good corporate citizenship, 40
which includes paying its fair share. Ms. Sobasik asked for a fair deal or no deal. She asked the 41
Council if they saw, read, and understood the contract related to redeveloping the golf course into 42
a Medtronic facility prior to voting on it. 43
44
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 7
Mayor Marty stated he did not. He stated he contacted Mr. Ericson the end of July, after the 1
second public hearing, and asked for a copy of the contract. Mr. Ericson provided him with a 2
copy, and all Councilmembers received a copy. Mayor Marty stated that is when he started to 3
look at the contract. He stated the proposed development agreement and synopsis from the City 4
Attorney was received when City Administrator Ulrich was on vacation. 5
6
Councilmember Stigney stated the Council spent a long time negotiating the contract and he feels 7
it is an exceptional contract for Mounds View, is very fair, and wished all would “open their 8
eyes” to see what is coming instead of killing it for a golf course. 9
10
Councilmember Thomas stated she looked through the draft contract beforehand, reviewed the 11
development agreement, and found it contained all the conditions. 12
13
Councilmember Flaherty stated he has had a copy for a while now. He explained that the park 14
dedication fee was negotiated, the billboard buyout was negotiated, and the Council has been in 15
constant contact with the contract from when it was first presented. In response to the question, 16
“Have I seen it” Councilmember Flaherty responded, ”Absolutely, I have before the vote.” 17
18
Mayor Marty asked when City Administrator Ulrich was on vacation. City Administrator Ulrich 19
stated he was on vacation until July 29th. 20
21
Councilmember Gunn stated she has the same information as the other Councilmembers and 22
attended the same meetings. All had the same information. 23
24
Councilmember Thomas stated the draft contract was available at City Hall and available to be 25
reviewed. 26
27
Ms. Haake stated there is a problem with the zoning of the 72 acres of the golf course and there is 28
a petition that will be certified whether or not it is sufficient. She referenced Ordinance No. 720 29
that was passed on October 13, 2003, amending the Zoning Code to make the Public Facilities 30
District into an Industrial District. Then Ordinance No. 721 made that permitted district, under I-31
1, to be golf courses. Ms. Haake stated she reviewed all of the City’s ordinances and that was the 32
only zoning change. However, the law states that when the City does a legislative action, it must 33
be by ordinance. She stated the City has done a Comprehensive Plan Amendment but the City 34
has not rezoned this property. Ms. Haake stated that will be the City’s next step. 35
36
Director Ericson stated the property is zoned Industrial and an office use is consistent with an 37
industrial zoning district. 38
39
Carol Mueller, 8343 Groveland Road, stated her heart aches at what the City is going through but 40
she believes it makes the residents stronger and she is proud of the residents and Council for 41
what they are doing and going through. She stated all will survive and be better for it. Ms. 42
Mueller stated she is concerned about the City Charter. 43
44
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 8
Ms. Mueller stated in October of 1978 the residents adopted a City Charter that protects the 1
rights of residents and is available for viewing on the City’s web site. She referenced Sections 2
5.01 and 5.02 that deal with the sale of property and stated there have been volunteers in the 3
community who have passed petitions and received enough signatures. She indicated that since 4
they carefully and successfully followed the provision of the Charter, she hopes and prays that if 5
the Council finds the petition sufficient, they will honor the City Charter, and offer this matter to 6
a referendum. 7
8
Councilmember Thomas cautioned the Mayor to not allow any derogatory remarks to City staff 9
who work hard to do what the Council has asked them to do. She urged residents to refrain from 10
those types of comments. 11
12
Kathy Olan, 8245 Spring Lake Park Road, pointed out that until recently citizens were informed 13
of one land value appraisal at the Bridges placed at $10 million by Orion Appraisers of Vadnais 14
Heights. At the July 25, 2005 meeting, staff rebuttal to a citizen statement claimed there were 15
two, not just one, commercial appraisal. She asked who did the second appraisal and what was 16
the recommended value. 17
18
Mayor Marty stated the City commissioned one appraisal. 19
20
City Administrator Ulrich explained that one appraisal was done by the State on the 40 acres and 21
indicated it was worth $3.6 million or $90,000 an acre. So, if extrapolated over the entire 22
property, it is a value of just less than what the City is getting in the offer. 23
24
Ms. Olan stated she does not think the citizens of Mounds View are getting the best deal. She 25
stated she does not support the deal and is sorry that some people are shaking their heads and 26
indicating it is a “done deal.” She stated she hopes residents will get to vote and then, at that 27
point, she will feel all right about the deal. 28
29
Ken Glidden, 5240 Edgewood Drive, stated he is speaking again in response to other questions. 30
He stated he was active in getting petition signatures but that does not put him in opposition to 31
anything because it is a provision of the City Charter and that is the option they took. He 32
suggested that calling for a referendum gives the citizens of Mounds View the opportunity to 33
vote on whether it is or is not a good deal. He stated when he was talking to residents, essentially 34
90% of them signed the petition. Mr. Glidden stated he thinks the City should be still 35
negotiating. He stated he gathered over 100 of the 1,200 signatures on the petition and urged the 36
Council to let residents vote. He asked if that is not what the soldiers are establishing in 37
Afghanistan and Iraq, to allow people the right to vote. He stated that is not opposition to 38
anything but utilizing the democratic government to weigh whether it is a good deal. He stated 39
one makes a decision when one votes. Mr. Glidden stated he knows that people do not believe it 40
is a good deal and urged the Council to please honor the democratic process. 41
42
Mary Kay Walsh stated everyone just heard from the Northwest Youth and Family Services 43
representatives that there is a huge amount of need and funding lost at the federal level so the 44
“buck stops” at each citizen to fund everything. However, some do not have sufficient work to 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 9
provide their own needs. She stated it is important for Mounds View to get the best deal 1
possible for this very prime property that is close to two major freeways, and an airport. She 2
stated this property should be of great value to residents of Mounds View and the developer. Ms. 3
Walsh pointed out that citizens are also giving up access to an amenity of a golf course. She 4
stated she has questions about the terms of the contract and stated her understanding that State 5
statutes stipulate TIF Districts should only go for a term of 8 years but Medtronic is receiving a 6
25-year TIF term. 7
8
Mayor Marty explained there are different types of TIF Districts. One is for redevelopment for 9
blighted property or buildings created before 1990. Another is for contaminated soils. He noted 10
there are no buildings at the golf course constructed before 1990 and the soil testing was okay. 11
Because of that, the Legislature indicated the only type of TIF District to qualify would be an 12
economic development district that is capped at 8 years. It was then lobbied for and extended by 13
the Legislature to run an additional 17 years. 14
15
Ms. Walsh asked if this legislation occurred during the extended session. Commissioner Thomas 16
answered it occurred during the regular session. 17
18
Ms. Walsh asked when residents will hear whether the referendum will take place. Mayor Marty 19
answered that it is an agenda item for tonight. 20
21
Ms. Walsh asked about the indemnification and if there is a way to know how much it may cost 22
Mounds View residents. City Attorney Riggs explained the liability is capped for what is being 23
transferred to Medtronic for a $200,000 fee. 24
25
Ms. Walsh asked what that means. Councilmember Thomas explained that if something occurs, 26
liability is capped at $200,000 as the EDA. She noted that environmental studies have been done 27
and it is not believed that anything will come up. 28
29
City Administrator Ulrich further explained that should environmental contamination show up, 30
the City’s liability would be capped at $200,000. Environmental liability that carries with the 31
property is a separate item and if there should be an environmental issue that causes liability then 32
the City, because of the nature of environmental law and chain of title, could be brought back in. 33
He stated there is no way to predict and he cannot estimate a dollar. 34
35
Ms. Walsh asked if catastrophic environmental insurance is available. City Administrator Ulrich 36
stated there may be if you are willing to pay the premium but he does not know what it would 37
cost. 38
39
Mary Burg, New Brighton Councilmember, stated they had negotiations with Medtronic until 40
mid-June when they learned New Brighton was not a site being considered. She stated the New 41
Brighton Council looked at catastrophic insurance and found a 10-year policy to cover the 42
$250,000 cap that is set by the State. The policy was for $700,000 and would go for 10 years. 43
Ms. Burg stated they were concerned at that time because while contamination was not on their 44
site, people would possible sue because of “deep pockets.” She mentioned that she had called 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 10
two of her colleagues about the interest question and both indicated that they did not recall that 1
New Brighton included interest payments in their TIF Districts. 2
3
Dennis Hammes, 5511 Quincy, stated he spoke at the Town Hall meeting and while he is not 4
“for” or “against” Medtronic, he is having a hard time considering a 25-year TIF district. He 5
stated it does not seem right, is too high, and he does not think Medtronic really needs it. Mr. 6
Hammes stated when he collected signatures for the petition, he said this is something the 7
residents need to vote on, and did not make statements against Medtronic. He stated this should 8
be a decision for the residents of Mounds View and not five people because it is too much of a 9
burden for five people. He stated the entire community should be involved. 10
11
Connie Hammes, 5511 Quincy, pointed out that only Phase 1 is guaranteed in the draft purchase 12
agreement and contract. Phases 2 and 3 show tentative starting dates of 2012 and 2017. Full 13
development is optional and dependent upon future financial assistance for Phases 2 and 3. She 14
asked if both Phases 2 and 3 occur by additional future subsidies, what are the projections 15
concerning TIF as a percentage of the City’s future tax capacity. 16
17
Director Ericson stated staff has not considered those numbers because there are too many 18
variables to even guess what will happen in 10 to 15 years. He stated at this point he does not 19
know what the property values will be or the impact to the City. 20
21
Ms. Hammes noted that Medtronic indicates no part of the purchase is for speculation or land 22
holding. The draft contract is relevant only to Phase 1. There is no enforceable obligation 23
regarding sale or assignment for Phases 2 and 3. She asked if the Council has considered 24
subdividing Phase 1 construction, holding any balance of the Bridges property as a public asset, 25
contingent upon Medtronic’s first right of refusal for future development phases. 26
27
Councilmember Thomas explained that Phases 2 and 3, as far as projected development, is going 28
up, not out, so it would have the same footprint. Because of that, there is no way to subdivide 29
out properties for future phases. 30
31
Mayor Marty stated it was his understanding that Medtronic wanted the whole deal. 32
33
City Attorney Riggs stated it is difficult to deal with “what ifs” down the road. This 34
development contract deals with Phase 1 construction of approximately an 8,200 square foot 35
footprint of development. The contract defines the development property and the EDA has to 36
consent to any assignments or sales so the City does have that control right now. 37
38
Joan Dofney, 7801 Gloria Circle, stated this is the second year that City Administrator Ulrich has 39
worked in Mounds View. She asked City staff if they live in Mounds View. All staff members 40
present indicated they do not. 41
42
Ms. Dofney asked if any of the Medtronic representatives in attendance live in Mounds View. 43
She stated the Council has been voted in to represent her and those who signed the petition. She 44
stated all would agree this is a large multi-million dollar deal with a health provider for people 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 11
around the world. She asked each Councilmember if any had negotiated a deal of this 1
magnitude. All Councilmembers, Director Ericson, and Finance Director Beer indicated they 2
had not. Ms. Dofney asked City Administrator Ulrich and City Attorney Riggs if they had 3
negotiated a deal of this magnitude. Both indicated they had not. 4
5
Ms. Dofney agreed this is a big deal. She stated she knows all care about the City as does she, a 6
32-year resident. She stated this is a tough situation and asked if Medtronic would be willing to 7
renegotiate because of resident’s concern and good questions. Ms. Dofney stated that most 8
believe in the “golden rule” but commented that most know that “those who have the gold rule.” 9
She stated she knows Medtronic has a lot of money and asked if the City is getting the best deal. 10
She stated she hates to leave this burden up to the Council and noted there are many educated 11
and knowledgeable people who want to assure we get the best deal and jobs. 12
13
Mayor Marty stated a Mounds View Medtronic employee is in attendance tonight. 14
15
John Kopis, 2222 County Highway 10, stated his business has sold carpet to people who bought 16
a home in Mounds View which is beneficial to him. He stated he talked to many businesses in 17
Mounds View and every single person he spoke with is excited that Medtronic is coming to 18
Mounds View. He emphasized that that the business community really supports it. Mr. Kopis 19
stated he does not have a home in Mounds View but does have a building as big as 10 houses, 20
pays a lot of taxes, and works 60-70 hours a week so he can pay his taxes. He stated he wants the 21
Council to know this is a good thing for the City of Mounds View and while nothing is perfect, 22
and 25 years may be a bit too long, it is a good thing. He stated it is important to have Medtronic 23
in Mounds View and he would be proud to say they are where he has a business. Mr. Kopis 24
stated almost every week or day someone comes in for donations and he has donated money for 25
fireworks. He stated he resents it when you have been asked to make a donation and are then 26
criticized for it. 27
28
Mayor Marty stated he knows John Kopis works 60-70 hours a week. 29
30
Jon McKusick, 8465 Eastwood Road, asked if they are paying interest to other TIF districts. 31
Economic Development Coordinator Backman answered in the affirmative. 32
33
Ms. Haake reviewed the Light Industrial zoning language on that property and indicated that it 34
applies if Medtronic is going to have 50% of the principal building devoted to office or storage or 35
warehousing of merchandise. She referenced the Planning Commission meeting minutes of 36
January 19, 2005 and February 2, 2005 public hearing on this particular public facility. At one 37
time it was zoning to Industrial I-1 and stating that the office designation most likely correlated 38
with the planned office complex development. She stated she goes back to what she said 39
previously and thinks the attorney should look at it again. She stated she thinks a zoning change 40
is needed so it correlates to the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Haake stated the Comprehensive Plan 41
amendment the City did calls for this to be an office space. That means there has to be a zoning 42
class of Office. Ms. Haake stated there has to be a zoning change, which would require an 43
ordinance. She indicated that will then kick off, all over again, another petition. 44
45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 12
Ms. Haake stated residents elected the Council and it puts the Council in a tough spot. She noted 1
that the attorney may say if Mounds View doesn’t go through with it then Medtronic will sue us. 2
But she thinks Medtronic cares for their public image and does not want their name “blackened.” 3
She stated if Medtronic feels they have done the right thing by Mounds View and been a 4
wonderful neighbor, then residents will know that. She stated they are just asking for a vote and 5
more information. They believe the City needs to go through the contract more thoroughly 6
because residents do not believe all of the terms are fair to the City. They want to be of help to 7
the Council and future generations. She stated that Medtronic is a great company and she would 8
agree with $235,000 an acre and an 8-year TIF District. 9
10
Director Ericson explained that with zoning there is often a time when you need to interpret the 11
Zoning Code and he stands by the fact that an office type of use is a consistent use within the I-1 12
zoning district. Otherwise the City will need to kick out a number of its office uses within the 13
City. He stated that the project planned will have to go through a Planned Unit Development 14
(PUD) on the site which, in essence, is a rezoning consistent with the anticipated use of 820,000 15
square feet of office. 16
17
Brian Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, asked if there has been any language added or stricken 18
from the final terms of the contract since the July 11 version. City Attorney Riggs stated not as 19
to terms decided by the Council but as to semantics and to make all provisions work together. 20
He stated he could outline those semantic changes, if desired. 21
22
Mr. Amundsen asked if all changes were purely semantically. City Attorney Riggs answered in 23
the affirmative and stated the contract is consistent with what the EDA and Council adopted. If 24
there is to be a change in terms, an amendment would be needed and it would have to come back. 25
26
Mr. Amundsen asked about the status of the street project and whether any projects would be 27
occurring in 2006. He stated he feels some obligation to come back to his neighbors, maybe in 28
the form of a petition, about street improvements. He asked if the City is still moving forward 29
with Option 3. 30
31
Public Works Director Lee advised that at this point the City is not planning a street project in 32
2006 because there is no time to put together the plans and specifications and go through the 33
public hearing. The City does have plans for the area that Mr. Amundsen lives in and the City 34
could go with that since a public hearing was held for that area. Staff is now evaluating the 35
streets and updating the pavement condition index. That data will be used to determine which 36
area to next consider. 37
38
Councilmember Thomas stated this issue was discussed at a Council worksession as well as what 39
streets really need to be done. She explained this involves building a project from scratch and it 40
needs to be defended what project should be done first. 41
42
Mary Scotch, 7806 Gloria Circle, stated she knows Councilmember Gunn worked very hard on 43
the Festival in the Park but she wants to address the fact of looking at the deal because the 44
bottom line is that the golf course is the only asset residents have. She stated she has been asking 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 13
for eight years to have someone address Spring Lake. She asked what is the bottom factor, and 1
whether the $5 million the City is getting is going to improve the highway corridor for the next 2
five to six years, or whether the City will have to wait for the TIF to come in. 3
4
Mayor Marty stated he still questions where the $5 million will come from because the golf 5
course owes $4.2 million and is selling for $8.56 million so the City does not have a full $5 6
million left. Also, the money going to MnDOT will not benefit the City to spend. Mayor Marty 7
reviewed a calculation he made and stated it equals $148,000 a year (without interest or 8
investment). He stated the City could invest that money. 9
10
Ms. Scotch stated Medtronic wants to come to Mounds View and she would like to see them in 11
Mounds View but just wants the best deal. She stated that a lot of residents think this deal is 12
done but she feels there are other ways this can be addressed. 13
14
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated a lot of comments have been made but there is also a 15
silent majority. He noted the City took a survey and even if the petition had 2,000 signatures, it 16
would be a small percentage. He stated he also went to homes and heard the opposite. He noted 17
that senior citizens don’t come to the meeting or speak out but they are worried about a small 18
majority taking over. Mr. Jahnke stated the Council, attorney, and Ehlers studied this deal. He 19
stated he thinks all have looked at it closely and he gives them all credit. He stated this is a big 20
project and it is not easy to sit on the Council and take the criticism. However, when you look at 21
the petition it is a minority, not a majority. He stated they are not speaking for the residents of 22
Mounds View and he will speak for himself. Mr. Jahnke stated the survey is what spoke for the 23
residents. He noted this minority group is now asking for another two weeks but it is only a ploy 24
to delay this project that is very important for the future of Mounds View. Mr. Jahnke stated the 25
Council has done an excellent job and the lawyers can be depended on to decipher the contract 26
and assure it is done correctly. He stated you could pick on small issues in the contract for the 27
next five years and while it isn’t a perfect world, he thinks the Council did a perfect job. 28
29
Bill Schweigert, South Gray Cloud Trail, stated he does not live in Mounds View but has 130 30
acres and wonders if there is an amount of money that would kill the opposition, maybe an extra 31
fifty percent. He stated everyone likes Medtronic and it will be a “feather in the City’s cap” to 32
have them in Mounds View but there is a question of fairness and some people think this is not a 33
fair deal. He stated what makes this deal seductive is the number of jobs and economic boost. 34
However, bringing in the jobs will also bring in school-aged children who will have to be 35
educated. He pointed out that if the City’s portion of property tax is $43,000, and if the 36
Medtronic units cost $25,000 each, selling two units a year would be enough to pay their 37
property tax bill. He stated Medtronic is a $4 billion company, which is equivalent to 4,000 one 38
million dollar bills. They are going to count out ten of them for the City. He stated this is like a 39
man buying a used car who can easily pay another $1,000 but enjoys the game of negotiation. He 40
stated the car buyer may walk out, but he thinks Medtronic would be a fool to walk out of this 41
area. 42
43
Naja Werner, 50 year resident of Mounds View, stated she has spoken to a lot of people about 44
the Medtronic deal and is getting opinions contrary to those presenting the petition. She stated 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 14
she is finding most favor having Medtronic here and believe it is the best thing to happen to 1
Mounds View. Ms. Werner stated she agrees. She noted that this golf course has existed for ten 2
years, has lost money constantly, and there is now a $4 million debt. The golf course borrows 3
money from the City and is not making any money. She stated Medtronic will allow the City to 4
pay off the debt on the golf course, the City will not have to pay golf course staff salaries, the 5
City is getting some money from the sale that can be used for other purposes, and the school 6
district and park fund are also getting money. Ms. Werner stated she believes the Council has 7
done a tremendous job, Councilmember Gunn did a commendable job on the Festival in the 8
Park, and Ms. Haake owes her an apology. She concluded by saying Mounds View is the City of 9
Trees and home to Medtronic. 10
11
Stan Meyer, 2812 Sherwood Road, stated people talk about taking sides and that is why they 12
want it on a referendum, so everyone can have a vote and have their say. He stated if the Council 13
is sure of themselves, why not put it up to a vote. In regard to new jobs, he stated he heard 14
Councilmember Thomas say it was not producing any new net jobs for residents of Mounds 15
View. He stated residents of Mounds View are who to jobs are for, not residents of New 16
Brighton or someplace else. Otherwise, it does not help Mounds View. He stated Medtronic has 17
been throwing around numbers of people to be hired at Medtronic and people will believe what 18
they want but that is disingenuous and putting something out there that does no good. 19
20
Valerie Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, stated this should not be a decisive issue but has 21
become just that. She applauded that people are encouraged to come and express diverse 22
opinions. She stated all what is best for the City and she supports this going to a vote of the 23
citizens because then we will know that the City is 100% behind the project. Ms. Amundsen 24
