HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2005/10/10SIGN IN SHEET
Date:
PRINT NA
Wei vwlZ
r a Ph
3 c
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
NEW BRIGHTON CITY HALL
Monday, October 10, 2005
7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, Thomas
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC INPUT:
Citizens may speak to issues not on tonight’s agenda. Before speaking, please give your full
name and address for the minutes. Also, please limit your comments to three minutes.
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. 7:05 PM: Consideration of the Medtronic CRM Preliminary Plat, Medtronic Development Stage
PUD Plans, Rezoning of the Medtronic Project Area, Vacation of Excess Right of Way and
Excess Easements, Wetland Alteration Permit and Calling of Bonds:
1. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6630, a Resolution Approving the
Medtronic Development Stage PUD Plans.
2. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6631, a Resolution Approving the
Medtronic CRM Preliminary Plat
3. Public Hearing, First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 765, an Ordinance Vacating
Excess Easements and Right of Way within the Medtronic CRM Plat.
4. Public Hearing, First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 764, an Ordinance Rezoning
the Medtronic CRM Campus from I-1, Light Industrial, to PUD, Planned Unit
Development.
5. Resolution Authorizing the Preparation of a Preliminary Feasibility Report and Consultant
Selection for the Extension of Public Utilities to the Medtronic CRM Development Project
B. 7:10 PM: Public Hearing and Consideration of the Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance
763, an Ordinance Authorizing the Vacation of an Excess Drainage and Utility Easement
Associated with the SYSCO Addition Plat.
C. Consideration of Resolution 6633, a Resolution Approving a Development Review for an 8,300
Square Foot Building at 2395 County Road 10.
D. Consideration of Resolution 6634, a Resolution Approving a Minor Subdivision (Lot Line
Adjustment) between 8123 Pleasant View Court and 8117 / 8119 Pleasant View Court
E. Consideration of Resolution 6651, Authorizing the Layoff of Regular Full-time Golf Course
Employees and Providing Severance
9. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Resolution 6650 Approving 2006 SCORE Recycling Grant request to Ramsey County
B. Insert to Truth In Taxation Notice
C. Licenses for Approval
City Council Agenda
October 10, 2005
Page 2
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. September 26, 2005 City Council Minutes.
11. REPORTS
A. Reports of Mayor and Council
B. Reports of Staff
C. Reports of City Attorney
12. Next Council Work Session: (New Brighton City Hall) Monday, November 7, 2005
Next Council Meeting: (New Brighton City Hall) Monday, October 24, 2005
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING AGENDA
NEW BRIGHTON CITY HALL
Monday, October 24, 2005
6:30 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: President Marty, Vice President Stigney, Commissioner Flaherty,
Commissioner Gunn, Commissioner Thomas
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
4. 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.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
6. CONSENT AGENDA
7. EDA BUSINESS
8. REPORTS
9. NEXT EDA MEETING:
10. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
NEW BRIGHTON CITY HALL
Monday, October 24, 2005
7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Cub Scout Pack 367 will be doing the Pledge – Deane Niece
763-786-8187. (Adam Niece is the Dean Leader)
3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, Thomas
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC INPUT:
Citizens may speak to issues not on tonight’s agenda. Before speaking, please give your
full name and address for the minutes. Also, please limit your comments to three
minutes.
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. Consideration of Actions Associated with the Medtronic CRM Project:
a. Consideration of Resolution 6635, a Resolution Approving the Medtronic CRM Final Plat
b. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 764, an Ordinance Rezoning the Medtronic
CRM Campus from I-1, Light Industrial, to PUD, Planned Unit Development (ROLL CALL
VOTE.)
c. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 765, an Ordinance Vacating Excess
Easements and Right of Way within the Medtronic CRM Plat (ROLL CALL VOTE.)
B. Resolution XXXX Calling for Redemption of Outstanding Gross Revenue Golf Course Bonds,
Series 1994A, Dated January 1, 1994.
9. CONSENT AGENDA
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
11. REPORTS
A. Reports of Mayor and Council
B. Reports of Staff
C. Reports of City Attorney
12. Next Council Work Session: (New Brighton City Hall) Monday, November 7, 2005
Next Council Meeting: (New Brighton City Hall) Monday, November 14, 2005
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA
Monday, November 7, 2005
7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, Thomas
PUBLIC COMMENT
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.
Agenda Items Discussed by Consensus
_______ 1. Council Review of the City Charter (B. Thomas recommended)
_______ 2. Sister City Program
_______ 3. Citizen Communication
A. City Web Site Improvements
B. Review Newsletter: Number of Distribution Times, Advertising, Format
Editing Policy, etc.
A. Automated Records System
B. Discuss Revising Section 502.08 of the Mounds View City Code in regard
to Public Hearing of Liquor License Renewals.
_______ 4. Contract Administration
A. Review Updates to the YMCA Contract (IT Services)
________ 5. Meeting Administration
A. Consideration of resolution closing City Council Meetings by 11pm
B. Consideration of Public Input Rules relating to City Council Meetings
________ 6. Review Personnel Policy Items
A. Educational Reimbursement Amount
B. Use of PW Garage by City Employees
10. Continuation of a Joint Meeting of the Economic Development Commission and the City
Council regarding TIF Philosophies, Goals and Spending Priorities.
11. Tree Preservation Ordinance
Item No: 8A
Meeting Date: October 10, 2005
Type of Business: PH & CB
Administrator Review: _________
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing, Review and Consideration of Items Associated
with the Medtronic CRM Planned Unit Development, 8290 Coral
Sea Street; Planning Cases PD2005-002 & MA2005-002
Background:
On June 27, 2005, the Mounds View City Council and Economic Development Authority
authorized an agreement with Medtronic Inc. to redevelop the Bridges of Mounds View golf
course. The approved development was a multi-phased project with the first phase
encompassing 820,000 square feet of office space and related ancillary uses. On July 11,
2005, the City Council adopted Ordinance 760, an ordinance approving the transfer of land
from the City of Mounds View to the Mounds View EDA and then subsequently to Medtronic.
On August 22, 2005, the City Council approved Resolution 6581 which further authorized the
sale of the Bridges site to the EDA for resale to Medtronic. At the same meeting, the City
Council reviewed and approved the Medtronic Cardiac Rhythm Management (CRM) general
concept plans without condition.
1. PUD Review
At the October 3, 2005 worksession, the Council inquired as to the rationale for going through the
PUD process. The purpose of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process is to provide for the
grouping of land parcels for development as an integrated, coordinated unit as opposed to
traditional parcel by parcel, piecemeal, sporadic and unplanned approach to development. The
PUD process is intended to introduce flexibility of site design and architecture for the
conservation of land and open space through clustering of buildings and activities. It is further
intended that planned unit developments are to be characterized by central management,
integrated planning and architecture, joint or common use of parking, maintenance of open space
and other similar facilities and a harmonious selection and efficient distribution of uses. Given the
visibility and prominence of the Bridges site, the PUD approach will ensure that the site is
developed to be architecturally noteworthy and context sensitive from an environmental
standpoint.
Discussion
Opus Architects & Engineers have submitted the detailed site plans, surveys and preliminary
plat for this second stage of the PUD process. The plans are date-stamped September 9,
2005. In addition to these plan sheets, the Council was provided with 11 x 17 reduced color
versions of Sheets A3.0 and A3.1, the Elevation and Perspective Sheets, as well as the site
plan.
Medtronic Review
October 10, 2005
Page 2
What has changed?
As was indicated at the worksession meeting, the development stage plans for the Medtronic
CRM PUD have been revised from the general concept plans reviewed on August 22. The
concept plan identified four distinct buildings in a pin-wheel orientation tied together by a two-
story atrium-like commons area. While there remain four distinct eight-story buildings, these
are now all oriented in an east-west fashion to enhance environmental sustainability. The first
two phases would be linked together by stacked corridors and meeting rooms 60 feet wide
except at the main level where the connective space is 180 feet wide. The first phase would
be connected to the parking ramp north of the buildings at the ground level, where the
daycare and service areas would be located. The parking plan remains the same, in that
Phase 1 would include a three-story structured ramp to the north and the 900 surface stalls
near the building entrance.