stated this 72 acres is a “jewel” and one of the last treasures of undeveloped land in Mounds 25
View. She stated there is a lot of talk about the Vikings coming into Blaine and asked what will 26
happen with the value of this land if that project happens. Ms. Amundsen stated she believes the 27
value will skyrocket and prospective offers will “come out of the woodwork.” She stated she 28
views herself to be part stockholder in that land along with the other 12,500 residents. She stated 29
if someone asked if she wanted to sell her stock in the land for a $2 dividend for all future 30
possibilities the land holds, she would be viewed as crazy. She stated she may support an 8-year 31
TIF District. She views herself as a stakeholder of the City and while Medtronic is a great 32
company, this project should not be built on the backs of the citizens of Mounds View. 33
34
Bill Werner, 2765 Sherwood Road, said Ms. Amundsen said she would agree if it was an 8 year 35
TIF District but he would suggest that it be kept longer than 8 years if it will be worth more. He 36
stated his question is where will we be if we do or don’t do the deal. He stated if the City does 37
not do the deal there will be no money for anything, including streets. If the deal is not done, the 38
golf course still will not make any money even if the billboards do bring in $250,000. Mr. 39
Werner stated this is an opportunity to clear off that mess. 40
41
Mr. Werner stated his opinion that the $2 million community center was built for $6.2 million 42
and now people who made those past decision are asking, “what should we do now.” He stated 43
the Medtronic deal will allow the City to pay off its debts and the Council is now supporting the 44
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 15
residents of the City, not like past Councils. Mr. Werner stated that he does not care how long 1
the TIF District lasts and thinks the Council should go for the deal and pay off the debts. 2
3
Jan Brink, 7800 Gloria Circle, stated there is a misconception. She stated those in opposition to 4
the Medtronic deal have conceded that they have lost the golf course and know it is gone and 5
done but they want a referendum because they oppose the specific terms of the contract. She 6
stated they feel the residents are not getting a fair deal and she is asking the Council to have the 7
integrity to allow residents to have that vote. 8
9
Mayor Marty called a recess at 9:49 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:01 p.m. 10
11
Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated the golf course has been in the “red” for years and 12
the Councils have taken care of that in the form of the billboard contract. He suggested that the 13
golf course will be in the black by 2012 in terms of outstanding bonds, by 2017 on interfund 14
loans, and in the “black” eight years before the TIF District expires. Then, at that point, it will be 15
valued at $48 million. He stated it is not a “big looser,” but just needs a little time. 16
17
Mr. Werner stated that is an expensive golf course because it will be sitting there, it hasn’t made 18
any money, and will keep borrowing money. 19
20
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated the billboard money is Mounds View money and the 21
golf course should stand on its own. He stated that is why eleven golf courses were closed this 22
past year. Mr. Jahnke pointed out that only 20% of the citizens golf and 80% are from outside of 23
Mounds View and say, ”good old Mounds View, they don’t know what is going on.” 24
25
Mary Kay Walsh, 8345 Pleasant View Drive, stated whether the golf course makes money is not 26
important because it adds oxygen and is an amenity to the City. She noted that Medtronic will 27
use $11 million of Mounds View TIF money and use it to buy property in Blaine for a parking 28
lot. She stated more issues should be addressed and it should go to a referendum. She stated she 29
hopes more information will come out because if the City does not get enough money for the 30
property, it will not be a good deal. 31
32
Mayor Marty stated the total amount is $14.8 million and of that some goes to roads, 33
infrastructure, water, sewer, and other qualified costs. The total amount to Blaine is just over $2 34
million, not $11 million. 35
36
Connie Hammes, 5511 Quincy, stated when she took the petition around people were concerned 37
about the extra traffic on the roads and asked if they will be improved. She pointed out that 38
Medtronic will also add traffic to 35W which is already a bottleneck so traffic will be cutting 39
through City streets. In addition, it will bring forward more police calls. She reviewed that 40
Councilmember Stigney had said at a meeting a year and a half ago that hiring two officers was 41
not in purview of the Council because it cost $147,000. Ms. Hammes noted this is a lot more 42
than that and encouraged the Council to let Medtronic stand on their own. 43
44
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 16
7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 1
2
This Agenda Item was considered after Agenda Item 8, Council Business. 3
4
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 5
6
A. 7:05 p.m.: Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6590 Approving a 7
PUD Amendment for SYSCO Minnesota to Expand Their Facility at 2400 8
Co. Road J 9
10
B. 7:10 p.m.: Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6591 Approving 11
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the SYSCO Minnesota Facility 12
Expansion 13
14
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 10:08 p.m. 15
16
Community Development Director Ericson explained that the project was approved in 1989 and, 17
at that time, Outlot A of 46 acres was passed to the City for open space and envisioned for trails 18
or public amenity. A small triangle of land was used to develop the golf course. SYSCO is now 19
asking for 3 acres back to allow for 100 new employees to be added to their workforce, the 20
addition of 100 vehicle parking stalls, 50 truck parking stalls, incorporate the relocation of a 21
drive access from County Road J, and provide greater maneuverability for trucks. He explained 22
that the SYSCO project is a PUD approved in 1989 for the use it is currently operating. No 23
change in land use is being proposed. It will remain as a food distribution company. Director 24
Ericson advised that SYSCO is currently short on vehicle and truck parking areas. The 25
additional area allows for parking a truck once instead of moving one out to bring in another. 26
27
Director Ericson advised that in addition, a Comprehensive Plan amendment is needed since it is 28
a passive open area and SYSCO is guided as a Heavy Industrial use. He explained that by 29
attaching that 3 acre sliver of property to the SYSCO property, it makes sense to rezone it to 30
Heavy Industrial. The Planning Commission reviewed the request, recommends approval, and 31
found that the Comprehensive Plan amendment would be consistent. 32
33
Director Ericson stated the City is the adjacent property owner and staff believes there would be 34
no adverse effects. The property in question is currently tax exempt and this would bring it back 35
onto the tax rolls and allow SYSCO to maintain its operation in Mounds View. The 36
Comprehensive Plan land use amendment vacation will be sent to the Metropolitan Council and 37
adjoining property owners. Director Ericson recapped that staff and the Planning Commission 38
believe the Comprehensive Plan amendment should be approved and will help SYSCO address 39
their future and current needs as a business. He noted there are two draft resolutions for the 40
Council’s consideration and that representatives of SYSCO are in attendance to answer questions 41
the Council may have. 42
43
Phil Seipp, President of SYSCO Minnesota, stated he would be happy to answer questions of the 44
Council or audience. 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 17
1
Councilmember Stigney asked how much additional taxes will be realized. Director Ericson 2
stated staff has not done that analysis but could determine that number if desired by the Council. 3
4
Councilmember Stigney noted they are asking for $250,000 of TIF and asked whether it will 5
bring additional tax base to the City. He asked what is the benefit of the City and stated he 6
believes cutting down the trees will be an adverse effect on the City. 7
8
Director Ericson stated there are impacts as a result of the land transfer and the relocation of the 9
storm water management plan would result in some trees coming out. He explained there is also 10
about one acre of designated wetland that would need to be mitigated. The Rice Creek 11
Watershed District and the DNR have indicated they would prefer to not have that mitigation 12
occur adjacent to the site and risk losing all the trees. They suggested the mitigation occur 13
somewhere else where trees would not be mitigated. Director Ericson advised that every single 14
significant tree to be removed, 77 of them, will be replaced but not on a one-to-one basis. He 15
stated there will be added value but staff does not know what that dollar amount will be. He 16
stated there is currently no obligations on the site and sufficient funds will be available to make 17
the TIF payments. 18
19
Councilmember Stigney stated he would like to know the timeframe to pay back the $250,000 for 20
putting in the driveway and parking spaces. He stated that he does not believe it is a good trade 21
off to replace mature tall trees, 100 feet or more, with small trees. Economic Development 22
Coordinator Backman stated the project is approximately is $1.2 million, should add about 23
$15,000 in property taxes each year, and generate over $300,000 a year in TIF increment. He 24
advised that the trees are primarily cottonwoods, not hardwoods, so there are some options to 25
have good replacement trees. 26
27
Councilmember Thomas noted it is also adding jobs. 28
29
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 10:20 p.m. 30
31
Councilmember Stigney stated it is proposed they will generate 100 jobs in the next five years 32
but nothing is in the documentation. Director Ericson stated it is a condition of the TIF financing 33
that 20 jobs per year must be added over each of 5 years. If that does not occur, a portion of the 34
TIF would have to be paid back to the City. 35
36
Councilmember Stigney asked if the City gets information each year on the jobs created. 37
Director Ericson answered in the affirmative. 38
39
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Thomas. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6590 40
Approving a Planned Unit Development and Development Agreement Amendment for SYSCO 41
Minnesota; Planning Case PA 2005-0002. 42
43
Mayor Marty referenced Page 5, Community Profile and Background, Consistency with Council 44
Policy, and asked whether wetland credits will be purchased off site to lessen impact to the 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 18
wooded area. He stated he would like ponding to be created somewhere on the SYSCO Outlot 1
A. 2
3
Councilmember Thomas noted that Outlot A is owned by the City, not SYSCO. 4
5
Mayor Marty stated he does not want the wetland credits purchased from Blaine or another city. 6
7
Mayor Marty read a section of the agreement related to costs of preparing and reviewing the 8
wetland permit and that all attorney fees will be paid by SYSCO. He referenced Page 11, 9
subsection M, indicating: “The Developer shall allow for a gravel access drive to be constructed 10
adjacent to the relocated stormwater pond to provide access to billboards on City land and shall 11
agree to provide reasonable site access to billboard leaseholders, their agents and representatives 12
for periodic maintenance and ad copy updates.” He asked if this would be a new gravel access 13
road. 14
15
Director Ericson stated it would be a new access and tie with another project. He stated staff is 16
looking at a relocated billboard on the SYSCO property and this access would be one means to 17
accomplish that. 18
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 19
20
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Flaherty. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6591 21
Approving the Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Passive Open Space (OSP) to Heavy 22
Industrial (HI) on Three Acres of SYSCO Outlot A to be transferred from the City to SYSCO 23
Minnesota; Planning Case CP2005-0001. 24
25
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 26
27
C. 7:15 p.m.: Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6592 Approving 28
the General Concept Plan of the Medtronic Planned Unit Development 29
30
Mayor Marty opened the Public Hearing at 10:26 p.m. 31
32
Community Development Director Ericson reviewed that on June 27, 2005, the City Council and 33
Economic Development Authority (EDA) authorized an agreement with Medtronic, Inc. to 34
redevelop the Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course. Subsequently, the Council adopted 35
Ordinance 760, an ordinance approving the transfer of land from the City of Mounds View to the 36
Mounds View EDA and then subsequently to Medtronic. 37
38
Director Ericson explained that the general concept plan is the first step to consider. He noted 39
Phase 1 will involve two buildings on the western side of the site. The two buildings will each 40
be approximately eight stories in height with approximately 50,000 square feet of space on each 41
level and connected by a lower level commons. He stated there is a phasing schedule for the 42
building and parking. Phase 1 will have 820,000 square feet of office space, 3,000 parking stalls 43
with 2,100 being structured stalls and 900 being surface stalls. Phase 2 is one additional building 44
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 19
of 380,000 more square feet of office space and 1,400 more structured parking stalls by adding 1
two more levels onto the Phase 1 parking structure so it would equal five levels of parking. 2
Phase 3 finishes the project with the fourth building, of 300,000 more square feet of office space, 3
additional atrium space, and 1,600 structured parking stalls in a four-level ramp that would be 4
located in Blaine. While the ramp is being constructed, a number of surface stalls will be 5
displaced so there will be surface stalls on the other side of the ramp. Then, once the ramp is 6
completed, that area will be returned to green space. 7
8
Director Ericson stated there would be a total of four buildings total that are connected by an 9
atrium space, a parking ramp in Mounds View and in Phase 3 a parking ramp in the City of 10
Blaine. He stated that this is a significant project and at 1,500,000 square feet it will be the 11
single largest building in Mounds View and the largest for Medtronic in the world. 12
13
Director Ericson advised that the City of Blaine would like to see the plans and have a 14
presentation before their Council. Blaine staff indicates they fully support the project and 15
anticipate that the Council will be supportive of the project moving forward. 16
17
Director Ericson stated the Planning Commission conducted an informal review of this project 18
on July 20, 2005 and there was no opposition at that point. He stated that he is unsure whether 19
the project at that meeting was being reviewed as an eight-story building. At the August 3, 2005 20
meeting, the Planning Commission voted on the general concept plan and the motion failed on a 21
3/3 tied vote. However they did not subsequently make a resolution of denial. Subsequently 22
they reviewed this and have no opinion, neither recommending approval or denial. The Planning 23
Commission is concerned with the height of the 8-story building and had not yet received 24
documentation from the FAA about that height. However, staff has now received a response 25
from the FAA indicating the building height is not a concern. But the FAA did not address the 26
height of the crane during construction. 27
28
Director Ericson stated there are other steps with the PUD but this is the first step and gives the 29
City the opportunity to review what Medtronic is thinking. This general concept plan does not 30
address sizes or setbacks or elevations of the building. However, once the Council reviews and 31
holds the public hearing, then Medtronic would come back with the site plan that contains those 32
details. 33
34
Director Ericson recapped that Phase 1 is for 820,000 square feet of office space in two 35
buildings, connecting atrium area, 2,100 structured parking stalls and 900 surface parking stalls. 36
37
Mayor Marty asked representatives of Medtronic if they have comments. 38
39
Barbara Haake, 3024 County Road I, stated the PUD is going to require a Zoning Code change 40
and asked when that is planned to occur. 41
42
Director Ericson explained that typically with a PUD, they get through the general concept plan 43
and general development plan and then consider first reading of an ordinance to approve the 44
PUD. On second reading, the ordinance would effectuate the rezoning. Director Ericson 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 20
explained there is some flexibility as to when it will occur but it will occur as a result of the PUD 1
application since it is a rezoning from the Industrial zoning to a PUD. In doing a PUD, it gives 2
the City greater flexibility in how it is developed, greater density, and preservation of wetlands 3
and additional open spaces. 4
5
Ms. Haake asked if the PUD allows more building stories. Director Ericson stated that is correct. 6
7
Ms. Haake asked if the PUD has to be done before any site work or removal of trees. Director 8
Ericson stated it will be done before “shovels are out there.” 9
10
Ms. Haake stated it will be a zoning ordinance change and residents can have a referendum on a 11
rezoning. 12
13
City Attorney Riggs advised there was a case in the Minnesota Court of Appeals in 2002 14
regarding a Best Buy project in Richfield called “Nordmarken versus the City of Richfield.” The 15
Court of Appeals has stated, this is the basic holding, that the referendum would be in conflict 16
with State law; that State Law preempted the Charter with respect to land use issues. City 17
Attorney Riggs stated that is the State law on the books and it is very recent. In response to Ms. 18
Haake’s question, City Attorney Riggs stated the answer would be likely no. That would not be 19
subject to referendum and courts have ruled on it very recently, within the last three years. 20
21
Ms. Haake stated there is another case study called “Denny versus Duluth” and in that case it 22
does state that any zoning change has got to be done by ordinance and it is a legislative act. 23
24
City Attorney Riggs clarified that is not what Nordmarken found. 25
26
Ms. Haake stated it is and there has to be research on that and she would be happy to hear what 27
that research found. She stated it is her understanding that would be open to referendum as far as 28
she understands with court cases. 29
30
Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated yes it has been his experience in 15 years of 31
elected office that all zoning changes were done by ordinance and in some cases, down zoning 32
for example, needs a four-fifths votes. He stated the Denny versus Duluth case was a Supreme 33
Court decision, not Court of Appeals, in 1968. In that case zoning was determined to be a 34
legislative police power act and will be subject to referendum under the City Charter. He stated 35
the information that residents have been receiving has been very confusing and he doesn’t want 36
to go down that road so far that it can’t be stopped. He stated he had attended a Rotary meeting 37
where Medtronic presented that the City would get $169,000 a year in all fees, $43,000 a year in 38
real estate taxes, and $46,000 a year in administrative fees. However, if this is TIF related it 39
cannot be used in the general fund. He noted there is an $80,000 franchise fee, which the City 40
has been trying to get rid of and to put the fee on property tax. He suggested Medtronic check 41
with the business community who has been against that type of fee for a long time. He stated 42
there are still many issues with this contract and he is open to a discussion with Mr. McCombs. 43
44
Ken Glidden, 5240 Edgewood Drive, stated he does not know what the commitment step 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 21
involves by taking action on this resolution but believes it is premature. He stated if it is in the 1
early stage planning, that is reasonable but if it commits the City to anything it seems premature 2
to him. He stated what most concerns him is the implied suggestion that there is some way to 3
avoid allowing the citizens of Mounds View to have any say in this rezoning. He asked why the 4
City would take any steps to do that as the City Attorney has suggested, that there may be a court 5
case that disallows a referendum. He stated that seems odd to him. 6
7
Cam Obert, 8315 Greenwood Drive, stated it seems like the “cart is ahead of the horse” and 8
asked if another agenda item tonight relates to citizen input. He stated he talked to many in the 9
north side neighborhoods about this topic and all want to know what is going on with the streets. 10
He suggested it is hard to repair the streets if you change an 8 year TIF into 25 years so you 11
cannot draw any money out of it. He stated this whole deal should be tabled and the Council 12
should first decide if they should proceed. He stated it seems everyone wants to push the 13
concerns “under the rug” and he would like the questions answered. 14
15
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated the City has studied the general concept plan and 16
should approve it and not waste any more time. He stated the plan looks good and if the building 17
is too high, sink it into the ground a little ways. 18
19
Jan Brink, 7800 Gloria Circle, asked staff to point out the location of the golf course features. 20
Director Ericson complied with the request and explained the proposal is to sell all of the golf 21
course and driving range. He also noted the location of the parcel that the City owns that is 22
located in the City of Blaine and proposed for parking area. 23
24
Ms. Brink asked if the plan is to keep the golf course and build around it. Director Ericson stated 25
the golf course would go away and this project would be built on the developed part of the City-26
owned golf course. 27
28
Brian Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, asked why the pond is in a triangle. Director Ericson 29
stated it is how the pond was originally created. 30
31
Mr. Amundsen asked where the trail system would be located. Director Ericson stated it has 32
been discussed internally but not discussed with Medtronic because it is up to the City where the 33
trail system would be located. 34
35
Councilmember Thomas noted that the golf course area by the wetland pond would also be torn 36
up so the pond could be expanded. 37
38
Director Ericson advised of the impact to wetlands and location of Judicial Ditch #1 that will be 39
shifted closer to the periphery of the property line. He stated Medtronic is designing it to be 40
more of a meandering stream and amenity to the Rice Creek Watershed District. Because that 41
would be relocated, it is considered to be a wetland that needs to be mitigated. He noted the 42
location on the site where the wetland would be expanded to compensate for the relocated 43
judicial ditch. Director Ericson stated Medtronic has indicated they do not envision it to be a 44
manicured high-maintenance lawn area but, rather, a natural grass or wildflower area. 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 22
1
An audience member asked about the locations of the phases. Director Ericson used a site map 2
to identify the location of the buildings in Phases 1, 2 and 3, the parking ramp, and surface 3
parking areas. 4
5
Mr. McCarty asked if there will be additional business subsidies for Phases 2 and 3. Director 6
Ericson stated the business subsidies being considered relate to Phase 1. 7
8
Mr. McCarty asked if it is a “given” and that opportunity is preserved to allow for additional 9
business subsidies for future phases. Director Ericson stated the contract under consideration 10
relates only to Phase 1 and does not tie this or future Councils to subsequent TIF or subsidy for 11
this project. 12
13
City Attorney Riggs explained the current contract only covers Phase 1 and the financing for 14
Phase 1. Any other financing request would have to stand on its own and be compliant with 15
State law. 16
17
Mr. McCarty stated the current contract indicates that future subsidies will not be unreasonably 18
withheld for Phases 2 and 3. He asked if this Council is signing the contract with that proviso 19
included. 20
21
City Attorney Riggs stated the Council will not bind itself at this point in time and any request 22
made would have to follow the same process with a public hearing and the but/for test would be 23
implicated. He stated that is the general concept that is being considered. 24
25
Mr. McCarty asked if the commitments of this Council cannot be held to future Councils. 26
27
Mayor Marty stated if Phase 1 is approved and Medtronic comes in, then the City will want 28
Phases 2 and 3 to also be constructed on Mounds View property to capture all the taxes 29
potentially available at some date and time. 30
31
Mr. McCarty asked how that effects the decertification possibilities in the future if one business 32
subsidy is being piling on top of another. Mayor Marty explained that they would not tie together 33
and could run currently. 34
35
Mr. McCarty stated the 25 year term that citizens are being told of could be something much 36
different. 37
38
Mayor Marty explained that Phase 1 stands on its own and when paid off, that District would be 39