Phasing Schedule
The Council is considering the full build-out of the Medtronic CRM project, which will be
constructed in three phases. The current development agreement does not address the
timing of the future phases—construction of Phase 2 and 3 would occur solely dependent
upon Medtronic’s growth and internal needs. (Phasing of a project is permitted regardless of
whether or not the project was presented as a planned unit development.) If subsequent
phases are developed in accordance with the requirements and conditions of the governing
Council authorization, no further planning action would be necessary to construct Phase 2 and
3, unless changes to the footprint and design would warrant review and re-approval by the
Planning Commission and City Council.
Table 1. Building and Parking Phasing.
Building Space Parking spaces
Phase 1
2 buildings connected by
Commons/atrium area
820,000 square feet total
2,100 structured stalls
900 surface stalls
Phase 2 1 additional building
380,000 more square feet
1,400 more structured stalls by
adding two more levels onto Phase
1 parking structure
Phase 3 1 additional building
300,000 more square feet
1,600 structured stalls in four level
ramp Å located in Blaine
Total at full
Build out
1,500,000 square feet in four
connected buildings
6,000 structured and surface parking
stalls, two parking structures
Setbacks
The buildings are set back a minimum of 40-feet from the periphery lot line, which is
consistent with the minimum requirements within a PUD. The buildings will be no closer than
80 feet to Highway 10 and 60 feet to Coral Sea Street and 82 Lane NE. The Phase 1 parking
ramp will be set back 100 feet from Coral Sea Street to preserve an existing stand of mature
Scarlet Oak trees. The parking lot / ramp along 82 Lane NE will be set back 40 feet.
Medtronic Review
October 10, 2005
Page 3
Building Design
The building will be constructed of precast concrete wall panels with horizontal and vertical
reveals. The base of the building will have a decorative or specialty stone base. The rooftop
utilities will be hidden from view by metal panel screens to match the color scheme of the
building. These rooftop mechanical aprons and elevator penthouses will be inwardly set back
from the edge of the building by as much as thirty feet to reduce their visibility. The facade will
be dominated by a series of reflective one-inch thick vision glass windows set in prefinished
thermal break frames. The first floor of the building will have a 20-foot sidewall height while all
subsequent floors will be at a 15-foot height except the top floor which will be 17 feet. The
total building height, including the roof-mounted equipment, will be 140 feet. Figures 1 and 2
below illustrate the proposed building perspective and elevation, respectively.
Figure 1. Building Perspective
Medtronic Review
October 10, 2005
Page 4
Figure 2. Building Elevation
Traffic and Circulation
Medtronic is proposing a small round-about at the access to the parking ramp to help
coordinate and channel traffic to the site. A second larger round-about is planned at the
primary entrance to the facility with a small, separate pull out for child care pick-up and drop
off. The buildings will be encircled by a twenty-foot wide fire access road with a service spur
to the back of the building for service and deliveries. In this area as well there is another small
round-about to help govern the flow of traffic. The surface parking area will take access from
82nd Lane NE. The parking ramp will be accessed from Coral Sea Street with the service road
north and west of the ramp.
Offsite, many improvements are planned to coordinate traffic to and from the site and the local
and regional transportation systems. These improvements, articulated in Attachment A to this
report, will be completed by October of 2007 and ready by the time Phase 1 is completed and
ready for occupancy. The most important of the improvements involve the replacement of the
bridge over Interstate 35W. Currently at a two-lane width, the new bridge would allow for four
through lanes of traffic with additional space for turning lanes. The bridge would be long
enough to accommodate future expansions of 35W. The other significant improvement will be
the signalization of the Coral Sea Street and County Road J intersection. Coral Sea Street
south of County Road J to the site will be reconstructed and widened to four lanes of traffic
with a turning lane. The north leg of Coral Sea Street, currently offset from the south leg, will
be connected at the intersection as an additional enhancement.
Medtronic Review
October 10, 2005
Page 5
Landscape Plan
The City Forester has been provided a copy of the Landscape Plan which is illustrated on
Sheet S-1, PUD Site Plan. City Forester Wriskey indicates the variety and locations of
plantings are satisfactory but cautions that plantings in parking lot islands and infiltration
swales could become damaged during winter months if care is not exercised while plowing the
parking lot. Mr. Wriskey will work directly with the landscape planner and contractor to
monitor installation.