decertified. If they create Phase 2, that has the potential to stand on its own unless they do 40
Phases 2 and 3 together. 41
42
Mr. McCarty stated the contract refers to additional future business subsidies and he believes that 43
Medtronic will be back in 2012 saying they want another business subsidy, which means another 44
TIF extension. 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 23
1
Mr. Inman stated this plan says when this obligation is exhausted there will be additional 2
increments that will have to be returned. There is nothing in the plan that requires Phases 2 and 3 3
and there would have to be another process. 4
5
Councilmember Thomas stated the limit on Phase 1 is the cap, irregardless of future Councils 6
approving another TIF Districts anywhere else in the City. 7
8
Mr. McCarty stated it is in the contract that when Phases 2 and 3 are ready to go, business 9
subsidies will be revisited. The contract sunsets at completion of Phase 1 and, at the same time, 10
there is a proviso in the contract that references future business subsidies in Phases 2 and 3. He 11
stated he understands what Councilmember Thomas is saying, that the Council can say “no” to 12
that, but asked if they would say no since it is not the end to it but the beginning. 13
14
Stan Meyer, 2812 Sherwood, stated this is just the basic concept and not a legally binding 15
document. Councilmember Thomas stated that is correct. 16
17
Mr. Meyer stated anything on the plan can be changed and this is just a “pipe dream.” He stated 18
that it has gone back and forth that Medtronic could keep the golf course for themselves. 19
20
Councilmember Thomas stated the golf course is written out of the contract. 21
22
Mr. Meyer asked who disposes of the greens, noting they are valuable. City Attorney Riggs 23
stated the City has control of the assets and has a year to deal with the assets from the signing of 24
the contract. 25
26
Mr. Meyer stated he thinks the greens are very valuable. City Attorney Riggs stated if the value 27
is over $50,000 the City would have to accept bids. 28
29
Ms. Haake asked City Attorney Riggs if the contract is such that there is absolutely no chance for 30
a golf course. She noted the location of Phase 1 buildings and stated there is nothing to preclude 31
Medtronic from moving the location of the buildings and parking, and coming back to the City to 32
keep the golf course. She stated it is their property and there is no guarantee in the contract that 33
they will even do Phases 2 and 3. She asked City Attorney Riggs if Medtronic could keep the 34
golf course. 35
36
City Attorney Riggs stated the development property has been defined as depicted and it is 37
defined as the development of Phase 1. Any changes for Phase 2 or 3 would have to come into 38
play and a definitional change made to allow that. Right now it does not say “and a golf course,” 39
it says an 820,000 square foot development with office with accessory uses. 40
41
Ms. Haake stated this is just a concept plan and they could still relocate Phase 1 and legally keep 42
the golf course if they wanted. City Attorney Riggs answered no, that could not happen as the 43
contract is currently written. He suggested that Medtronic be asked that question and noted a 44
restrictive covenant could be included if that’s the concern. 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 24
1
Rodger McCombs stated Medtronic has addressed this several times. He stated that Medtronic is 2
not interested in golf courses but in the development of life saving products. He stated they will 3
not have a golf course. 4
5
Mr. Jahnke stated SYSCO got TIF and are now adding on and getting another round of TIF 6
financing. He stated he does not understand why it is a question with Medtronic because there is 7
nothing wrong with it and was “played out in real” tonight with SYSCO. 8
9
Mr. McCarty stated there is a big difference between a $235,000 TIF project and one that is about 10
$32 million. 11
12
Mayor Marty closed the Public Hearing at 11:06 p.m. 13
14
Councilmember Thomas stated the only outstanding question related to the FAA and that 15
information has now been received by staff. 16
17
Mayor Marty stated previously the plan was for six stories and asked when the eight-story 18
building was approved. Director Ericson stated the request was sent out three to four weeks ago 19
to get authorization from the FAA. The FAA has provided assurance that the eight-story 20
buildings at a specified height of 140 feet was acceptable as of today. 21
22
Mayor Marty asked what was the original height. Director Ericson stated he does not know what 23
the FAA originally approved. 24
25
Chris Carda, RLK_Kuusisto, LTD stated it was originally approved at 85 feet. 26
27
Mayor Marty noted the height also includes air conditioning units. 28
29
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Stigney. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6592 30
Approving the Medtronic Planned Unit Development (PUD) General Concept Plan; Planning 31
Case No. PD2005-002. 32
33
Councilmember Stigney questioned the first WHEREAS and if it should be changed from 72 34
acres to 72.2 acres. Director Ericson stated staff would make that correction. 35
36
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Marty) Motion carried. 37
38
Director Ericson stated that more detailed plans of the development will be submitted the first 39
week in September and reviewed by the Planning Commission for their recommendation. 40
41
Mayor Marty commented that an eight-story building height will be of more benefit to Mounds 42
View than a six-story height in relation to limiting air traffic. 43
44
D. 7:20 p.m.: Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6594A, a 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 25
Resolution Approving the Removal of Certain Parcels from the EDA’s Tax 1
Increment Financing District No. 3 and Resolution 6594B Approving the Tax 2
Increment Financing Plan Establishing Tax Increment Finance (TIF) District 3
No. 5, a Special-Legislation Economic Development District, within the 4
Redevelopment Project Area 5
6
Mayor Marty opened the Public Hearing at 11:10 p.m. 7
8
Economic Development Coordinator Backman reviewed that on June 27, 2005, the Mounds 9
View EDA and City Council adopted resolutions approving the sale of land comprising the 10
Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course. They also approved the Medtronic Development 11
proposal. In order to facilitate this development, the City sought passage of special TIF 12
legislation during the 2005 legislative session. The Minnesota Legislature approved the Public 13
Finance Bill which included the City’s legislation that allows it to create a 25 year Economic 14
Development TIF District. The Boards for Ramsey County and the Mounds View School 15
District approved the legislation on June 28, 2005. 16
17
Economic Development Coordinator Backman explained that the proposed District encompasses 18
five parcels of the golf course and former SYSCO site and adjacent rights-of-say. Three parcels 19
will be removed from TIF District #3 to be included in the new district. 20
21
Economic Development Coordinator Backman further explained the former SYSCO 22
encompasses 4 acres and would remain with the City of Mounds View. It is proposed to be part 23
of the new district minus the 3 acres being deeded by the City back to SYSCO Minnesota. The 24
new District is being created to facilitate the development of Phase 1 for Medtronic business 25
campus. The development agreement has been authorized contingent upon the TIF Plan and is 26
likely to begin in the fall of 2005. 27
28
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated the EDA and Council have determined 29
that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the project for certain TIF qualified projects. 30
Staff recommends the Council adopt Resolution 659A, approving the decertification of parcels 31
from TIF District No. 3 in order to include them in the newly created TIF District No. 5, and 32
Resolution 694B, approving the TIF plan. He noted that at the EDA meeting, parcel #0004 was 33
not decertified so only two parcels would be decertified and put into District #5. 34
35
Brian Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, stated he understood it was pay-as-you-go and asked if 36
Medtronic makes the $14.8 million payment up front and then draws from it. Director Ericson 37
explained Medtronic is making a $100 million investment in the community and up-fronting 38
their development costs. There are approximately $25 million of TIF eligible expenses with this 39
project and there is a development agreement to provide $14.8 million in assistance, representing 40
they will have well in excess of $10 million beyond what is being provided in assistance. 41
42
Mr. Amundsen asked if the $14.8 million is being provided from Medtronic. Director Ericson 43
explained that the $14.8 million provided to Medtronic is coming from the money they pay in 44
property taxes. 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 26
1
Mr. Amundsen asked when the City starts paying interest on the $14.8 million. Mr. Inman 2
explained that Medtronic is required to provide documentation that the dollars have been spent. 3
Once that is established, the payments will start in the first calendar year afterwards. 4
5
Mr. Amundsen asked if interest payment will be paid on the full $14.8 million. Mr. Inman 6
answered in the affirmative. 7
8
Mr. Amundsen noted that the first year when there is a lower property value, the City will be 9
paying $750,000 of interest to Medtronic. Mr. Inman stated the City will only pay an amount 10
equal to 95% of the annual tax increment. So, if it takes them three years, the amount they 11
eventually will get will be less. 12
13
Mr. Amundsen asked where the funds come from to pay the interest. Mr. Inman stated typically 14
the developer carries some of that interest within their own performa or it is part of their overall 15
financing of the $100 million. 16
17
Mr. Amundsen asked where the funding comes from to pay the interest. Mr. Inman stated it 18
comes from available tax increment and if it is not available, they don’t get it. 19
20
Director Ericson explained that there have been TIF accounts in the past where the developer 21
never received the principal back. 22
23
Mayor Marty stated if only the interest is paid, the District could last longer. Director Ericson 24
stated staff and the financial advisors firmly believe this District will pay off early. 25
26
Mayor Marty noted that by Ehler’s reports, the projected interest is $16,947,000 so the project 27
cost total with interest and all qualifying TIF expenses runs roughly $32,700,000. 28
29
Mr. Inman noted by contract the City has limited the pay-as-you-go note to $14,800,000 so these 30
numbers are high because they were based on a higher estimate. He explained they were trying 31
to give the City the most flexibility. 32
33
Mayor Marty closed the Public Hearing at 11:21 p.m. 34
35
Mayor Marty stated there was a lengthy discussion about this at the EDA meeting. 36
37
MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Thomas. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6594A 38
Approving the Removal of Certain Parcels from the EDA’s Tax Increment Financing District 39
No. 3, not to include Sysco Outlot A, Pin #05-30-23-22-0004, which would remain. 40
41
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Marty) Motion carried. 42
43
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Gunn. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6594B, a 44
Resolution Approving the Tax Increment Financing Plan Establishing Tax Increment Finance 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 27
(TIF) District No. 5, a Special-Legislation Economic Development District, within the 1
Redevelopment Project Area, omitting Sysco Outlot A, Pin #05-30-23-22-0004. 2
3
Mayor Marty again stated that this was discussed at length during the EDA meeting and 4
encouraged interested residents to tune in to the EDA meeting broadcast. 5
6
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Marty) Motion carried. 7
8
E. 7:25 p.m. Public Hearing to Consider Resolution 6600 A Transfer of 9
Ownership of an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Jake’s Sports Café 10
located at 2400 Highway 10. Transfer of Ownership is from Mounds View 11
Jake’s Inc., to Stuart Thomas 12
13
Mayor Marty opened the Public Hearing at 11:25 p.m. 14
15
Administrative Assistant Crane explained that Section 502.08 of the City Code requires that a 16
public hearing be held prior to any intoxicating liquor license. The City of Mounds View issued 17
an on-sale intoxicating liquor license for Jake’s Sports Café on June 27, 2005. Thomas Stuart 18
will be acquiring Jake’s Sports Café and will be changing its name to City Tavern. 19
Administrative Assistant Crane advised that Thomas Stuart has submitted the City liquor license 20
application materials (to include the application to stay open until 2 a.m. per Ordinance 717), and 21
the applicable fees. She advised that the transfer of ownership has been delayed so staff is 22
recommending the public hearing held and continued to September 12, 2005. 23
24
Mayor Marty closed the Public Hearing at 11:26 p.m. 25
26
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Thomas. To Postpone the Public Hearing until the applicant’s 27
report from the Minnesota Department of Criminal Apprehension and the applicant’s Certificate 28
of Insurance is received. 29
30
Director Ericson stated he wanted to acknowledge that the City has had a wonderful relationship 31
with the Jacob Brothers, and their facility across the street. They have been a good business 32
owner and worked well with staff. He stated that while the City is sorry to see them leave, they 33
look forward to Mr. Stuart coming to Mounds View. 34
35
Mayor Marty concurred and stated they have corrected snow storage problems, helped with 36
redesign of the corner for sidewalk, turn lanes, established better parking on their site, and been a 37
an outstanding business and neighbor to have. He stated he is sad to see them go. 38
39
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 40
41
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 28
F. Policy for Removal of Nonconforming Street Accesses – Messiah Lutheran 1
Church Case 2
3
Public Works Director Lee reviewed that at the June 6, 2005, Council Work Session, staff 4
presented a request submitted by the Messiah Lutheran Church to have the City remove the head-5
in parking lot located along the west side of Knollwood Drive, just south of County Road H2. 6
As part of the report, staff recommended that should the Council wish to proceed with this 7
request, a policy be created to allow for the City to remove nonconforming street access before 8
performing any work at Messiah Lutheran Church. On June 13, 2005, the Council approved 9
Resolution 6556, which authorized the prohibition of parking on Knollwood Drive. However 10
this has not resolved the problem so another letter was submitted by the Messiah Lutheran 11
Church requesting that the City post “No Parking” signs along both sides of Knollwood Drive 12
from County Road H2, south 360 feet to the south end of their property. Those signs have since 13
been installed. 14
15
Councilmember Flaherty suggested this decision be delayed until after the street improvement 16
project has been determined and approved. 17
18
Public Works Director Lee advised that the church has indicated that cars are still parking head-19
in and backing onto Knollwood Drive. He stated from a legal standpoint, is it in the City’s best 20
interest to remove this non-conforming parking area that is within the City’s right-of-way. 21
22
Councilmember Thomas noted that there is a significant safety concern and asked about the 23
investment of the City’s time and money. 24
25
Public Works Director Lee estimated $1,600 to $1,800. He advised there are limited sight 26
distances and a crosswalk is located near by. 27
28
Mayor Marty stated that he understands there is a safety issue involved but the street 29
improvement may not occur for several years. He stated maybe the City should take out the 30
asphalt and put in black dirt and seed instead of sodding since the street may be redone. 31
32
Councilmember Thomas asked if the church is only asking to have the asphalt removed. Public 33
Works Director Lee stated that is correct and noted the policy, as prepared, would indicate it 34
would also be sodded. However, that can be taken out. He stated if approved, the $1,600 would 35
be funded by the Street Improvement Fund. 36
37
Mayor Marty stated the franchise fee this year has resulted in at least that much money. 38
39
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Stigney. To direct staff to remove the asphalt area and let the 40
church take it from there and to table consideration of the draft a policy until the street 41
reconstruction issue is again discussed. 42
43
Councilmember Flaherty noted that it is illegal for cars to park in this location. Public Works 44
Director Lee clarified that the “No Parking” signs are in the parallel area and the area of concern 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 29
is off the street where they park head-in. 1
2
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Flaherty) Motion carried. 3
4
G. Proposal to Stripe County Crosswalks 5
6
Mayor Marty stated he spoke with County Commissioners Tony Bennett and Jan Wiessner about 7
this today and mentioned that the stripes by the senior housing needs to be repainted. He 8
reported that Commissioner Bennett had indicated County crosswalks are on a time schedule for 9
painting but due to the fact that it is over due and by senior housing, those stripes could be done 10
relatively soon. Mayor Marty stated that he would like this item tabled until the County 11
addresses the other cross walks. In addition, he is concerned about the precedent that would be 12
set if City staff starts painting County crosswalks. 13
14
Councilmember Thomas suggested this topic be discussed again at the September 12, 2005 15
meeting. 16
17
City Administrator Ulrich reported that he spoke with Commissioner Bennett’s assistant who 18
indicated it has been referred to the County Public Works Department. He stated staff will put it 19
on the September 12, 2005 meeting agenda for an update. 20
21
H. Resolution 6601 Awarding a Construction Contract for the Emergency 22
Vehicle Preemption (EVP) Installation Project 23
24
Public Works Director Lee advised that two bids were received and the low bid is from Eagan 25
Companies, Inc. in the amount of $61,095. The City’s engineering consultant had estimated 26
$40,000 and submitted a note of explanation of why, in their opinion, their estimate was off from 27
the quote received. 28
29
Public Works Director Lee stated he is presenting three options for the Council’s consideration: 30
Award the bid to Egan Companies in the amount of $61,095, reject bids and direct staff to re-bid 31
the project, or reject the bids and cancel the project. 32
33
Mayor Marty stated that today he spoke at length with Public Works Director Lee on this subject. 34
He said he had asked who did the job at Rockford and also asked about Ramsey County’s 35
preferred contractors. 36
37
Public Works Director Lee stated Ramsey County reviewed the proposed contractors and 38
developed a list of acceptable contractors for EVP systems. Option 2, to reject and re-bid, could 39
result in getting a bid from a contractor that is not acceptable with Ramsey County and would 40
involve showing justification of why that contractor should be considered. The City’s 41
engineering consultant analyzed the costs to reject and re-bid, and determined there is a 42
possibility of getting a bid of maybe 10% ($6,000) less. The estimated cost to re-bid is about 43
$2,000. Another consideration is a legal issue should the bids be rejected and there happens to 44
be an incident at one of these intersections; would the City have more liability because it decided 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 30
not to proceed. 1
2
Mayor Marty questioned the City’s liability should a squad car hit a vehicle while responding to 3
an emergency. City Attorney Riggs stated there are statutory immunity provisions and also for 4
budgetary considerations such as cost benefit. 5
6
Councilmember Thomas asked if there should be a legal limitation on the bid that it has to be a 7
Ramsey County approved contractor. 8
9
Mayor Marty stated that is just a preference of Ramsey County. He advised that the County 10
estimated $10,000 to $12,000 per intersection. 11
12
Public Works Director Lee stated that is correct and Ramsey County reviewed the quotes of 13
$8,000 per intersection and felt they were very reasonable. 14
15
Councilmember Gunn referenced the Bonestroo letter and noted the factors stated by the 16
consulting engineer are that the Highway 10 intersections in Mounds View are larger than in 17
Rockford, they are overloaded with conduits so wire will have to be pulled, higher traffic 18
volumes on Highway 10 factored more heavily in the cost because it will result in more extensive 19
measures to keep traffic safety effectively controlled, and EVP systems increased in cost by $300 20
to $400 per system. 21
22
City Attorney Riggs stated that staff poses this as a quote process because it was not advertised 23
as a bid. However, the cost is over $50,000 so the safest course is to put it out for bid. 24
25
MOTION/SECOND. Marty/Stigney. To direct staff to bid for the Emergency Vehicle 26
Preemption (EVP) Installation Project. 27
28
Councilmember Thomas asked if the bid document should include the requirement that the 29
bidder be a Ramsey County approved vendor. Then the bid would automatically be approved by 30
Ramsey County. She noted that is no more of a limit than if Ramsey County were doing it 31
themselves. 32
33
Mayor Marty noted if a low bid comes in from a contractor that Ramsey County has had 34
problems with, the City is not obligated to take that bid. 35
36
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 37
38
I. Resolution 6604 Requesting that Ramsey County Install a Signalized 39
Intersection at Silver Lake Road and County Road H 40
41
Mayor Marty stated he talked with County Commissioners Jan Wiessner and Tony Bennett about 42
this issue. Commissioner Wiessner indicated she knew someone who served on the school 43
crossing guard committee and would check into getting crossing guards since this location is 44
about two blocks from Sunnyside School. He stated he had explained the traffic counts and that 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 31
it warranted a stoplight. Commissioner Wiessner indicated that since school starts in several 1
weeks, she would get right on it. Mayor Marty stated Commissioner Bennett explained it was 2
removed from the budget because of cuts. He stated he spoke with both Commissioners about 3
putting the signals in with TIF pool funds, noting an expenditure is needed for TIF funds. He 4
stated Ramsey County could then reimburse Mounds View in the next several years. 5
6
Mayor Marty stated it would be good to send them this resolution since they have a meeting 7
tomorrow night. He stated he also talked with the New Brighton Mayor who indicated they 8
would send a letter since they share County Road H. 9
10
MOTION/SECOND. Marty/Thomas. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6604 11
Requesting that Ramsey County Install a Signalized Intersection at Silver Lake Road and County 12
Road H. 13
14
Councilmember Thomas noted this is only to request the signal. 15
16
Mayor Marty stated this will bring it into the County’s “radar screen” and asked City 17
Administrator Ulrich to contact Commissioner Wiessner or Bennett to see if a resolution and 18
agreement can be reached with Ramsey County. 19
20
Public Works Director Lee stated in discussion with Ramsey County staff it was decided that 21
they would be the lead agency and do construction administration but Mounds View would do 22
the financing. Mayor Marty stated that is correct. 23
24
Mayor Marty stated he also talked with them about possible assistance with the trailway along 25
Silver Lake Road and Commissioner Bennett said Congressman Oberstar got federal funding of 26
$25 million for trailways. Public Works Director Lee will look into that since Mounds View 27
may qualify for matching trailways. 28
29
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 30
31
J. Consider Response to Innovative Images Letter of August 8, 2005 32
33
City Administrator Ulrich reported that in March of 2001, Mr. Linke requested an answer from 34
the City Council by September 5, 2005. He explained the City Attorney has indicated the 35
Council can discuss this matter in executive session since it deals with a threatened law suit. 36
37
Robert Alsop, attorney with Kennedy & Graven, stated they looked at whether this is the type of 38
issue that can go to closed session. He stated courts will generally look at competing principles, 39
attorney client privilege, and the open meeting law. In reviewing this case and the issues before 40
the Council, it was determined it is the type of issue that can go to closed session. Mr. Alsop 41
stated the discussion would be limited to the litigation, settlement demand, and acts of the 42
Council in the past. 43
44
Mayor Marty stated litigation has not been filed. 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 32
1
Mr. Alsop stated this deals with issues that must be discussed confidentially to protect the rights 2
of the City and it also deals with past acts of the Council and the City’s liability based on those 3
past acts. 4
5
City Attorney Riggs suggested Consent Agenda 9.F.1. tem be pulled for a separate action. 6
7
K. Resolution 6605 Adopting an Amended Contract with Canyon Grille for the 8
Lease of Space at the Mounds View Community Center 9
10
City Administrator Ulrich explained that with the proposed remodeling project at City Hall it is 11
recommended that the City administrative staff, with the exception of the Police Department that 12
will relocate to the Ramsey County Sheriff’s facility in Arden Hills, be relocated to the Mounds 13
View Community Center, utilizing space currently occupied by the YMCA and Canyon Grille. 14
The YMCA contracts with the City to provide recreational services. The Canyon Grille leases 15
space from the City comprising of the event center, former community school classrooms, offices 16
and common area. 17
18
City Administrator Ulrich advised that the total amount of space required for City operations at 19
the Community Center is about 4,700 square feet, including common space. Of the total, about 20
72% is space currently leased to Canyon Grille. The City would need to lease the space back 21
from Canyon Grille at a rate to be determined. 22
23
City Administrator Ulrich stated since Canyon Grille is paying rent, it would be in the form of a 24
lease concession. Canyon Grille agreed to pay the contract amount for July and August in the 25
amount of $5,000. He explained that it went from $3,000 the first part of the year to $5,000 on 26
July 1, 2005. The proposal is for the City to give a lease concession of the entire $5,000 amount. 27
That would equal about $12 per square foot. Other space staff inquired about at local shopping 28
centers and the educational building across the road, were quoted at $14.50 per square foot plus 29
utilities. He explained that the advantage of using the Community Center is that the City is 30
already paying the utility costs and the building is wired for computer use with the exception of a 31
T-1 high speed line. 32
33
City Administrator Ulrich noted he had provided the Council with the financials for Canyon 34
Grille and letter outlining their rental rates. He reviewed the rate schedule for the ballroom of 35
$22,969 for seven months plus $3,000 per month for the office space or a total of $43,000 for 36
seven months. At $5,000 per month, it would equal $35,000 over that period of time. The 37
$35,000 cost could be taken from the special projects funds, which is part of the City Hall 38
remodeling expenses. 39
40
City Administrator Ulrich recommended the Council accept this proposal. He stated it may seem 41
high to some Councilmembers but Canyon Grille is looking for some business assistance and this 42
may be the beginning of looking at that contract since this model may not work for the City in 43
the long term. He explained that Canyon Grille needs additional time to get their business on its 44
feet and if they don’t get that additional time to do so, and may cancel the contract. 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 33
1
City Administrator Ulrich recommended that the City Council consider Resolution 6605 2
Adopting an Amended Contract with Canyon Grille for the Lease of Space at the Mounds View 3
Community Center contingent upon the Council awarding bids for remodeling the City Hall. 4
5
Councilmember Flaherty stated this is a lease back to the City so it is not for zero, it is for $5,000 6
a month. He stated he supports staff’s recommendation. 7
8
Councilmember Thomas stated that prior to considering this matter, she had asked for a rent 9
comparison, which she thinks is favorable. She stated she was hopeful in discussion with Mr. 10
Dodds that they would have an indication if their business would be viable in seven month’s time 11
period. For the record, he said he should have an indication at the end of that time. With that 12
assurance, she stated she can support staff’s recommendation. 13
14
Councilmember Stigney stated he believes this is the “beginning of the end” of the banquet 15
operation being handled by Canyon Grille. He stated his concern with this recommendation and 16
asked if the City can give them 100 days notice and then the City has it. 17
18
City Administrator Ulrich stated the downside with that option is that the City would lose a 19
caterer who has provided a good service and if the City wants to give them any opportunity of 20
success. It would also throw the City into the scenario of trying to cover events that are already 21
booked. Financially, the City would be zeroed out anyway but there would be some obligation 22
for future events and the City would have to arrange for a caterer to come in for scheduled 23
events. 24
25
Councilmember Stigney pointed out that Canyon Grille would also pay zero dollars for seven 26
months but get to use the facility for weekends to do their business. He stated he does not 27
support that proposal. 28
29
Mayor Marty stated rents are paid by the day care and Chamber of Commerce, and the City 30
would be paying more rent than any of them. He asked why the City should pay more for their 31
own building, even if it is cheaper than other space checked. He stated it is only $1 a square foot 32
more but it makes more sense for the City to be across the street. 33
34
Councilmember Gunn stated she will support this recommendation because when City staff is 35
there using all the resources it will be less desirable to rent out. 36
37
Councilmember Stigney stated Canyon Grille will have the full use of the space every weekend. 38
39
MOTION/SECOND. Flaherty/Gunn. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6605 Adopting 40
an Amended Contract with Canyon Grille for the Lease of Space at the Mounds View 41
Community Center. 42
43
Councilmember Thomas stated it is somewhat attractive to use vacant space but the cost to the 44
City would be substantial to cover the scheduled events and there would also be less income into 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 34
the Community Enterprise Fund. She noted there had been discussion with him at the work 1
session and whether we were at that stage. The Council had decided to give him a chance and 2
see where we are at in a couple months. 3
4
Councilmember Stigney stated this thing will never work so why not give him 100 or 120 days 5
notice. 6
7
Councilmember Gunn stated she prefers to give Mr. Dodds a chance 8
9
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 10
11
L. Resolution 6606 Resolution Supporting the Improvements to Springbrook 12
Nature Center Associated with the SPRING (Sanctuary Protection & 13
Renewal into the Next Generation) Project and Supporting the Request to 14
the State of Minnesota for Financial Assistance 15
16
Administrative Assistant Crane advised that the voters in the City of Fridley approved a 17
$275,000 referendum in November of 2004 to continue programming and City-paid staff at 18
Springbrook Nature Center. The Springbrook Nature Center is a 127-acre park City of Fridley 19
park that provides year-round opportunities to experience and learn about nature and is an 20
environmental education center that serves school groups, community organizations and families. 21
She advised that the Mayor of Fridley is asking neighboring communities to support the 22
foundation in achieving a State grant by submitting a resolution of support. The Springbrook 23
Nature Center is now making a request for a $2.5 million matching State grant. The Springbrook 24
Nature Center Foundation has initiated a fundraising campaign to complete this matching grant 25
to reach their $5 million goal for capital improvements at Springbrook Nature Center. 26
27
Mayor Marty noted this does not cost Mounds View anything and has been a hard fought fight by 28
area residents. He stated Mounds View residents have also supported it with signs in their lawns. 29
30
MOTION/SECOND. Marty/Thomas. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6606 31
Supporting the Improvements to Springbrook Nature Center Associated with the SPRING 32
(Sanctuary Protection & Renewal into the Next Generation) Project and Supporting the Request 33
to the State of Minnesota for Financial Assistance. 34
35
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 36
37
M. Resolution 6585 Approving a Severance Package for Regular Full-time Golf 38
Course Employees 39
40
City Administrator Ulrich reviewed that this item was previously reviewed by the City Council at 41
the July 5th work session and the August 8th regular session. He stated a question was asked 42
about the flex time balances. He noted the severance provision proposed and sick leave, as 43
outlined in the severance policy, that flex time be allowed to play itself out for each employee 44
and that be their termination date so they will be able to use the flex time. He also propose a 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 35
severance benefit of one weeks pay for each year of service for the three employees involved, 1
which is standard severance for full time employees. He stated the most-cost case for each 2
employee, which will probably not be the case, would work out to $54,000. He noted that 3
amount was in the Medtronic performa. 4
5
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Marty. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6585 Approving 6
A Severance Package For Regular Full-Time Golf Course Employees. 7
8
City Attorney Riggs suggested adding the following: 9
10
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that severance benefits only occur if the Bridges closes in 2005. 11
12
The Council agreed to make this revision. 13
14
MOTION/ Stigney. To amend Resolution 6585 to indicate: “flex time payout would be 15
concurrent with the date of closing and done in cash.” 16
17
Motion died for lack of a second. 18
19
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 20
21
N. Resolution 6608 Approving the Sufficiency of Petition in Opposition 22
Ordinance 760 (Ordinance Authorizing Disposal by Sale of Real Property 23
Owned by the City of Mounds View to the Mounds View Economic 24
Development Authority) 25
26
City Administrator Ulrich advised that staff received a petition on Monday, August 15, 2005, 27
against Ordinance 760, authorizing disposal of the Bridges. He stated the Council adopted 28
Ordinance 760, which will be effective August 19, 2005. He advised that the petition names 29
were put in a data base to determine eligible signatures. Staff also checked each signature on the 30
Ramsey County Registered Voter Master List, which contains all registered voters in Mounds 31
View. Staff then checked all determined Non-Registered voters on the Minnesota Statewide 32
Voter Registration System. He stated there were some issues with legibility and three people 33
looked at those signatures to determine how they fit into the eligibility list. 34
35
City Administrator Ulrich reported that 12 signatures could not be determined due to legibility 36
issues for both the signature and printed name. The petition contained 1,193 signatures, 17 were 37
determined invalid because residence could not be determined, 214 signatures were non-38
registered voters, and 34 signatures were duplicates. The total number of registered voter 39
signatures is 945. City Administrator Ulrich advised the petition needed 989 signatures to 40
receive a ruling of sufficiency in accordance with Section 5.03 of the City Charter. The Charter 41
requires the number of signers be at least 15% for initiative and referendum and for recall, at 42
least 25% of the total number of electors who cast their votes for president at the last presidential 43
election. The last presidential election was in 2004 and 6,597 residents cast their vote. 44
City Administrator Ulrich advised that the City Attorney brought up an argument any person 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 36
eligible to vote may be a valid signer of the petition and not need to be registered. However, the 1
City’s Charter specifically says “registered voter.” Such validation would require additional 2
review and each of the 214 apparent non-registered voters would have to be determined eligible 3
to vote. 4
5
City Administrator Ulrich read the rules for eligibility for voting and stated the City Attorney 6
also issued an opinion dated August 11 that transfer of land as proposed is an administrative 7
function and, therefore, not subject to a petition for referendum. The recommendation is that 8
Council consider and adopt the second version of Resolution 6608 determining sufficiency of 9
referendum petition pursuant to City Charter; finding the referendum question invalid; and 10
declaring that such question shall not be certified for a special election. He stated it indicates that 11
the petition committee would be notified of the insufficiencies of the petition and that the 12
Council would move forward based on this recommendation. 13
14
City Administrator Ulrich stated it is also recommended that following this action, Council adopt 15
Resolution 6581 providing for the transfer of land by resolution. 16
17
City Attorney Riggs explained that subsequent to conversation with City Administrator Ulrich 18
when he was preparing the memorandum, he did further review of the question of registered 19
voters versus eligible voters. He advised that case law in Minnesota is not directly on point but 20
other jurisdictions are on point where it is a requirement of using the actual term “registered 21
voter” at the time the petition is signed. Minnesota case law can be read consistent with that and 22
appears to be the logical reading. He stated he has been in discussion with a number of people to 23
review this issue and that is why the second version of the resolution is being recommended for 24
adoption. 25
26
Mayor Marty asked if the committee is notified if the petition is insufficient and given a period of 27
time to correct the insufficiency. City Attorney Riggs stated that is correct and a period of 30 28
days is allowed. He pointed out that it does not call into question the validity of the question but 29
would go to the question of the validity of the petition. 30
31
Councilmember Gunn suggested, for the aid of the audience members, that City Charter section 32
5.02 be read. The Council agreed so Councilmember Gunn read that section aloud. 33
34
Councilmember Stigney stated it has always been his view and indicated in past legal discussions 35
that the Charter can go beyond what is in State Statute. 36
37
City Attorney Riggs stated in some cases it certainly can but in this situation, with the case law 38
that Minnesota has, the only thing close to interpreting that is what City Administrator Ulrich 39
was discussing. He advised that the Charter clearly says “registered voter.” As the Charter is 40
written, that is consistent with what other States have done where they have had to look 41
specifically at that term “registered voter.” Based on the interpretation for the one specific case 42
in Minnesota, they gave effect to a different term and said it wasn’t a registered voter so that 43
wasn’t required. However, our case is very different because the Charter specifically says 44
“registered voter.” 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 37
1
Councilmember Thomas noted the most recent resolution is not about “registered voters” and 2
addresses that this is not a referendum issue. 3
4
City Administrator Ulrich clarified that the most recent resolution finds the referendum question 5
invalid and the petition itself would be disposed of according to the provisions of the Charter, 6
which has the Council reporting back to the petition committee of the insufficiencies of the 7
petition. 8
9
City Attorney Riggs stated that is correct. 10
11
Mayor Marty noted the most recent resolution says the referendum question is not valid and 12
would not certify the question for election. He asked when the most recent resolution was 13
deemed listed as invalid. City Attorney Riggs stated that has not changed since August 11. He 14
stated this has been reviewed for many hours today, is a minor revision to the resolution 15
contained in the meeting packet, and returns the petition to the committee for action. 16
17
Councilmember Flaherty stated it returns the petition back to the committee for 30 days. City 18
Attorney Riggs answered in the affirmative. 19
20
Councilmember Thomas stated it gives it back to them but here is no chance of action because 21
the referendum question is not valid. City Attorney Riggs stated that is correct. 22
23
Barbara Haake, 3024 County Road I, asked if the City Charter supersedes the State law related to 24
“registered” or “non-registered” voters. She stated that the Charter states “registered voters” but 25
there is some State law that indicates it could be “non-registered” as long as they are eligible and 26
can vote on election day. 27
28
City Attorney Riggs corrected that there is no State law, there is a case that deals with another 29
Charter that uses a very different term. 30
31
Ms. Haake stated there is a case out there that could be quoted and say someone eligible to vote 32
would be accepted. 33
34
City Attorney Riggs stated that is correct in that case, but they were not calling it a registered 35
voters. 36
37
Ms. Haake stated that if the Charter says “registered voters” and is tighter than even the Supreme 38
Court decision, then why wouldn’t it apply also under 12.05 that an ordinance has to be instituted 39
to sell public land. 40
41
City Attorney Riggs stated the case does not say it supercedes. He is saying it has not been 42
addressed and when the Court interpreted that term that existed, they said that isn’t a “registered 43
voter.” However the Charter clearly says “registered voter.” He explained different scenarios 44
where the Charter supercedes and explained that the Charter is only as good as the Legislature 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 38
allows it as well as courts interpret it. 1
2
Ms. Haake stated she understands interpretations can be different and strongly urged the Council 3
to allow a referendum to go ahead. She stated they operated in good faith as to what the Charter 4
said and regulation and law. She suggested the Council represents the citizens and they made a 5
good faith effort to follow the Charter. Ms. Haake stated she even offered to look at the names 6
staff felt were illegible because she collected many of them. She stated she thinks Medtronic will 7
not appreciate the adverse publicity that may be coming because they want to be good neighbors. 8
She noted the petition only asked for the right to vote and is not against anything. Ms. Haake 9
that while she cares about the details, many people have stated they just want Medtronic and 10
don’t really care about the details so the vote may come to naught in November. 11
12
Ms. Haake noted the City still has to do a PUD by ordinance and this could start all over again 13
but having a vote in November would get to the bottom line. She appealed to the Council that it 14
is important to them. Ms. Haake stated that City Attorney Riggs also recommended that 15
Medtronic might sue but she does not think they want that kind of “black mark” against them 16
because it is a David and Goliath issue and she wants “little David to have a chance to make a 17
vote.” 18
19
City Attorney Riggs corrected that he did not recommend that Medtronic sue but indicated it was 20
an option as with any other tax payer. As to the PUD issue, he explained that case cited from 21
1968 be shepardized because the State Legislature adopted the Municipal Land Planning Act in 22
the 1970’s which changed the law substantially and that is what the newer case interprets. 23
24
Ken Glidden, 5240 Edgewood Drive, stated the Council is talking about ways to circumvent the 25
Charter, which is an open vote. He stated that each resident could say it is a good deal for the 26
City or it is not. He asked why the City Attorney, who is a City employee, is spending time 27
searching case law to circumvent that from happening. Mr. Glidden asked what they are doing 28
and if they are afraid of a no vote. He pointed out that the vote could just as likely be a yes. He 29
stated the citizens of this City are asking for an opportunity to vote, want to understand the deal, 30
weigh it, and vote. He stated that is all they are looking for. He stated that staff may find a case 31
law to circumvent that, but what would that do. He urged the Council to let the residents of 32
Mounds View vote. 33
34
Mr. Glidden stated he understands the committee gets the opportunity to correct the insufficiency 35
and he would welcome the opportunity to do that. 36
37
Councilmember Gunn stated a lot of people are talking about complying with the Charter and 38
that is why she read this section aloud. It states that the signatures must be registered voters and 39
even with taking out only the duplicates and invalids, the number is down to 979 valid 40
signatures. She stated the recommended action follows the City Charter. 41
42
Mr. McCarty stated they are not arguing that the petition is sufficient or unregistered voters are 43
not qualified to sign the petition because the Charter is very clear on that issue. He stated that 30 44
years ago he called two of his friends and asked if they would help him circulate a petition to 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 39
have a Charter Commission appointed. He stated that petition resulted in creating the Charter 1
Commission under the guidance of then Judge Rolland Hashee who was Chief Judge at the time. 2
He stated that 15 people came forward and they worked hard, along with the League of 3
Minnesota Cities, and many others, and adopted the Charter on December 7, 1979. Since that 4
time, the Charter has served the City very well. He stated he understands, if challenged, perhaps 5
they wouldn’t win but that would only delay it until the zoning code change. 6
7
Mr. McCarty stated he disagrees with the City Attorney’s opinion that a Supreme Court decision 8
would have been preempted by a lower court or any case law. He stated his concern about the 9
matter of selling land as being an administrative action. He asked if the installation of utilities is 10
an administrative action, noting they probably are since they are not a police or legislative action. 11
He stated the Council can order a storm water project and the Charter says citizens have a right to 12
petition against it. For 30 years the Council has honored those petitions and it’s been to the 13
City’s advantage because it has brought them all to the table and a compromise was found. He 14
stated that regardless of the legal issues, the Charter gives them a point to jump off and find some 15
common ground. 16
17
Mr. McCarty stated if the Council wants to “gut the Charter,” this is the way to do it. He stated 18
the committee does not have money to fight this in court but he would lead a charge to raise the 19
money and go to court if denied the right to petition about an ordinance change. He stated he 20
thinks the Council, if they like a compromise position, has the option in the Charter to call an 21
advisory election. Then the question will be settled once and for all. 22
23
Mr. McCarty asked whether the 400 people contacted by Decision Resources are the leading 24
indicator, or were the 1,200 people contacted by the petition committee. He stated that will not 25
be known unless it is opened to a referendum vote. He stated that all Councilmembers said give 26
us your ideas and let us know what you think. With the community center, it was settled with the 27
advisory election. He asked for the opportunity to debate the facts and then go to the polls and 28
get it over with. 29
30
Dan Hall, 2200 Highway 10, stated he thinks that Mr. McCarty has confused the issues because 31
as Councilmember Gunn read the Charter it is clear, black and white. But, Mr. McCarty is 32
saying that if you now follow the Charter it wrecks the Charter. Mr. Hall stated he is sorry to 33
hear that the City Attorney, who is paid a tremendous amount of money, has been wrong all 34
along, that Ehlers who has been paid $40,000 by the City is wrong, and the Council is wrong. He 35
stated that the group against the selling of the golf course to Medtronic is so vehement that they 36
will stop at nothing. Mr. Hall stated the Council has done their job for the City, done extensive 37
study and research, followed the laws, and it is spelled out that you cannot form a petition against 38
it. In addition, the petition is not sufficient and still Mr. McCarty threatens to sue the City to get 39
enough money to block the PUD. 40
41
Mr. Hall stated this is not a conservative group looking out for what is best for City; they now 42
have a driven agenda. He stated he does not know what their goal is but they have spent money 43
to do it. He asked if they block Medtronic, what do they want, to bankrupt Mounds View. Mr. 44
Hall stated the Council has done their work and the majority has voted on everything in the right 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 40
way. If the Council does not continue to follow the rules, they will become party to the 1
bankrupting of Mounds View. 2
3
Councilmember Gunn asked what is the difference between resolution (2) and the most recent 4
one. City Attorney Gunn answered that the title is clarified but the rest is fairly consistent. 5
6
Jan Brink, 7800 Gloria, stated she will speak loudly because some cannot understand what they 7
are saying. She stated they oppose the proposed contract by Medtronic because of what they are 8
willing to pay and that TIF is not in the best interest of Mounds View. They feel there can be a 9
better deal for Mounds View. Ms. Brink asked for the integrity of the Council to let the citizens 10
vote. 11
12
Ken Danmeyer, 2812 Sherwood, asked who determined that the 200 signatures were not 13
registered voters. He stated he knows that the 30 signatures he got were registered voters. City 14
Administrator Ulrich stated he is charged with making that determination and has detailed notes 15
on which signatures are not valid. 16
17
Mr. Danmeyer asked how that can be challenged. City Administrator Ulrich stated there is a 30-18