Trail System
Consistent with their other locations, the Medtronic plans identify a system of trails for
employee usage. Much of the existing golf course trail system will be preserved and tied back
to the facility, including the boardwalk through the primary wetland. The trails are shown on
the site plan below. While not a part of this plan, the City intends to explore construction of a
separate trail system within the Sysco Outlot area which residents, Medtronic employees,
Sysco employees or any other workers in the area could utilize.
Figure 3. Site Plan
Medtronic Review
October 10, 2005
Page 6
Stormwater and Wetlands Management
Page C13 of the plans illustrates the Wetland Mitigation plan and identifies all stormwater
ponds to serve the development. All runoff and necessary mitigation will be contained and
captured on site. Only one wetland in the project area will be impacted, that being the area
labeled 1B alongside the Phase 1 parking ramp. The other area, while identified as a wetland,
is the present location of Judicial Ditch #1. The ditch will be relocated away from the building
alongside Highway 10 with a wider, more natural, meandering channel. (The site plan on the
previous pages illustrates the new ditch location.) The Rice Creek Watershed District board of
commissioners reviewed the ditch realignment at their meeting on September 28, 2005 and
were supportive. Presently, there are 25 acres of wetlands and ponds on the site. Two new
stormwater ponds will be created and an existing pond expanded to accommodate the run off
on site. The Rice Creek Watershed District will review the full stormwater management permit
at their upcoming meeting on October 26, 2005.
Utilities
The golf course site is presently served by the City of Blaine for water and sanitary services.
For this project, as articulated in the Purchase Agreement and Contract for Private
Development, the City will install a new sanitary and a looped water service under Highway 10
for Medtronic. While there had been some discussion about using Blaine’s water supply for
fire suppression purposes, a utility feasibility report will be conducted to determine and
ascertain (among other things) whether the Blaine services will be utilized. Regardless of the
provider, the water main will be looped around the building with fire hydrants spaced per fire
code regulations. The sanitary lines will run parallel to the building on the west and east
elevations. Storm sewers will be constructed to serve the site with catch basins located along
the fire access road and in the surface parking lot. The storm sewers will drain into the two
stormwater ponds on either side of the building with all utilities installed underground.
Lighting
The lighting plan and photometric analysis was provided to staff on October 4, 2005. The
footcandle readings fall with acceptable ranges as outlined in Section 1103.09 of the Zoning
Code. The parking lots will be illuminated with a series of 250 watt and 400 watt metal halide
lamps fully hooded and downcast to prevent any glare and light spillage. The parking lot light
standards will have a pole height of 30 feet and the pedestrian light standards will be 14 feet
tall with decorative fixtures similar to those on Edgewood Drive adjacent to City Hall and the
Community Center.
Signage
A sign plan has not yet been submitted for review. The resolution will include a requirement
that all signage be code compliant unless otherwise permitted or authorized by the PUD
Document. Given the extensive frontage along Highway 10, more than one ground sign may
be constructed which would be consistent with Section1008.10 of the Sign Code. The Sign
Code does not place a maximum square footage on ground signs in a PUD, the code
expressly defers to the PUD narrative document. Staff will work with Medtronic to allow for a
gateway sign to be located on Medtronic property near 35 W and Highway 10.
Medtronic Review
October 10, 2005
Page 7
PUD Evaluation Criteria
The City Code highlights certain criteria which need to be satisfied to qualify for PUD
development stage approval. The criteria, along with responses, are shown below:
(1) Adequate property control is provided to protect the individual owner's rights and property
values and the public responsibility for own maintenance and upkeep.
The City has entered into a development agreement with Medtronic and have agreed to
all terms, conditions and provisions regarding the sale of the property.
(2) The interior circulation plan plus access from and onto public rights of way does not create
congestion or dangers and is adequate for the safety of the project residents and the
general public.
The City authorized an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) in 2004 to examine
the potential impacts and the maximum development potential of the site. The
transportation impacts were reviewed and a mitigation plan prepared in response. The
transportation improvements have received funding and the preparations are already
underway to allow for a completion date of September 2007. Access to the site will be
gained from two controlled (signalized) intersections on County Road J. Freeway access
can be achieved at either Highway 10 or 35W. Other than the fire access road, there will
be no vehicle access internal to the site.