day window to challenge the determination. 19
20
Mr. Danmeyer asked if only City Administrator Ulrich did the work. City Administrator Ulrich 21
explained that three staff members worked on it under his supervision. Mr. Danmeyer suggested 22
that City Administrator Ulrich didn’t do the work but signed it. 23
24
Councilmember Thomas cautioned Mr. Danmeyer on his statements about staff and said she 25
knows that City Administrator Ulrich did work on that project. 26
27
Mr. Danmeyer stated that it is the right thing to let this go to a referendum. He stated they could 28
go on and on but he doesn’t want to go down that road. He stated that 1,200 people signed the 29
petition on some hot days and it was not a massive effort, about 30 people collecting signatures. 30
He stated he only got turned down four times and was able to convince many people it was the 31
thing to do. He stated if there is merit to this deal, it can be debated fully and put to a vote, 32
which gets the Council off the hook. He stated he does not accept that the Council has the kind 33
of power to put the City on the hook for 25 years. 34
35
Councilmember Flaherty stated as far as the Council having the power, they were put into these 36
seats by all the residents and the petition is only 15% of the residents. He pointed out that the 37
other 85% of the residents who either did not sign the petition or were not contacted. He noted 38
that the phone survey clearly stated it but the petition committee was not satisfied with that so 39
they decided to bank it on the Charter. However, the question is not valid and there are not 40
enough signatures. 41
42
Stan Meyer stated that a phone survey “doesn’t mean squat” and is completely worthless. 43
44
Councilmember Flaherty asked why the petition is any better. 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 41
1
Mayor Marty stated he does not want that line of discussion to continue. He stated that he knows 2
City Administrator Ulrich and his staff worked very hard on certifying the signatures and if one 3
person couldn’t read it the signature was viewed by others and cross referenced through 4
addresses and utility billing. 5
6
Brian Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, stated he supports a City wide referendum, whether 7
advisory or actual referendum, Primarily because it answers the question by the entire community 8
and is not on the backs of five people. The referendum will say if the City, all residents, really 9
favor this deal. He suggested that case law is very specific to the case and cannot be applied 10
generally to any other case of other situations. Mr. Amundsen noted this came up with the 11
placement of the Ten Commandments; the cases appeared to be the same but came to two 12
different conclusions. 13
14
Mr. Amundsen asked whether, in fact, the ordinance has a legislative component since the 15
ordinance includes both the sale of property as well as approval of TIF Districts, establishment of 16
a taxing mechanism and taxing deferment, which was approved by legislative action by the 17
Legislature. He stated that sufficiency is a measure of the number of registered voters and clearly 18
there appears to not be a sufficient number. That is why there are additional steps allowed to 19
citizens in order to proceed. He stated that is how it should proceed, at this point, for the Clerk 20
Administrator to notify the Council and petition committee of the insufficiency and for the 21
committee to take action. He stated his opinion that the Council should take no action. He stated 22
the Charter Commission is currently working on Chapter 5 to provide additional clarity. 23
24
Mr. McCarty stated assuming that the petition were to be valid and the Council agrees, there is an 25
opportunity to correct the deficiency. He agreed that no decision should be made on the number 26
of qualified voters that would bring this petition in as sufficient. Mr. McCarty stated that it 27
should be decided by all residents after full debate and the opportunity for Medtronic to put their 28
position forward. He stated he thinks as many voters will appear at the polls as appeared at the 29
last general election. Mr. McCarty urged the Council to not “gut the Charter” and stated he can 30
accept stepping back to an advisory referendum to assure the details are worked out. 31
32
Jan Brink asked about the phone survey. Mayor Marty stated it was a City-wide telephone 33
survey and 400 people were involved. He stated that she can get a copy of the survey if she’d 34
like. 35
36
Ms. Brink asked if the respondents were certified registered voters. 37
38
Councilmember Flaherty explained the survey was just one of the many tools that were used in 39
the Council’s decision making process. Other tools included talking with Ehlers, discussion with 40
staff, and several meetings held to accept public input, which was the most important. 41
42
Ms. Brink stated she is concerned their opinion is more important to the Council than those who 43
signed the petition. 44
45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 42
An audience member stated he thinks this is a “David and Goliath” situation and Mounds View 1
is David. He stated that Mounds View got snuckered by Medtronic and asked who did the 2
negotiations. He asked why this was not open to a competitive marketplace sale and why one 3
entity was allowed to come in and also triple the average TIF District life by throwing money at 4
the school district and paying for some fireworks. He stated it is a competitive marketplace but 5
he knows there are some golf course haters who want to get rid of it no matter what. 6
7
An audience member asked about the streets and when something will be done. He stated he is a 8
believer in the Council and Mayor doing their jobs but the Charter has given the opportunity and 9
if the Charter made a mistake the matter should be turned over to the voters and let them make 10
the decision. He stated Medtronic is a great company but he thinks they took advantage of 11
Mounds View. He urged the Mayor and Council to go into the neighborhoods and tell their 12
constituents about the terms of the contract. He stated he would prefer Medtronic to the golf 13
course but wants it done right and falling over for the first offer doesn’t get it. 14
15
Joan Dofney, 7801 Gloria Circle, stated it is a great project and will cost a lot of money. She 16
stated she went out to get signatures on the petition and found it was an easy job. She stated she 17
was blown away by the number of people willing to sign and does not think there is anything to 18
fear to let people vote. She felt if the City could get more money from Medtronic for the City 19
that would be great, noting that Medtronic has a lot of money. Ms. Dofney stated if they get to 20
vote, a lot of people will come to the voting booth. 21
22
Mary Kay Walsh stated if they get 30 days to remedy the petition they will do that. She thinks it 23
is valid to have a petition because the Charter says they can have a referendum on the sale of 24
land. She stated if they need more names, they will get them and asked for the opportunity to get 25
those names in the next 30 days. 26
27
MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Gunn. To adopt Resolution 6608 Determining the Sufficiency of 28
Referendum Petition Pursuant to City Charter; Finding the Referendum Question Invalid; and 29
Declaring that Such Question Shall Not be Certified for a Special Election. 30
31
Councilmember Stigney read the resolution in full. 32
33
Councilmember Flaherty asked the City Attorney whether the passing of the resolution allows the 34
petition committee to rectify the petition. City Attorney Riggs responded that they can do so to 35
make the petition sufficient but that does not mean the petition is valid based his legal opinion 36
dated August 11, 2005. Councilmember Flaherty asked if they still have recourse. City Attorney 37
Riggs stated they do have that option under the Charter provision. 38
39
Councilmember Thomas stated she does not want to offer false hope because there is no 40
recourse. She stated this is a deliberate action that she has agonized more over than the actual 41
sale itself. She stated she does not have to worry about the sale, she made that decision. The 42
difference of opinion is whether the City got the best deal and she does feel they got a fabulous 43
deal and the best one this Council could negotiate. 44
45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 43
Councilmember Thomas stated she is a member of the Charter Commission, knows every word 1
of Chapter 5 intimately, and worked untold hours on the language to try to correct the errors that 2
she and Mr. McCarty know are weak spots that 30 years ago no one could have envisioned. She 3
stated that in another 30 years there may be problems that today the Charter Commission cannot 4
possibly envision in how it is worded. Councilmember Thomas explained that it comes down to 5
all those extra things and taken aside, it is not about “is it a good deal.” Two hundred some 6
petitioners are not registered but she has every faith they could come up with more than enough 7
signatures given the opportunity. 8
9
Councilmember Thomas stated she has to decide that whether defending the Charter, which she 10
works on every month to be the best representation and uphold the rights of the citizens to act in 11
their government, is this the place that they can and/or should act. And, regardless of what we 12
would like to give as a power to residents, some powers are taken away by the State. She stated 13
she knew it would start to become a problem and had coffee with Brian Amundsen for three 14
hours. She explained that Mr. Amundsen sits on the Charter Commission with her and both 15
knew of the weakness in the Charter and whether or not this would be eligible for a referendum. 16
Chapter 5 does not have that language and does not address the problem of an administrative 17
action versus a legislative one. 18
19
Councilmember Thomas stated the Council has the City Attorney’s legal opinion. She asked 20
what if the situation were reversed and the City had property they wanted to purchase; would the 21
City go through all of this. She stated the City does not. The Council does it on a regular basis 22
and despite all the arguments about what is the proper property to purchase, whatever the 23
dealings of the City, we know it is an administrative action done by this body with all deliberate 24
care and thought put in to it. However, it is the Council’s responsibility to make that choice. 25
Councilmember Thomas stated she cannot get away from the fact that regardless of the 26
extraneous details that go around it, this is the sale of a property. It is the City’s responsibility to 27
make the best judgment it can and it’s a fully administrative action. She stated that she cannot 28
come to any other conclusion. 29
30
Councilmember Thomas stated for the record that an RFP is not the standard way for a city to 31
ever sell property. Especially if they want to have any choice in the development which is 32
Mounds View’s goal, to get the best development they can get. 33
34
Councilmember Thomas stated she was not 100% sure that she had made up her mind until 35
listening to this discussion. She stated she thinks referendums are allowed but in this case does 36
not think it is allowed. 37
38
Councilmember Flaherty stated the reason he asked the attorney if there is recourse on the 39
petition is because he said he was all in favor of petition and it was a mechanism for citizens to 40
use. He stated he previously indicated that he would not stop the petition based on a legality. He 41
stated he disagrees with the petition because it was based on misinformation, and people who 42
signed were not given all the information. However, he stands by his conviction and will do 43
what he said he would do. 44
45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 44
Councilmember Thomas stated she thinks Ken Danmeyer’s comments deserve to be addressed 1
specifically. She stated no one is trying to circumvent the process, noting there were other 2
options to circumvent the process but the Council has not taken those options. She stated that 3
she felt Ken Danmeyer’s comments had to be answered and clarified that it is not the City 4
Attorney’s job to find ways for the Council to circumvent the process. The City Attorney’s job is 5
to give the Council as much information as is available and on all sides. She noted the Council 6
could have circumvented the process with a resolution but she was clear with staff that this issue 7
had to be addressed by this Council and not through a resolution, which they could have done. 8
9
Mayor Marty stated that unlike other members, he does not think this is a fabulous deal but it is a 10
deal and on paper. He stated he does not think it is the best deal that Mounds View could have 11
gotten and that Mounds View could have negotiated harder for a shorter time period and more 12
money. Then it would have been more workable. He stated the biggest complaint is the amount 13
of time, the 25 year TIF District. Mayor Marty stated he has heard about that over and over 14
because many residents will never see the benefit of it. He noted that staff and consultants have 15
said it will pay off sooner but he will believe it when he sees it. With regard to the petition 16
process, Mayor Marty stated the sale of the property, getting MnDOT to remove the restrictions, 17
and the testimony at the Capitol may not be called “administration” and he believes it was 18
legislation and involves a legislative act. He noted the Charter says the sale of City property is 19
to be done by ordinance. 20
21
Mayor Marty reviewed that last spring citizens used the Charter to circulate a petition to stop a 22
street development project for this year. He stated this Council unanimously deemed the petition 23
valid. He asked if that is legislative or administrative. 24
25
City Attorney Riggs advised it is legislative and under a different statute. 26
27
Mayor Marty stated he has been supportive of the referendum for a long time and approached by 28
several developers personally indicating they were interested in the golf course property but 29
Medtronic got the inside track and then held the only track in the race. He stated he did feel this 30
should have gone to a referendum, is disappointed, and feels this is a loss to citizens. 31
32
Councilmember Stigney thanked Councilmember Thomas for the way she stated her opinions on 33
the issues she has been wrestling with on this issue. With regard to the Charter, Councilmember 34
Stigney stated he has been a member for 8 years, firmly believes in the City Charter, and watches 35
every meeting. He stated he discusses Charter issues with Mr. Werner, a founding father of the 36
City Charter, as is Duane McCarty. He stated there are problems in the Charter, as Mr. McCarty 37
knows. 38
39
Councilmember Stigney pointed out that the City Attorney issued an early opinion that you 40
cannot petition against the sale. He noted there are other problems with the Charter such as with 41
recall and term limits. He stated that he is supportive of giving residents rights but there are 42
problems with the Charter. With respect to whether the City could get a better deal, maybe but 43
maybe not. He stated he couldn’t disagree more with those who talk about land values being 44
somewhere else because it has nothing to do with the action the Council is considering. 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 45
1
Councilmember Stigney noted that getting $5 million cash could add $250,000 a year for the next 2
20 years to offset the tax base. At that point the Medtronic’s project will be over and then it will 3
bring in $1 million a year. He stated as much as he respects the attempt to oppose, he thinks they 4
are all on the “wrong page” and no one has convinced him to the contrary. He stated he asks 5
what could be better but no one has an answer to that so he is a Councilmember who is proud to 6
vote for it. 7
8
Ayes-4 Nay-1 ( Marty) Motion carried. 9
10
Councilmember Gunn read into the record the e-mail statement submitted by John Murphy, 11
resident of Mounds View. 12
13
(1) Resolution 6581 City of Mounds View Resolution Authorizing Sale of 14
City of Mounds View Property to the Mounds View Economic 15
Development Authority 16
17
Community Development Director Ericson stated the City Attorney recommends that action be 18
taken on this item. 19
20
Mr. McCarty stated when we first began discussion about getting a better exchange of ideas, they 21
went on the long-standing precedent that they were honored by the Council and sought out 22
guidance from staff to assure the petition was in the correct form. He noted Ordinance 760 23
references the validity of Chapter 12.05 of the City Charter and was adopted and put in place 24
accordingly. He stated there are many reasons and precedents we could consider. Mr. McCarty 25
asked those who do not want this to go to the voters, what strikes fear in their heart to have 26
residents vote on this issue. He asked if we are so full of ourselves that we don’t want them to 27
vote. He again asked what is the fear to let residents vote 28
29
Councilmember Flaherty stated it does not “strike fear in him” and he has said all along he has 30
no problem with the petition if that is what the people want to do, they should be able to do that. 31
He noted the Council just voted on the sufficiency because there were not enough signatures and 32
the question is invalid. He stated he asked the City Attorney if there was recourse and the answer 33
was yes, there is recourse. He stated he is not afraid of the resident’s vote. 34
35
Mr. McCarty stated there is no recourse other than going to court. 36
37
City Attorney Riggs stated they have the ability to challenge, go to court, or come up with a 38
different opinion. He stated there are other ways to approach this and he is sure they have 39
explored those options. 40
41
Mr. McCarty stated the only recourse is to go to court and it is unseemly to him that they would 42
have to go to court and fight their own money with their own money. He stated the Council can 43
embrace the democratic process by an advisory election and not endanger the City’s position. He 44
stated that to just throw out a document that has been rallied around for years is just not right and 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 46
in his opinion the Council’s action just “gutted the Charter.” 1
2
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated the City has adopted ordinances from time 3
to time when certain property has been conveyed from the City to the EDA. The City Attorney’s 4
August 11, 2005 letter indicates that State law allows the City to convey property without regard 5
to City Charter provisions. Minnesota State Statute 471.64 authorizes the City to enter into a 6
contract for the sale of real property to another political subdivision without regard to Charter 7
provisions. Although the City Council complied with the Charter and adopted an ordinance 8
authorizing the conveyance, the Statute provides authority for the Council to adopt a resolution 9
authorizing staff to finalize conveyance of the property to the EDA. Staff recommends the 10
Council adopt the draft resolution which would convey the property known as the Bridges Golf 11
Course to the Mounds View EDA. 12
13
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Stigney. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6581 14
Authorizing Sale of City of Mounds View Property to the Mounds View Economic Development 15
Authority 16
17
Mayor Marty stated his belief that taking this action is a blatant way to circumvent the Charter 18
since the sale of land is to be done by ordinance. However, to pass a resolution conveying this 19
property seems like over-kill or like someone is worried about this stopping and wanting to make 20
sure residents don’t have the opportunity to vote. 21
22
Councilmember Gunn stated the EDA has handled all the land buying and selling and it has not 23
been done through the Council. She stated this is no different. 24
25
Councilmember Thomas stated she was firmly against doing this by resolution because it needed 26
to be done by ordinance. Now the Council has done it by ordinance so it is not circumventing 27
anything. She stated this vote is the hardest thing she has ever had to do in her life. She stated 28
she was very firm in conversations with staff that until that stand was made, this was off the 29
table. Now this is a matter of paperwork, involves no change, or change in the process. She 30
noted there have been discussions and the public has been dealt with in a way that was 31
honorable. Councilmember Thomas reiterated that this is just paperwork. 32
33
Mayor Marty stated he begs to differ with the opinion that this is just paperwork. He noted it was 34
petitioned and deemed invalid but why duplicate the process with a resolution just to ensure that 35
all the bases are covered. He stated that seems to him to be over kill. 36
37
Councilmember Thomas stated it probably is and she does not know that it will serve any more 38
benefit than action already taken but it is staff’s recommendation so she will support it. 39
40
Councilmember Stigney stated he agrees with Councilmember Thomas and does not want to 41
leave any loopholes open that may delay this development. 42
43
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Marty) Motion carried. 44
45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 47
Ms. Haake stated that a Councilmember remarked earlier it was known that an ordinance wasn’t 1
the right thing. She asked why it was even allowed and for them to follow it through with what 2
they thought was the City Charter. 3
4
Councilmember Thomas stated that she knew this might be a problem because she was familiar 5
with this issue, with some of the administrative questions, so she knew this issue was going to 6
come up. However, she did not know what the Council was going to decide, what the City 7
Attorney was going to come down to, or what the final decision will come down to. 8
9
Ms. Haake asked City Attorney Riggs why he did not advise the Council earlier about this issue. 10
City Attorney Riggs stated he did so on July 11. 11
12
Ms. Haake asked why he didn’t then inform all the citizens so they didn’t go to all the effort. 13
City Attorney Riggs stated it was a preliminary opinion and was moot depending on the petition. 14
He stated that when the petition came out he said immediately that the question was an issue. In 15
addition relative to the PUD, he also cited a case and suggested they check that case. However, 16
Ms. Haake referred to a different case that existed before the Legislature adopted the Municipal 17
Land Planning Act and Chapter 462. 18
19
Ms. Haake stated she believes there was a disservice made to the citizens because something was 20
not definitely said. She said she really appreciates the petition circulators and the Council should 21
too. She stated it is everyone’s first amendment right to vote on something and she is sorry the 22
Council did not let them carry through with it. She stated the PUD is to be a zoning code 23
ordinance so it will come around to be another ordinance. 24
25
Ms. Haake stated she will not spend money on court cases but will spend shoe leather. She 26
stated she wants to be sure we do have the right to vote and believes the City could get a better 27
price on the land and that the TIF District didn’t have to be 25 years. However, that’s opinion 28
and she appreciates where the Council is coming from. 29
30
Councilmember Stigney stated the TIF district with Medtronic is for 25 years and that seems to 31
be a big problem. However, every TIF District in Mounds View is a 25 year TIF district. 32
33
O. Resolution 6609 Approving the Hire of Heidi Heller to the Position of 34
Planning Associate in the Community Development Department 35
36
Community Development Director Ericson reviewed that on June 13, 2005, the City Council 37
authorized staff to advertise for the vacant planning associate position in the Community 38
Development Department. Staff received almost 50 applications, interviewed five candidates, 39
and made an offer of employment to Heidi Heller contingent upon Council approval and 40
satisfactory background checks. Ms. Heller would start at Step 1, which is $36,982 and begin 41
employment on August 29, 2005, pending satisfactory background check. 42
43
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Flaherty. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6609 44
Approving the Hire of Heidi Heller to the Position of Planning Associate in the Community 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 48
Development Department. 1
2
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 3
4
P. Resolution 6610 Authorization to Advertise for the Cable Tech Position 5
6
MOTION/SECOND. Marty/Flaherty. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6610 7
Authorization to Advertise for the Cable Tech Position. 8
9
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 10
11
7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 12
13
Mayor Marty referenced the last page, Kennedy & Graven, tracking of reimbursements from 14
outside parties, noting the Waldock Minor Subdivision and Meyer/HolmBurg Minor Subdivision 15
can be removed because they are paid off. He asked Director Ericson to call Ernie Gustafson for 16
the remaining $27 so it can also be closed. 17
18
Director Ericson stated if so directed he will make that telephone call, however, he does not think 19
Mr. Gustafson will be cooperative in making payment and recommended that amount be written 20
off. 21
22
Council consensus was reached to direct staff to write off the $27. 23
24
Councilmember Stigney noted the charge of $90.53 on Page 8 for freeway towing and asked if 25
the City will get reimbursed for that amount. Police Chief Sommer stated he does not have an 26
answer on that reimbursement but will find out. 27
28
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Gunn. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as Presented. 29
30
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 31
32
9. CONSENT AGENDA 33
34
A. Resolution 6602 Adopting the Countywide Emergency Operations Plan 35
B. Resolution 6607 Resolution Approving a Restaurant License for Caribou 36
Coffee located at 2585 Highway 10 37
C. Resolution 6611 Approving an Agreement with Ms. Susan Huston to Provide 38
Interim Cable Coordinator Services 39
D. Resolution 6603 Authorizing the Renewal of a Training Contract with 40
Century College 41
E. Resolution 6612 Approving a Tobacco and a Restaurant License for City 42
Tavern located at 2400 Highway 10 in Mounds View This item was removed. 43
F. Executive Session immediately following this City Council meeting: 44
1. To Discuss Threatened Lawsuit and Demand Letter of Innovative Images 45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 49
Dated August 8, 2005 This item was removed for a separate vote. 1
2. To Discuss the City Administrator’s Annual Performance Review This 2
item was removed. 3
4
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Flaherty. To Approve the Consent Agenda as presented. 5
6
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 7
8
F. Executive Session immediately following this City Council meeting: 9
1. To Discuss Threatened Lawsuit and Demand Letter of Innovative Images 10
Dated August 8, 2005 11
12
City Attorney Riggs acknowledged that Mr. Robert Alsop discussed this matter as Agenda Item 13
8J and set forth reasons for the understanding to deal with this matter in a closed session in 14
response to a litigation matter. 15
16
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Stigney. To Approve Holding an Executive Session immediately 17
following this City Council meeting to discuss Threatened Lawsuit and Demand Letter of 18
Innovative Images dated August 8, 2005. 19
20
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 21
22
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 23
24
A. July 11, 2005 City Council Meeting Minutes 25
26
The following corrections were requested: 27
28
• Page 2, Line 13, should read: “wondering if perhaps the value statement, in its entirety, has 29
been set aside in our” 30
• Page 3, Line 23, should read: “Councilmember Thomas explained that the City did not set a 31
precedent. This is how a City” 32
• Page 11, Line 1, should read: “better deal than what was discussed in New Brighton.” 33
34
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Thomas. To Approve the July 11, 2005 Special City Council 35
Meeting Minutes as amended. 36
37
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 38
39
11. REPORTS 40
41
A. Reports of Mayor and Council 42
43
Council Member Gunn stated she will report on the Festival in the Park at the next meeting. 44
45
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 50
B. Staff 1
2
Director Ericson advised that the third installment of the New Brighton Area Historical Society 3
book is available for purchase at the New Brighton City Hall and the Historical Society. He 4
stated it also contains a lot of interesting information and pictures about Mounds View. 5
6
Councilmember Thomas asked when the first meetings will be held at the Community Center. 7
City Administrator Ulrich stated it will be the first meeting in October. Councilmember Thomas 8
asked that the Commissions who meet in this chambers also be notified. 9
10
Councilmember Gunn stated she will present the Library Task Force report at the work session. 11
12
1. Police Department 2nd Quarter Report 13
14
Police Chief Sommer presented the 2nd Quarter Report and advised they are partnering with the 15
New Brighton Police Department for the Save and Sober Grant, which is currently under review. 16
17
Councilmember Flaherty referred to a resident letter commending Officer Kampa and stated it is 18
always nice to see that recognition. 19
20
Mayor Marty stated he is still getting calls about speeding vehicles and has been thanked when 21
the radar trailer is in use. He stated he is glad it also checks data and advised that Public Works 22
Director Lee mentioned a speed issue on Mounds View Drive. Mr. Lee would like to see officers 23
make more traffic stops because he believes it is more effective than installing speed limit signs. 24
He asked Police Chief Sommer to pass the Council’s appreciation on to the Police Officers. 25
26
Councilmember Thomas stated she has seen an officer patrolling Highway 10 on three different 27
occasions. 28
29
2. Work Session Agenda for Tuesday, September 6, 2005 30
31
Acknowledged. 32
33
C. Reports of City Attorney 34
35
None. 36
37
12. Next Council Work Session: Tuesday, September 6, 2005 38
Next Council Meeting: Monday, September 12, 2005 39
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 51
1
13. ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION 2
3
The meeting recessed to an Executive Session to discuss and consider a response to the 4
Innovative Images letter of August 8, 2005 at 2:13 a.m. 5
6
Transcribed and recorded by: 7
8
9
Carla Wirth 10
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 11
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3
4
Regular Meeting 5
September 12, 2005 6
Mounds View City Hall 7
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 8
7:19 P.M. 9
10
11
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 12
13
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 14
15
3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, and Thomas 16
17
NOT PRESENT: None. 18
19
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 20
21
A. Monday, September 12, 2005 City Council Agenda 22
23
Community Development Director Ericson noted Consent Agenda Item 9D should also include 24
consideration of the rezoning. 25
26
Mayor Marty removed Item 10B, Approval of August 22, 2005 City Council Meeting minutes. 27
He explained he wants to check the tape for clarification of several items. 28
29
Mayor Marty moved Agenda Item 7, Just and Correct Claims, to be considered after Item 8, 30
Council Business. 31
32
Director Ericson suggested Agenda Item 8H be considered after Agenda Item 8C since both 33
pertain to the Fire Department and Fire Chief Zikmund is in attendance. 34
35
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Thomas. To Approve the Monday, September 12, 2005 agenda as 36
revised. 37
38
Ayes –5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 39
40
5. PUBLIC INPUT 41
42
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, thanked the Council for serving through good and hard 43
times and for their diligence through long meetings. He stated he appreciates their hard work. 44
45
Mounds View City Council September 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
Bill Sherick, 2210 Pinewood Drive, stated he has questions related to the golf course. He stated 1
he was one of the biggest opponents of the golf course when it was proposed to be built, but it 2
was built and now the City wants to get rid of it. He asked how much TIF is involved with the 3
Medtronic project and if there will be any TIF left for the highway corridor. He also asked if 4
Medtronic will use all of the land or whether parcels will be left over that they could sell. 5
6
Community Development Director Ericson explained that the amount of TIF going into the 7
project is 95% of the taxes they would pay. That money will be used by them for reimbursable 8
expenses of the development. It will not impact the work on the highway corridor because the 9
TIF money supporting the Medtronic project is only a portion of what they would be paying in. 10
Director Ericson advised that other projects would be able to be funded adequately. He 11
explained there would be no land left over for Medtronic to sell later. There is no excess land 12
except for the Phase 3 and 4 development area which will be designated for those phases. 13
14
Mr. Sherick asked about the impact to the cost of the land if the Vikings build in Blaine, noting it 15
will never decrease in value. 16
17
Mayor Marty stated that issue was raised before, but is a moot point since the purchase 18
agreement has been signed. 19
20
Mr. Sherick stated there is no chance for residents to get what they really want if there is no vote 21
allowed. He stated if there is nothing to worry about, the vote would pass and that would put a 22
better light on the Council. He stated he finds it strange that somebody doesn’t want residents to 23
vote on the Medtronic project. Mr. Sherick noted the people agreed to put in the billboards to 24
pay fo r the golf course and now the City will have to pay money to get rid of the billboards. He 25
asked where is the planning and foresight. He stated it appears the City is wasting money again 26
and he finds it hard to swallow. He suggested now there is a chance to pay for the golf course 27
but it’s not good enough. 28
29
Councilmember Stigney stated there is a ‘‘chance’’ for the golf course to be profitable only if 30
there is a 3% revenue growth each and every year between now and 2018 and the City retains 31
the billboards at their current value. Then it might break even. He asked why the City should 32
wait for that when they have the opportunity to get money now. 33
34
Mr. Sherick asked how much Mounds View will get from Medtronic per year. 35
36
Councilmember Stigney stated he hopes the City will get about $250,000 a year for the tax base. 37
The City will receive $8.6 million in cash and the Council will decide how it should be spent. He 38
stated he supports putting that money towards the tax base each year to hold the zero tax 39
increase over last year. Rather than hold his breath for 18 years, he supports getting something 40
done now. 41
42
Mr. Sherick stated he wouldn’t hold his breath for a zero tax increase to happen. He noted that 43
Mounds View was ranked 13 out of a hundred some cities i n highest taxes and taxes increased 44
Mounds View City Council September 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
27% last year. He stated that was horrible and he wants to hold the Council’s ‘‘fingers to the 1
fire’’ to get a zero increase to happen. 2
3
Mayor Marty explained that none of the pooled TIF funds the City presently has will go into the 4
Medtronic project. Also, Director Ericson has said that Medtronic will utilize all the project 5
area if they build out to Phase 3. Mayor Marty stated he noticed in the property diagram that 6
there is some property to the east side of the golf course and extended pond that had no 7
development plans. He noted that Medtronic had even stated that area will be maintained as 8
green space. 9
10
Director Ericson stated that is correct but there will be extensive wetland enlargement, wetland 11
mitigation, and wetland banking in that area which will create a wet space that will have no 12
access at this time. Once that occurs, there will be no possibility for development. 13
14
Mr. Sherick stated that City bushes are growing through his cyclone fence. He stated he told the 15
Public Works Department about this situation and asked if he can trim the bushes but has not yet 16
received an answer. 17
18
Public Works Director Lee stated he will look into that matter and respond back to Mr. Sherick. 19
20
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 21
22
None. 23
24
7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 25
26
This item was considered following Agenda Item 8J. 27
28
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 29
30
A. 7:05 p.m.: Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6613 Approving 31
a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an Oversized Garage at 7069 Pleasant 32
View Drive 33
34
Community Development Director Ericson reviewed the Staff report indicating the applicant, 35
Tom Hansen, 7069 Pleasant View Drive, is proposing to construct an oversized garage associated 36
with the new home. This new home, with a footprint of 2,000 square feet, would replace a home 37
that was recently demolished. The proposed garage is 1,082 square feet of which about 140 feet 38
is a designated workshop considered “accessory space”. Anything beyond 952 square feet must 39
go through a conditional use permit application process. 40
41
Director Ericson noted this is a new home on the lot and Staff found the garage width and depth 42
and height comply with Code. If the garage was attached to the house, it would not be counted as 43
“accessory space.” In this case the garage is not attached and contains a workshop so it requires 44
a conditional use permit. 45
Mounds View City Council September 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 4
1
Director Ericson advised that several neighbors contacted Staff with questions and one is 2
concerned about runoff issues which will need to be addressed. He advised that setbacks comply 3
with Code. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval and adoption of the 4
resolution for approval. 5
6
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:39 p.m. 7
8
Don Jenkins, 7057 Pleasant View Drive, stated he is the neighbor who is concerned with the 9
runoff. He asked Mr. Rudy to speak on his behalf. 10
11
Gary Rudy, Creative Real Estate, stated the Jenkins have been in the community for 40 years and 12
are upstanding residents. They are concerned with runoff because the garage footing is at the 13
same elevation as their home. With the frost footing, there will be a 2.5 to 1 slope, which is a 14
steep slope. He stated all the water will run right into the Jenkins house. In addition, people 15
came onto their property and cut their trees. 16
17
Mayor Marty asked if they cut Mr. Jenkins’ trees. Mr. Rudy answered in the affirmative and 18
stated that he is a developer and cannot dump his water onto other’s property. He noted the 19
garage roof will probably not have gutters so every bit of water will run into Mr. Jenkins’ house. 20
21
Councilmember Stigney asked if this issue was raised before the Planning Commission. Mr. 22
Rudy stated it was not because he was not aware of the problem until recently. He asked the City 23
to address Jenkins’ concerns so they are not flooded. 24
25
Councilmember Thomas stated the City certainly wants that issue resolved but it is a separate 26
issue from the item on the agenda, which relates to the size of the garage. 27
28
Director Ericson stated the property owner to the south contacted Staff after the Planning 29
Commission meeting and said there are issues with the footings and drainage. He stated City 30
Staff can view the site and ascertain what needs to be done so the property to the south is not 31
impacted. He stated that while the two issues are not related, the Council can add a condition to 32
the resolution to require the drainage issues to be addressed for the property to the south. 33
34
Mr. Rudy asked if the applicant’s plan showed elevations. Director Ericson explained that 35
Staff’s primary concern is that the structure not be built too low, or too high. He stated it may be 36
that enough attention was not paid to that issue but Staff will assure that whatever needs to be 37
done to protect his property will be done. 38
39
Mr. Rudy stated this neighbor also encroached the wetland and cut down trees. 40
41
Mayor Marty stated he raised the issue a while back about adopting a tree ordinance. Currently, 42
there is no such ordinance so the City has no control over a resident cutting down a tree on their 43
private property. He stated that he is concerned with wetland preservation and it was brought to 44
his attention over the years that certain types of trees need a lot of water so if trees are cut down 45
Mounds View City Council September 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 5
along a wetland, it may result in more water in the wetland. 1
2
Mr. Rudy stated their concern deals with purged waters which can result in someone else a block 3
away getting flooded. 4
5
Mayor Marty asked Staff to place discussion of a tree ordinance on the next Work Session 6
agenda. 7
8
Director Ericson stated the City’s wetland regulations could be interpreted to prevent tree 9
removal from a wetland or buffer area. He stated residents are not allowed to remove trees from 10
a wetland zoning district areas and he will so notify this resident. He stated a Staff analysis was 11
conducted to assure a wetland permit was not needed for this structure. 12
13
Councilmember Thomas noted this request does not deal with additional surface area. Director 14
Ericson stated that is correct. 15
16
Tom Hansen, 7069 Pleasant View Drive, stated he is the applicant and did not cut down any trees 17
from the wetland, just brush cutting to find the north side property corner. He stated there was 18
one dead elm on the property line that leaned over the site where the garage would be so he did 19
cut it down. The house is set two feet above the street level to stay above the street level. Runoff 20
is sloped toward the street and in the back is sloped toward the back wetland area. Mr. Hansen 21
noted that the property to the north is the lowest in the area. 22
23
Mr. Hansen stated he had his site graded properly and the garage is sitting above street level so 24
there is some grade down to the property line and it is sloped toward the back to send drainage 25
toward the wetland, not to the south side neighbor. He stated they took that into consideration 26
and are willing to make some changes once Staff looks at the property. He restated they have 27
attempted to direct the water toward the street or wetland in the back. 28
29
Mayor Marty asked City Staff to inspect the property. He pointed out that if the workshop had 30
direct access to the house, the conditional use permit would not have been needed. 31
32
Mr. Hansen explained that would have put the door into the family room, which is not a good 33
layout. For convenience and safety, he wanted the shop in the garage instead of the basement 34
where there is a gas water heater and contains living space. 35
36
Mayor Marty stated he talked with Director Ericson about the 3-car garage and curb cut 37
regulations. Mr. Hansen stated he is aware of that and thinking about 18 feet at the curb side so 38
it will be under the maximum allowed. 39
40
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. 41
42
Councilmember Flaherty asked what will be done in the workshop. Mr. Hansen stated it is a 43
hobby of wood working and he will not be conducting a business. 44
45
Mounds View City Council September 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 6
Councilmember Flaherty stated he would prefer to table pending inspection of Staff because of 1
the concern expressed about the runoff and trees. 2
3
Councilmember Thomas stated she thinks it is not necessary to table since it can be included as a 4
condition of approval. She noted that the runoff issues and the item on the agenda are not 5
related. There is no change in the surface area and it is Staff’s responsibility to check the grading 6
and runoff issues. 7
8
Mayor Marty stated he can see both sides of the issue but believes that if this item is tabled, the 9
City still has some control over the situation. 10
11
Councilmember Thomas suggested those conditions be added to the resolution. 12
13
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Gunn. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6613 14
Approving a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a 1,082 square-foot Garage at 7069 Pleasant 15
View Drive; Planning Case No. CU2005-006; as amended to add Condition #2, Staff to address 16
runoff problem satisfactorily. 17
18
Director Ericson explained that it is not necessary to add a stipulation regarding trees since it 19
does not relate to the Conditional Use Permit for the garage. He stated that Mr. Hansen is now 20
aware that trees cannot be cut from the wetland district. 21
22
Mayor Marty stated that cutting a purportedly dead tree from the neighbor’s property is a concern 23
to him. Director Ericson agreed and stated Staff certainly does not encourage a resident from cut 24
down another resident’s tree. 25
26
Councilmember Flaherty asked for an explanation of the amendment. 27
28
Councilmember Stigney stated it would require the concerned neighbor to be satisfied and assure 29
it does not fall through the cracks, which would not happen anyway. 30
31
Councilmember Flaherty stated the water runoff is his concern and he agrees with the motion on 32
the floor. 33
34
Director Ericson stated Staff will visit the site tomorrow. 35
36
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 37
38
B. Continued Public Hearing from August 22, 2005 for Resolution 6600 A 39
Transfer of Ownership of an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Jake’s 40
Sports Café located at 2400 Highway 10. Transfer of Ownership is from 41
Mounds View Jake’s Inc., to Thomas Stuart 42
43
Administrative Assistant Crane advised that this Public Hearing needs to be continued to the 44
September 26, 2005, City Council meeting because the closing of sale on the property has been 45
Mounds View City Council September 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 7
postponed yet again. An opportunity for public comment was made at the August 22, 2005, City 1
Council Meeting. She recommended the Council announce that this Public Hearing will be 2
continued to the September 26, 2005 City Council Meeting. She noted that no one made 3
comment at that public hearing. 4
5
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Gunn. To continue the public hearing on Resolution 6600 6
Approving Transfer of Ownership of an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Jake’s Sports 7
Café located at 2400 Highway 10. Transfer of Ownership is from Mounds View Jake’s Inc., to 8
Thomas Stuart, to the September 26, 2005, City Council meeting. 9
10
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 11
12
C. Resolution 6614 Supporting Awarding of Bid for Purchase of Fire Engine 13
Pumpers 14
15
Fire Chief Zikmund introduced Deputy Chief Don Kruger. 16
17
Deputy Fire Chief Kruger stated his main purpose is to provide a brief recap of the information 18
and answer questions. He explained that as a component of the Fire Department Capital 19
Improvement Plan, funded by the sale of Capital Improvement Bonds scheduled for sale 20
December of 2005, two fire fully equipped fire engines were approved by the three partner City 21
councils. A budget of $450,000 per fully equipped truck was established. 22
23
Deputy Fire Chief Kruger advised that Engine One at Station One and Engine Two at Station 24
Two are scheduled to be replaced with new equipment. Specifications were written, as directed, 25
and available in June. Bids were received on August 18, 2005. He stated that many times Staff 26
is assisted by a manufacturer in drafting specifications. However, this time they created non-27
manufacturer specific specifications, which was reflected in obtaining bids from three fire 28
apparatus manufacturers who submitted five separate proposals in response to the bid request. 29
30
Deputy Fire Chief Kruger stated the three bidders are Clarey’s Safety Equipment, Custom Fire 31
Apparatus, and General Safety Fire Apparatus. Staff finds that the proposal from General Safety 32
Equipment is the lowest of the bids received and that it does meet the specifications for the 33
proposed apparatus. Staff recommends that General Safety Equipment be awarded the contract 34
to build the two fire engines/pumpers. He stated the Fire Department does not currently own any 35
General Safety Equipment trucks but other fire departments do and are satisfied with them. 36
37
Deputy Fire Chief Kruger described the equipment included in Appendix A, B, C, and D. Staff 38
recommends that Bullard T3 Max Thermal Imagers be purchased and installed on the new 39
engines. He noted that the Department currently uses Bullard imagers. With regard to Appendix 40
B, Staff finds Ancom’s bid does meet the specifications and recommends Ancom supply the 800 41
MHz Motorola radios. For the rescue equipment, Deputy Fire Chief Kruger recommended the 42
specified brands of Centaur and Vetter, which are the same as or compatible with the equipment 43
currently used by the Department, be purchased from Alex Air Apparatus. For the loose 44
equipment contained in Appendix D, hoses, nozzles, and fittings, Staff recommends that the 45
Mounds View City Council September 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 8
equipment be purchased from Metro Fire price based on the quantities of each item listed in the 1
bid request. 2
3
City Administrator Ulrich pointed out that Mounds View’s portion of the debt service is included 4
in the 2006 budget as presented. 5
6
Mayor Marty noted the cost is under what was approved. Deputy Fire Chief Kruger stated that is 7
correct. Mayor Marty thanked the Fire Department for coming in under bid. He asked about the 8
equipment contained in Appendix D and whether equipment is salvaged from current trucks. 9
10
Deputy Fire Chief Kruger stated they are hopeful that one of the engines to be replaced will be 11
retained as a reserve engine in case an engine is out of service for repairs. He stated they would 12
take the best of the equipment for reuse but some is aged. Existing loose equipment and could be 13
sold, used as spares, or reallocated to other stations. 14
15
Mayor Marty noted one of the engines being replaced is almost 20 years old so he understands 16
that the loose equipment on that engine would also be used. 17
18
Mayor Marty asked about General Safety Equipment being located in Wyoming, Minnesota. 19
Deputy Fire Chief Kruger stated that is correct and the Council, if they desire, can stop in to see 20
the trucks being built. 21
22
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Flaherty. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6614 Accept 23
Bid for Purchase of Two Fire Engine Apparatus and Accompanying Appendixes. 24
25
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 26
27
Deputy Fire Chief Kruger presented a colored rendition depicting the front and entry views of the 28
new fire station, as proposed, incorporating the suggestions of the member City Councils. 29
30
H. Consideration of Fire Personnel Deployment to Louisiana 31
32
Community Development Director Ericson referenced the report from Fire Chief Zikmund 33
advising that the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Homeland Security Division, has 34
received a request from their counterpart in Louisiana for three strike force teams. In turn, the 35
SBM Fire Department was asked to provide a strike force team. This is a readiness request, 36
versus a deployment request. He explained that this is being brought to the Council’s attention 37
because a Mounds View employee, Jeremiah Anderson, would potentially be a part of the 38
deployment. Mounds View would continue to pay the employee during the two-week 39
deployment, however, at a future date the City would be reimbursed by FEMA for all personnel 40
costs. Director Ericson stated he supports providing help for the Louisiana victims of Hurricane 41
Katrina. 42
43
Fire Chief Zikmund provided a brief update on this request. He advised that the request was 44
received the Saturday of Labor Day weekend. He explained that a Strike Force is comprised of a 45
Mounds View City Council September 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 9
Chief Officer, three engine companies with four individuals each, one ladder company with four 1
individuals, an ambulance with a crew of two, and a communications/aide. He explained that the 2
Department would become an entity of the State, not an employee of the State. 3
4
Fire Chief Zikmund advised that there have now been issues with self deployment and word was 5
received last Friday of an official stand down request for the time being. He advised that they are 6
still recovering bodies so there is currently no need for fire fighters. However, once residents 7
start moving back there will be an increased need for fire personnel. That is expected occur in 8
four to eight weeks in the future and may go on for three to four months. 9
10
Fire Chief Zikmund explained that Mr. Anderson responded to a broadcast. He stated Fire 11
personnel was asked if they are willing and able for a two week deployment. This request is 12
being made so it can be answered should the request come. He explained that if requested, they 13
would deploy Ladder 12 and it would include 12 fire personnel from the district. All costs are 14
reimbursed to the City by FEMA. He stated he verified with the League that should the State of 15
Louisiana default on liability insurance, the League would cover it. 16
17
Mayor Marty stated he can see why there is a stand down now but once power is turned back on, 18
there is more potential need for firefighters and personnel. Fire Chief Zikmund agreed that a lot 19
of activity could occur which is why he wanted to verify the insurance coverage. 20
21
Councilmember Stigney questioned the request for deployment from Minnesota to Louisiana, 22
noting there are 49 states participating. He asked how it got to the SBM Fire Department and if 23
the request first starts with adjacent States. 24
25
Fire Chief Zikmund stated he is certain that the request did go out to other States. He explained 26
that with the Emergency Management Association Compact (EMAC), Minnesota opened their 27
Emergency Operations Center (EOC) two days before the hurricane hit in anticipation of what 28
would happen with Hurricane Katrina. EMAC set up the day after. The EOC is where things 29
like the policy decisions occur and EMAC is where the work actually occurs. Louisiana sent out 30
the request to Minnesota. The Minnesota EMAC Staff has a state-wide list of all the resources 31
and knows the SBM Fire Department protects the fifth largest population in the State and has two 32
ladders. The Minnesota EMAC asked if the Department could provide a ladder crew given the 33
Department’s size and resources. 34
35
Fire Chief Zikmund stated he told them the equipment was available and he would check on the 36
personnel request. When the request came in they probably wanted up to 100 strike forces as a 37
readiness request. Then it transitioned from Louisiana and Mississippi because the amount of 38
resources they need is staggering. Also, Minnesota has a national reputation of having the most 39
organized and equipped fire departments and are highly trained. 40
41
Councilmember Stigney stated he personally thinks that they should draw from the area closest to 42
their area. He noted Mounds View is already short on employees and Jeremy Anderson also does 43
another job including inspections that would have to be put on abeyance so he does not support 44
the deployment request. 45
Mounds View City Council September 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 10
1
Fire Chief Zikmund advised that Blaine has seven employees and their manager was in support 2
as long as no more than two at a time were deployed. We have six full time Staff within the Fire 3
Department who are all interested depending on their schedules. He stated he recognizes that 4
taking four individuals out of the fire population has consequences so they want to minimize that. 5
He explained that if Council is supportive fine and if they are not, they recognize that too. 6
7
Councilmember Thomas stated it does not surprise her that anyone in the fire service is willing to 8
step forward. Her first question is if we can spare them. She noted the deployment would be two 9
weeks which would not be an unreasonable request if it were vacation time. Since this is a 10
worthwhile event, and volunteer, she could not say no. 11
12
Councilmember Flaherty stated it would involve ladder and personnel and asked if it will in any 13
way hurt effectiveness and time response. Fire Chief Zikmund noted that for the first 52 years, 14
the Department protected three cities with one ladder so it is a luxury to have two ladders. He 15
stated he does not recall any fire where ladder is used except for in a defensive position. He 16
stated he wouldn’t consider the request for the ladder if there were not a second ladder to use. 17
18
Councilmember Flaherty noted both the Fire Chief and Deputy Fire Chief are on the list. Fire 19
Chief Zikmund assured the Council that both would not be deployed at the same time. He noted 20
that the department boasts less than two injuries a year, which is one of the best safety records in 21
the State, and it is an active Department. 22
23
Councilmember Stigney stated this is over and above vacation time so he does not think the City 24
can spare the personnel. 25
26
Councilmember Gunn asked Director Ericson for his opinion. 27
28
Director Ericson stated that while he prefers there is no Staff time lost or vacation taken, they can 29
make due with Mr. Anderson’s potential departure even if for two to three weeks. He stated if 30
this is something Mounds View can do to help, Staff can make it work. 31
32
Mayor Marty stated if the situation were reversed, Mounds View would be thankful for any 33
outside help. He stated he learned from the news last week about fire departments from Vermont 34
or New Hampshire that were deploying fire fighters to these areas and that is even farther away 35
than Mounds View. He stated this would be the City’s contribution and he applauds Fire Chief 36
Zikmund, Deputy Fire Chief Krueger, Mr. Anderson, and all the others for being willing to “step 37
up to the plate” and do their fair share. 38
39
Mayor Marty asked about the personnel request. Fire Chief Zikmund advised that the State has 40
made arrangements to flatbed transport the equipment and leave it there longer than two weeks, 41
perhaps four to six weeks. However, other people would not be allowed to Staff that equipment. 42
43
Councilmember Thomas stated her support, noting this is a much better form of action than a 44
written resolution that is words only. 45
Mounds View City Council September 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 11
1
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Gunn. To approve the deployment of Jeremiah Anderson, fire 2
personnel, to Louisiana. 3
4
Councilmember Stigney reiterated that Mounds View is not Blaine or Spring Lake Park and there 5
are only two contributing members from Mounds View. He noted we are understaffed and Mr. 6
Anderson will be sorely missed. Councilmember Stigney stated he sympathizes with New 7
Orleans but asking Minnesota to respond is a long distance. He stated he is not talking about 8
sending the equipment, but the personnel so he will not support the motion. 9
10
Mayor Marty stated he supports the motion as the City’s contribution. 11
12
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 13
14
Fire Chief Zikmund stated they will be finalizing the ground breaking date and will inform the 15
City Manager of that decision. 16
17
D. Resolution 6615 Establishing a Preliminary 2006 Budget and Levy 18
19
City Administrator Ulrich advised that State law requires that the City certify a proposed 2006 20
General Fund Budget and proposed 2006 property tax levy to Ramsey County by September 15, 21
2005. This matter was last discussed at the September 6, 2005 Work Session. He reviewed that 22
the City Council had directed Staff to use a preliminary total levy increase of 8%, which includes 23
all special levies. It was the Council’s desire to retain some flexibility by setting a preliminary 24
rate at 8%. Once this amount is set, the levy could not be increased. The Council has indicated a 25
desire to reduce the final levy below 8%. 26
27
City Administrator Ulrich advised the proposed 2006 base property tax levy is $3,814,064, 28
special levies are $331,337, for a total net property tax levy of $4,145.401. Based upon last 29
Council direction, the levy was brought down from 12% to 8% for the preliminary levy. He 30
explained that for the reduction, Staff considered four components: increase the franchise 31
revenue by $55,000; reduce City Council contingency to $58,000; remove the electronic bulletin 32
board from the general fund budget and put it into the special project budget; and non work comp 33
insurance deductible saves the City $25,000. 34
35
City Administrator Ulrich explained this is the preliminary levy and the final levy would be 36
approved in December. During that time, the levy could be lowered but not increased so the cap 37
would be 8%. 38
39
Councilmember Stigney asked if it was the Council direction to set the preliminary levy at 8%. 40
City Administrator Ulrich stated it was discussed at the Council Work Session. 41
42
Councilmember Stigney stated he supports a cap of 5% and at the Work Session, 43
Councilmember Flaherty had supported a cap of 4%. 44
45
Mounds View City Council September 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 12
Councilmember Thomas stated she said a cap of 8% but wants to go for zero. 1
2
Councilmember Gunn indicated she supported 8% as a cap. 3
4
Mayor Marty stated he supported 8% as a cap. 5
6
Councilmember Stigney stated he thinks the levy should be at 5%. 7
8
Mayor Marty stated the cap would be set at 8% and it is the Council’s responsibility to bring it 9
down. 10
11
Councilmember Stigney stated he would prefer to set the cap at 6% and then he would be assured 12
the cap would not be 8%. 13
14
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Thomas. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6615 15
Authorizing Certification of the Proposed General Fund Budget and Property Tax Levy for Fiscal 16
Year 2006. 17
18
Councilmember Thomas congratulated Staff for getting the levy increase to 8%. 19
20
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Flaherty. To amend Resolution 6615 to change the levy increase 21
from an 8% cap to a 6% cap. 22
23
Councilmember Thomas asked Councilmember Stigney if he has a recommendation on how that 24
reduction can be made. 25
26
Councilmember Stigney stated there is $3.5 million in the special projects account and he does 27
not want Medtronic money in next year’s budget. He stated he supports 6% and believes the City 28
can make it and if we have to, we can use the special projects fund or community fund. Then, if 29
Medtronic money does come in, he would like it down to zero. Councilmember Stigney stated 30
the Council owes it to residents to establish a zero budget next year and the Council can do it 31
with Medtronic and do it with a 6% cap without Medtronic. 32
33
Councilmember Thomas noted there are restrictions on the special project dollars. 34
35
City Administrator Ulrich explained the Council would have to identify an item in the general 36
fund, like a one-time expenditure, that could be funded from the special projects fund. He 37
advised that Staff has already reviewed that option to bring the levy down to 8%. 38
39
Mayor Marty stated the City has also indicated it wants to get the long range capital improvement 40
program going but there will not be enough money to address all of the items. He noted the 41
special projects fund might make more of them happen than just with the general fund budget. 42
He asked Public Works Director Lee if he sees even one-half of the long range plan projects 43
being funded. 44
45
Mounds View City Council September 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 13
Public Works Director Lee stated the capital improvement program shows expenditures of the 1
special projects fund so if it is used now, those dollars would not be available for the capital 2
improvement program. 3
4
Councilmember Thomas stated if there are no items in the 2006 general fund budget that can be 5
paid for from the special projects fund, then it does not matter. She stated she does not think that 6
decision can be made tonight. 7
8
Councilmember Stigney suggested the use of the special projects fund instead of the vehicle 9
equipment fund. 10
11
Councilmember Thomas noted the vehicle equipment fund is not within the general fund, it is a 12
separate fund. 13
14
City Administrator Ulrich explained it is a general fund contribution and the amount varies from 15
year to year. He stated it could be paid from the special projects fund for one year but then it 16
comes back the next year, which is why he had suggested finding a one-time expenditure. 17
18
Councilmember Stigney stated money could also be used from the community fund and he thinks 19
there are enough other opportunities where it can come down to zero. 20
21
Councilmember Thomas stated that could be the case but she does not think the Council has the 22
information needed to make that decision tonight. She also does not support using special funds 23
for anything other than a one-time purchase. 24
25
Councilmember Flaherty stated he is also not satisfied with 8% and noted Councilmember 26
Stigney is saying “let’s put our feet to the fire and walk the walk.” He noted residents need and 27
deserve a break and a zero percent levy. He stated he has no problem going to a 6% cap with a 28
goal of zero. 29
30
Councilmember Gunn stated she also agrees with going to zero but has a problem with doing 31
things this year and trying to make it up the following year. She stated she wants to have the 32
opportunity to sit down and assure the correct decisions are made. She stated she supports an 8% 33
cap and then working to get it down to a zero increase. 34
35
Councilmember Stigney stated he wants a limit of 6% because it will work even without 36
Medtronic money. Councilmember Thomas stated it is just “financial shenanigans” until a line 37
item is identified and recommended. 38
39
Councilmember Gunn concurred. 40
41
Mayor Marty pointed out that this year there was no street improvement project so the only thing 42
being paid off is the 2003 projects. He noted that as former Finance Director Charlie Hansen 43
pointed out, it will increase taxes until the first project is paid off, then it will level off. He stated 44
everyone knows the streets and infrastructure need replacing so next year it will be much 45
Mounds View City Council September 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 14
different. He stated his support to adopt the resolution with an 8% cap instead of trying tonight 1
to find money to swap from here to there. He stated that discussion can occur at a meeting where 2
it is a budget discussion. He noted it is the Council’s responsibility to find those line items. 3
4
Councilmember Stigney stated the same discussion will occur at the next meeting when the 5
budget is discussed. He stated now is the time to give the tax payers a break. 6
7
Mayor Marty noted there are a number of projects over the next ten years that are to be paid from 8
the special projects fund and there is not enough money in there to fund all of the projects. 9
10
Vote on the amendment motion: 11
12
Ayes-2 (Flaherty, Stigney) Nays-3 (Gunn, Thomas, Marty). Motion failed. 13
14
Mayor Marty reiterated that the goal of the Council is to reduce the cap down from 8%. 15
16
Ayes-3 (Gunn, Thomas, Marty) Nays-2 (Flaherty, Stigney) Motion carried. 17
18
E. Resolution 6616 Awarding a Construction Contract, Awarding a Moving and 19
Storage Contract, and Approving a Letter Agreement with SEH for the City 20
Hall Rehabilitation Project 21
22
Public Works Director Lee advised that a total of ten bids were received for this project. The 23
base low bid of $1,185,000 was submitted by Arkay Construction, Inc., of Golden Valley, 24
Minnesota. The bid alternate for the “tower” style entrance, an aesthetic enhancement, was 25
$30,000. A bid bond for 5% of the bid amount was included with the bid. It was noted that the 26
engineer’s estimate was $1,200,000. He advised that the bidder met pre-qualification 27
requirements and SEH recommends they be awarded the bid. 28
29
Public Works Director Lee advised that the next step would be to sign a letter of agreement for 30
construction services with the engineering firm of SEH who would oversee the project. 31
32
Public Works Director Lee explained that in order to proceed with this project, City Hall 33
functions will need to be moved to alternate locations. The plan is for the Police Department to 34
be relocated to Ramsey County Offices in Arden Hills and the rest of City Hall Staff to be 35
relocated to the Community Center. City Official meetings will be conducted at the New 36
Brighton City Hall. 37
38
Public Works Director Lee presented the three quotes that were solicited for the moving and 39
storage contract. He advised the low quote was received from Truc-King, Inc. in the amount of 40
$6,012, which was substantially lower than the other two quotes. He explained there would be 41
some additional costs for boxes, storage containers, and dumpsters. 42
43
Public Works Director Lee reviewed a list of other items that the Council may wish to consider 44
including the hiring of a grading contractor to assure water is flowing away from the building; a 45
Mounds View City Council September 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 15
contractor to re-vegetate and landscape around the building, possibly reusing current plantings; a 1
part-time employee to help at the community center for additional cleaning services, setting up 2
and taking down rooms, and resettlement work stations; a furniture budget for replacing 3
furniture; the City Hall message board; relocation of the community center monument sign to a 4
better location; constructing a City Hall monument sign; the Edgewood Drive Boulevard Project 5
to remove sod and replace with stamped concrete to beautify the area; making an electrical 6
connection from the generator to the City Hall so it can be used as emergency command center; 7
and seal coating the parking lot. The total estimated cost for these other items is $1,410,000 and 8
would be paid from the special project fund. 9
10
Public Works Director Lee advised that through a project of this nature, there will probably be 11
some adjustments needed. Staff recommends the City Administrator be authorized to approve 12
those adjustments that do not exceed $5,000. 13
14
Public Works Director Lee recommended the Council award a construction contract to Arkay 15
Construction, Inc. He noted the bid alternate is contained in the resolution so it should be 16
removed if the Council determines it does not want the tower entrance. Other actions are to 17
award the moving and storage contract to Truc-King, Inc., approve an agreement with SEH for 18
construction administration services, and authorize the City Administrator to make minor 19
adjustments to the project provided they do not exceed $5,000. 20
21
Councilmember Thomas asked if the Council wants to discuss the extraneous list tonight or at a 22
future meeting. 23
24
Public Works Director Lee stated at the next meeting Staff will bring back the issue of the 25
grading contractor and to hire a part-time temporary person to help at the community center. The 26
other items will be considered six months down the road. 27
28
With regard to the part-time temporary employee request, Councilmember Flaherty asked if they 29
can use the current cleaning service instead of hiring a part-time temporary employee. He asked 30
Staff to look at that option. 31
32
Public Works Director Lee stated another work task will be to set up and tear down rooms the 33
YMCA rents out. 34
35
Councilmember Thomas stated she thought that was included in the rent paid for the community 36
center. Also, the current cleaning crew could be used at the community center. 37
38
City Administrator Ulrich stated that is a possibility and Staff will talk with them. 39
40
Mayor Marty advised that a resident called him about the funds to administer the aforementioned 41
project are to be derived from the special project account. The resident asked about the cable 42
department and whether the costs for the extra HVAC on the roof and remodel of that area can be 43
paid from the cable fees. At the present time, the cable department has a relatively healthy 44
balance and since these remodels and special HVAC unit on the roof are specifically needed for 45
Mounds View City Council September 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 16
that equipment, he would like to see that work paid from the Cable Fund. 1
2
Mayor Marty noted number 5 in the resolution indicating the letter of agreement for construction 3
administration services with SEH was to not exceed $46,000. He stated he would like to hold 4
that to the “fire” too. He noted there is also a $5,000 contingency fund. Mayor Marty reviewed 5
the exhibits and what this construction company has done, noting that Exhibit 9B indicates 6
contract overruns. Based on those rates, he is concerned the City Hall project would be in excess 7
of $100,000. He advised that some of the items are changed as the project goes along but he 8
wants to hold everyone’s “feet to the fire” to come in as close to the original contract as possible. 9
He stated he wants to make it clear there are no “bells and whistles.” 10
11
Councilmember Thomas expressed concern with the big difference in the bid amounts for the 12
moving and storage contract. 13
14
Public Works Director Lee stated Staff had the same concerns and went over the contract three 15
separate times with Truc-King. They also toured City Hall. He advised they advertise a 16
guarantee to beat all other bids. He stated AAA Movers indicated they were not interested in the 17
work but would put in a bid, which is why the bid is high. 18
19
Mayor Marty asked Council for their comments on the alternate bid for the tower entrance. 20
21
Councilmember Stigney stated his support to remove the contingency. 22
23
Councilmember Gunn stated she would like it left in. 24
25
Councilmember Thomas stated that while it is pretty, it is not needed. 26
27
Mayor Marty stated the Council needs to justify everything to its citizens. 28
29
Councilmember Gunn stated the tower would make it easier for people to find City Hall. 30
31
Mayor Marty agreed the tower would set the building off and make it appear different than the 32
community center. 33
34
Councilmember Gunn pointed out the tower would also set precedent for the Highway 10 35
redevelopment. 36
37
City Administrator Ulrich advised that the tower bid came back higher than anticipated and that 38
is a lot of money. He stated the current problems with the vestibule will be resolved and it still 39
has a nice appearance without the tower. 40
41
Mayor Marty stated he would prefer using the $30,000 on the trails or something else that is 42
needed. 43
44
Councilmember Gunn stated she would support removing the tower entrance if the $30,000 is 45
Mounds View City Council September 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 17
applied to the sign. 1
2
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Gunn. To waive the reading and adopt revised Resolution 6616 3
Awarding a Construction Contract, Awarding a Moving and Storage Contract, and Approving a 4
Letter Agreement with SEH for the City Hall Rehabilitation Project, to remove Item #3, the bid 5
alternate for the “tower”, and revise Item #9 to include funding from the Cable Fund. 6
7
Councilmember Stigney stated the bids look to favor Arkay Construction but he objects to 8
spending money on some of the items listed. He asked if an energy audit was performed. Public 9
Works Director Lee stated an energy audit was not done but an analysis for the building was 10
completed to identify deficiencies in insulation and leaking windows. 11
12
Councilmember Stigney stated he supports conducting an energy audit. He noted a lot of money 13
is spent on air conditioning but air quality tests have never been performed. He stated the 14
windows themselves are not a good energy savings and he questions what the money is being 15
spent on. Public Works Director Lee stated only two windows are going to be replaced and the 16
rest would be sealed. 17
18
Public Works Director Lee stated the air quality issue was looked at and it would cost $30,000 to 19
$40,000 for an air quality study. It was felt that changing the ductwork to get rid of the mold 20
would improve the air quality. 21
22
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 23
24
F. Resolution 6617 Appointing Nate Behlen to a Vacancy in the Sanitary Sewer 25
Division of the Public Works Department 26
27
Public Works Director Lee stated that Staff advertisement for the vacancy in the Sanitary Sewer 28
Division of the Public Works Department. He reported that 28 applications were received and 11 29
applicants were interviewed. Public Works Director Lee reviewed Mr. Behlen’s qualifications 30
and stated Staff recommends the Council authorize the appointment of Nate Behlen to the 31
vacancy in the Sanitary Sewer Division of the Public Works Department. 32
33
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Thomas. To adopt Resolution 6617 Appointing Nate Behlen to a 34
Vacancy in the Sanitary Sewer Division of the Public Works Department. 35
36
Councilmember Stigney asked that the resolution be read and why the pay step is not established 37
in the resolution. City Administrator Ulrich stated it is established pursuant to the union contract 38
and would start at Step A. 39
40
Public Works Director Lee explained that the contract was changed for the collective bargaining 41
unit for Public Works and all new hirees start at Step A. 42
43
In response to Mayor Marty, Public Works Director Lee described how an employee moves to 44
Step B. 45
Mounds View City Council September 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 18
1
Mayor Marty read the resolution aloud. 2
3
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 4
5
G. Resolution 6618 Authorizing Insurance Policies for the Year July 2005 6
through June 2006 7
8
City Administrator Ulrich explained that Resolution 6618 authorizes Staff to enter into insurance 9
policies and make payment of the premiums as they become due. Staff will continue to pursue 10
cost savings with the insurance agent through increasing deductibles and changing the policy 11
period to renew on January 1 through December 31. Staff recommends adoption of the 12
resolution. 13
14
Mayor Marty stated this was a good call by the Finance Director and should save the City money. 15
16
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/ Gunn. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6618 17
Authorizing Insurance Policies for the Year July 2005 through June 2006. 18
19
Councilmember Stigney asked if the Ford 150 should be dropped and whether it should be 20
insured for collision. 21
22
Mary Tatarek, Finance stated she discussed this policy with Councilmember Stigney and City 23
Administrator Ulrich. She explained that this question was asked of the insurance agent when 24
the policy was set up for this time period. At that point in time, it was discussed that all vehicles 25
six years or older would be taken off but then it was noted that some vehicles, such as in the 26
Sewer Department, are still valued up to $100,000 so it was left to the department heads to 27
decide the value of the vehicle and if they should be taken off. That issue was brought to the 28
insurance agent who will bring it before the League of Minnesota Cities. After that, the insurance 29
agent will get firm figures. 30
31
Councilmember Stigney asked if it can be dropped at any time. Mary Tatarek, Finance answered 32
in the affirmative. 33
34
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 35
36
H. Consideration of Fire Personnel Deployment to Louisiana 37
38
This item was considered following Agenda Item 8D. 39
40
I. Resolution 6620 Approving Step Increase for City Administrator Kurt Ulrich 41
42
Administrative Assistant/Acting Human Resources Representative Crane reviewed that Kurt 43
Ulrich started employment with the City on July 21, 2003. On September 6, 2005 an Executive 44
Session was scheduled to discuss Mr. Ulrich’s job performance. It was the consensus of City 45
Mounds View City Council September 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 19
Council that his performance satisfies the requirements of the position. She recommended the 1
Council approve City Administrator Ulrich’s step increase from Step Four ($90,461.28/yr.) to 2
Step Five ($95,222.40/yr.), effective July 21, 2005. 3
4
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To adopt Resolution 6620 Approving Step Adjustment 5
for Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator. 6
7
Councilmember Thomas read the resolution aloud. 8
9
Mayor Marty stated he has not personally felt this position has been represented to its fullest. He 10
stated he does not feel the Council has received adequate information or in a timely manner. 11
Mayor Marty reviewed that at the Closed Session a week ago, discussion occurred about rules of 12
and running Council meetings and a number of councilmembers had pointed out his 13
shortcomings. Mayor Marty stated he knows he has many and is working to better run a meeting. 14
However, at the closed session the discussion turned to Mr. Ulrich and some discussion was 15
directed at him saying he could field a lot of the questions instead of having the Mayor answer 16
them. Then the Mayor can conduct the meeting. Mayor Marty stated Mr. Ulrich is the paid 17
executive and because of these concerns, he cannot support this motion. 18
19
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Marty) Motion carried. 20
21
J. Resolution 6622 Accepting Proposal for Auction Services 22
23
City Administrator Ulrich explained that with the pending sale of the municipal golf course, it is 24
recommended the City make some arrangements to sell fixed assets, furniture and equipment at 25
auction. Some of the assets would be sold in advance at established prices to other public 26
entitles like other golf courses. The remaining items would be sold at auction. 27
28
City Administrator Ulrich advised that Staff solicited proposals from six auction services. To 29
date, one proposal and one inquiry have been received. The Council recently established 30
Thursday, September 29, 2005, as the last day of golf operations. Closing on the land is expected 31
to occur on September 30, 2005, or the first week of October. By agreement, the City has 30 32
days to remove the golf course assets from the site. 33
34
City Administrator Ulrich stated the Fahey proposal for auction services was based upon a 35
closing date for the golf course of September 22, 2005. With the date being extended to 36
September 29, 2005, the auction date would be moved to the week of October 17, 2005. The 37
auction company is okay with that adjustment and has a 9% commission charge for their 38
services. He advised that the other company quoted a 10% commission. The Fahey commission 39
includes clerking and servicing the auction, including pre-auction set up. The City would be 40
responsible for actual advertising costs not to exceed $4,800, which will be deducted from the 41
proceeds. 42
43
City Administrator Ulrich stated it is recommended that the Council adopt Resolution 6622 44
accepting the proposal for auction services and authorizing Staff to enter into an agreement for 45
Mounds View City Council September 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 20
such services. The proposal would reflect an auction date of the week of October 17, 2005, and 1
be subject to the closing of the golf course property occurring as scheduled. 2
3
Councilmember Thomas noted it was discussed to set reserves on certain items and asked if that 4
procedure was discussed with Fahey. City Administrator Ulrich stated Staff is in the process of 5
doing an inventory of the items at the golf course and will determine what items should have a 6
reserve. 7
8
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Thomas. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6622 9
Accepting Proposal for Auction Services. 10
11
Councilmember Stigney asked whether the reserved items are excluded from the auction and if 12
items can be presold. City Administrator Ulrich stated selected items can be presold but some 13
limit would need to be set to assure there are enough items to auction. He stated he will check 14
with the auctioneer about selling items at market value prior to the auction. He advised that the 15
auctioneer recommended reserved prices not be set on too many items, but that it is worth 16
establishing on the larger items. 17
18
Councilmember Stigney asked if items could be presold, without commission to the auctioneer, 19
and if the items can be sold without advertising to another golf course. City Administrator Ulrich 20
stated he will check into that but the methods of advertising would be through the League of 21
Minnesota Cities. 22
23
Councilmember Stigney asked if the auctioneer will require each cart to be bid individually or 24
does the first cart buyer have the option to buy as many as he wants at that bid price. City 25
Administrator Ulrich stated the auction is typically done in lots but he will have to talk with the 26
auctioneer about that question. 27
28
Mayor Marty noted that some of the carts are in good condition but others are not. 29
30
Councilmember Stigney stated it seems to him it would be to the City’s advantage to allow the 31
high bidder to buy as many golf carts as he wants. City Administrator Ulrich stated there are 32
different golf cart models, some with tops, some without, and some with damage. 33
34
Councilmember Stigney stated someone asked him when they can inspect the items for presale 35
prior to the auction. City Administrator Ulrich stated he will talk with the auctioneer about that 36
and bring back the answers to the next Council meeting. 37
38
Mayor Marty noted the City has video equipment and other unused items that, perhaps, could 39
also be auctioned. City Administrator Ulrich stated that is an excellent suggestion and Staff will 40
make a list of those items for the Council’s review. 41
42
Mayor Marty expressed concern with the sale of old computers because of information contained 43
on the hard drive. 44
45
Mounds View City Council September 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 21
Councilmember Thomas noted that if other items are included in the auction, it needs to be 1
advertised to assure interested buyers are in attendance. 2
3
Councilmember Stigney stated he thought there was an opportunity during the Festival in the 4
Park to buy electronic equipment. Councilmember Gunn stated that happened last year. 5
6
Administrative Assistant Crane informed the Council about how difficult it was to get buyers to 7
the last sale of old chairs and equipment. 8
9
Councilmember Flaherty stated the auctioneer is a professional at handling the advertising and 10
marketing. 11
12
Councilmember Stigney asked what will happen if it is raining. City Administrator Ulrich stated 13
there is access to buildings at the golf course in the event of rain. 14
15
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 16
17
7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 18
19
Mayor Marty questioned the claim for both a Nextel and a Verizon telephone. City 20
Administrator Ulrich explained that the Verizon cellular telephone is for the school resource 21
officer. 22
23
Mayor Marty referenced Page 13, showing the change over costs for one 2005 Ford Crown Vic is 24
$4,835.05 but the other cost $6,068.80 and advised that the Police Chief will look into the 25
difference. 26
27
Mayor Marty stated he talked to the golf course about the refunds and it was explained it 28
involved the Women’s League that had four rainouts. Because of the sale, the dates cannot be 29
made up. 30
31
Mayor Marty questioned the claim in the amount of $822.44 on the bottom of Page 19, to Don 32
Salverda & Associates for a management program for Mr. Beers. This is a 12-month course that 33
meets every other month with other City finance officials to develop networking and 34
management skills. City Administrator Ulrich stated he, Director Ericson, and other members of 35
Staff have attended the same program. He advised that this is the total amount, except for books, 36
and fits within the training budget. 37
38
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Thomas. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as Presented. 39
40
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 41
42
9. CONSENT AGENDA 43
44
Council Member Stigney asked to remove Item B. 45
Mounds View City Council September 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 22
1
A. Licenses for Approval 2
B. Resolution 6619 Authorizing the Closing of City Hall on September 30, 2005 3
to Move Temporarily to the Mounds View Community Center Removed for a 4
separate vote. 5
C. Resolution 6621 Approving Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release of 6
Claims with Innovative Images Marketing and Management, LLC 7
D. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, September 26, 2005, to Consider the 8
SYSCO Second Addition Preliminary Plat and Rezoning 9
10
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Flaherty. To Approve the Consent Agenda Items A, C, and D. 11
12
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 13
14
B. Resolution 6619 Authorizing the Closing of City Hall on September 30, 2005 15
to Move Temporarily to the Mounds View Community Center 16
17
Councilmember Stigney he withdrew this from the Consent Agenda because he wants to vote 18
against this item. 19
20
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Gunn. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6619 21
Authorizing the Closing of City Hall on September 30, 2005 to Move Temporarily to the 22
Mounds View Community Center . 23
24
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 25
26
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 27
28
A. August 8, 2005 City Council Meeting Minutes 29
30
The following corrections were requested: 31
32
All Pages correct “Belmier” to “Velmier” 33
All Pages correct “Economic Development Coordinator Bach” to “Economic Development 34
Coordinator Bachman” 35
Page 17, Line 23, should read: “…stated that the numbers actually does include the…” 36
Page 27, Line 15, should read: “perspective and serve the Commission you are on with truth.” 37
Page 27, Line 21, should read: “installation restripeing of a crosswalk near…” 38
39
Mayor Marty asked Staff to review the meeting video to verify his comment on Page 27, Lines 40
13-15. 41
42
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Marty. To Approve the August 8, 2005 City Council meeting 43
minutes as corrected above. 44
45
Mounds View City Council September 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 23
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 1
2
Mayor Marty referenced Page 2, Line 17, and his question about use of MSA funding for road 3
repairs. He noted Senator Betzold’s response and asked Staff to draft a request to release MSA 4
funds on any and all public streets. Mayor Marty stated this has been talked about for years and 5
would give them something on which to take action. 6
7
B. August 22, 2005 City Council Meeting Minutes 8
9
This item was removed from the agenda. 10
11
C. August 22, 2005 Executive Session Minutes 12
13
The following correction was requested: 14
15
Page 1 heading, correct meeting start time. 16
17
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Flaherty. To Approve the August 22, 2005 Executive Session 18
meeting minutes as corrected above. 19
20
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 21
22
D. September 6, 2005 Executive Session Meeting Minutes 23
24
The following correction was requested: 25
26
Page 1 heading, correct meeting start time. 27
28
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Gunn. To Approve the September 6, 2005 City Council meeting 29
minutes as corrected above. 30
31
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 32
33
11. REPORTS 34
35
A. Reports of Mayor and Council 36
37
Councilmember Thomas thanked Mayor Marty for a well run meeting. 38
39
Mayor Marty advised that the funeral for Cindy Sobesta will be on Saturday with the viewing 40
from 12 noon to 1:00 p.m. and the service at 1:00 p.m. He announced that a fund has been set up 41
at US Bank to contribute for her family. Ms. Sobesta has six children, four under 18 years of 42
age. The family is currently overwhelmed and will appreciate any type of support. 43
44
Mounds View City Council September 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 24
Mayor Marty noted some Mounds View families have welcomed victims of Hurricane Katrina. 1
The City Administrator stated some mayors and Staff members have talked about what role 2
Youth and Family Services would play in relocation if anyone has a transition family located in 3
one of the communities. It is felt they will play a major role in that transition process. 4
5
Mayor Marty commended Jeremiah Anderson for stepping forward to serve. 6
7
Mayor Marty stated some in the community are giving golf course employees a hard time. He 8
noted they will be out of a job soon and urged everyone to support them for doing their job. 9
10
B. Reports of Staff 11
12
City Administrator Ulrich announced a meeting of the Active Living Council, which supports 13
walkable communities and is sponsored by Blue Cross Blue Shield, will be held at the New 14
Brighton Family Services Center on September 29, 2005 from 4:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. and 15
encouraging attendance. He explained this is important because in discussions with County 16
about the stoplight, they mentioned that Blue Cross Blue Shield may sponsor a grant for 17
improving walkablility of the community. 18
19
City Administrator Ulrich advised that the I-35W Coalition passed a resolution stating they want 20
to focus their efforts on transportation needs in the corridor for two years. This is important 21
because some communities dropped out when they felt the Coalition lost focus by getting 22
involved in other areas. This resolution brings the Coalition back to its roots to focus on the 23
corridor. 24
25
City Administrator Ulrich reported the New Brighton Police Department received the Safe and 26
Sober Grant. 27
28
City Administrator Ulrich stated the YMCA is now on line with new recreational software that 29
allows residents to check on program availability and pay for programs on line. Councilmember 30
Thomas asked if the YMCA is linked to the City’s web site. City Administrator Ulrich answered 31
in the affirmative. 32
33
City Administrator Ulrich stated Staff attended a meeting with the Rice Creek Watershed District 34
that involved all member cities. The group talked about establishing a technical advisory 35
committee to help assure consistent enforcement of rules. He noted tens of thousands of dollars 36
have been spent by cities at the direction of the Watershed District to improve storm water 37
systems. Discussion occurred about using their levy for extraordinary costs related to storm 38
water management when it impacts the benefit of the broader district. 39
40
Mayor Marty stated Staff met with County Commissioners Bennett and Parker and will be 41
holding a follow up meeting with him to explore different options for stop lights at Silver Lake 42
Road and County Road H and then will look at funding options. 43
44
Mounds View City Council September 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 25
Director Ericson provided an update on the Harstad Red Oak Estates Townhome Project. He 1
advised that correspondence was sent to let residents know what is happening. Harstad is 2
moving forward with plans to develop the area consistent with the Judge’s orders of 2004. 3
Director Ericson explained that if there is a desire to make an offer to purchase some of the Red 4
Oak Estates lots, now would be the time to so direct Staff. If purchased, the City would have 5
control and could solicit proposals to develop the property consistent with the City’s 6
Comprehensive Plan. That would cost something but could potentially be mitigated when the 7
properties are developed. Director Ericson stated Staff is looking for direction if Council wants 8
to discuss making an offer on the lots before trees are removed and permits are pulled. 9
10
Mayor Marty stated he talked about this briefly with Staff and feels the City does not have 11
anything to lose. He stated he would like to know if there is an interest in holding a brief five to 12
eight-minute closed session to discuss this matter. He advised that Mr. Harstad found out from 13
the Rice Creek Watershed District and Fire Department that some of his buildings, primarily 14
those with long driveways and higher density areas, are going to cost him considerably more than 15
he originally planned. He noted that spot is high density and asked if the Council is willing to 16
hold a short closed session. 17
18
Councilmember Stigney stated he is not interested in discussing this matter in a closed session. 19
20
Councilmember Thomas stated she just got this information tonight and needs more time to think 21
about it. She noted that a close session has to be on a three-day notice. 22
23
Mayor Marty asked Staff to place this item on the next Council agenda. He reviewed the history 24
of this project and advised that last spring Mr. Harstad was asking about revising the 25
requirements of his development so he may be amenable to considering an offer. Mayor Marty 26
stated if the City has control of the property it could be developed into something more 27
compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. 28
29
1. Library Town Meetings 30
31
Councilmember Gunn announced that residents from Arden Hills, Mounds View, New Brighton 32
and St. Anthony are invited to attend a Town Hall meeting to share their thoughts regarding 33
library services in the northwest quadrant of Ramsey County. She read the meeting schedule as 34
follows: 35
36
Meetings will be conducted: 37
• Thursday, September 15 at the Mounds View Community Center, 5394 Edgewood Drive, 38
starting at 7 p.m. 39
• Tuesday, September 20 at the Arden Hills City Hall, 1245 West Highway 96, starting at 7 40
p.m. 41
• Wednesday, September 28 at the New Brighton Family Center, 400 10th Street, starting at 42
7 p.m. 43
44
Councilmember Gunn also read the questions that will be considered: 45
Mounds View City Council September 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 26
1. What is the appeal of a small library? 1
2. What is the appeal of a large library? 2
3. Which do you prefer and why? 3
4. What are the criteria that should be used in determining where a library should be located? 4
5. What types of organizations or amenities would be good partners in a library in the northwest 5
area? 6
6. How would you suggest funding your preference for library service? 7
7. What other issues should be considered by the Task Force? 8
9
Councilmember Gunn announced that the meetings are open to the public and everyone is 10
invited. To schedule your presentation, residents are asked to call Kristi Saksvig at 651-486-11
2208. Walk-ins will be welcome at any time. 12
13
C. Reports of City Attorney 14
15
None. 16
17
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, October 3, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. 18
Next Council Meeting: Monday, September 26, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. 19
20
13. ADJOURNMENT 21
22
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Thomas. To adjourn the City Council meeting at 10:20 p.m. 23
24
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 25
26
Transcribed and recorded by: 27
28
29
Carla Wirth 30
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 31
Item No: B1/B2
Meeting Date: 09/26/05
Type of Business: Reports
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: City Hall Relocation and Golf Course Auction Updates
1. Announce that City Hall is temporarily moving to the Mounds View Community Center
Important items to note:
- City Hall will be closed on Friday, September 30th and the Mounds View
Community Center will be closed on Saturday, October 1st, in order to allow for
moving.
- The City Police Department will temporarily relocate to the Ramsey County
Sheriffs Office in Arden Hills. A police patrol station will be located at the
Mounds View Community Center.
- The remodeled City Hall will be available for occupancy by April 1, 2006
- A utility bill drop off box will be provided inside the community center during open
hours.
- Beginning October 10, 2005, all Mounds View public meetings will be held at the
New Brighton City Hall. The Council work session of October 3rd and Planning
Commission of October 5th will be held in the Mounds View Council Chambers.
2. Update of the Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course Auction
- Bidding “by choice” on like items (i.e., winning bidder will have choice to
purchase all like golf carts for the same price as the first)
- Reserve bids – to be used sparingly and on two items identified as high valued
value items.
- Miscellaneous City Hall surplus items will be put on pallets and sold at auction
(e.g., item that didn’t sell at last year’s garage sale).
- A dumpster will be available for junk items that don’t sell.
- Auction will occur rain or shine. Palletized items will be set up inside.
- Buildings will be sold in-place and won’t need to be moved. Ninety days will be
available to remove large buildings.
- Calendar:
September 26: Final list approved by Council (all items on list must be
sold at auction, no private sales)
September 27: Final list provided to auctioneer. Auctioneer to conduct a
site visit/inspection.
October 14: All items not to be sold at auction (e.g., items being
transferred to Park and Rec.) to be removed from site by this date.
October 17 – 19: Auctioneer on site to set-up auction. They will have two
workers and a skid steer. 2-3 City employees needed to help assemble
items for sale.
October 20: Auction date.