(3) A sufficient amount of usable open space is provided.
There will be significant open space preserved on the site. In addition to the 25 acres of
ponds and wetlands, much of the east side of the project area will be maintain as a natural
area with seasonally cut meadows, prairie grasses and wildflowers. Altogether, including
the Blaine land, 60 of the 85 acres, or 71% or the land area, is greenspace.
(4) The arrangement of buildings, structures and accessory uses does not unreasonably
disturb the privacy or property values of the surrounding residential uses.
The only nearby residential areas are those to the south of Highway 10. The buildings
will be more than 400 feet from the residential land to the south and southwest,
separated by the freeway. The Medtronic development will not adversely impact these
residential parcels.
(5) The architectural design of the project is compatible with the surrounding area.
The design of the proposed Medtronic building will likely be more extensive than of the
surrounding office and industrial buildings. While definitely more significant than the
other buildings in the area, the design will not be out of character or inconsistent with the
other uses.
Medtronic Review
October 10, 2005
Page 9
(6) The drainage and utility system plans are submitted to and subject to the approval of the
Director of Public Works/City Engineer.
The drainage and utility system plans are being reviewed by Mounds View’s public works
department and will be reviewed by Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik and Associates. In
addition, Rice Creek Watershed District engineers will be reviewing the plans and will be
making a recommendation to the watershed district’s Board of Commissioner’s regarding
the wetland mitigation plans. The City Council will be considering the Wetland Alteration
Permit in October.
(7) The development schedule insures a logical development of the site which will protect the
public interest and conserve land.
The site will be developed in three phases—the first phase will include 820,000 square
feet of office space in two eight-story buildings connected by skywalks and conference
rooms. The parking for phase one will be provided in two areas—a three story ramp of
2100 stalls and a surface lot of 900 stalls. Phases two and three are logically planned for
future development as dictated by the needs of Medtronic.
(8) The development is in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 1010 and Titles 1200
and 1300 of this Code.
Chapter 1010 of the Municipal Code relates to wetlands and wetland zoning. The
development impacts a portion of one small wetland which will be mitigated to RCWD
standards. Mitigation will also be provided for the relocated judicial ditch, which was
identified as a wetland type area by RCWD engineers. Medtronic has applied for a permit
consistent with the requirements and standards of Chapter 1010 which the Council will
consider in October. Title 1200 refers to subdivisions and is addressed later in this report.
Title 1300 relating to Flood Plain management will be addressed by Rice Creek
Watershed District and the City’s consulting engineer prior to consideration of the wetland
alteration permit.
(9) Dwelling unit and accessory use requirements are in compliance with the district
provisions in which the development is planned.
There are no residential uses associated with this planned unit development. Accessory
uses will be allowed and permitted which would be consistent with and supportive of the
extensive workforce employed at this site. Accessory uses may include a day care facility,
café, restaurant, dining area, education, retail, fitness area and a ballroom to support the
primary office and lab space.
Snow Storage
The design of the Medtronic project on the site provides for numerous areas in which snow
may be collected during winter months. The City Forester cautions that landscaping be
planted with some forethought as to snow plow routes and snow storage. Medtronic will be
responsible for snow removal from the site if the available parking spaces are insufficient to
satisfy the daily needs of the facility.
Medtronic Review
October 10, 2005
Page 9
Municipal Coordination
OPUS and Medtronic will be presenting their site plans and preliminary plat to the City of
Blaine on October 11 and October 20. Blaine will need to approve any redesign of Coral Sea
Street and 82 Lane NE as they are Blaine streets. Blaine has been supportive of the
Medtronic development plans and improvements to County Road J and the bridge over 35W.
Future Transportation Issues
The City authorized the preparation of an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) of the
Bridges site to explore the maximum development potential of the project area. The AUAR
includes a mitigation plan based on a full build-out of 1,500,000 square feet of office space
which identified the existing and future transportation deficiencies. The transportation
improvement plan is being prepared and the improvements will be completed at the same
time or before Phase 1 completion. An update to the transportation mitigation plan will be
necessary before construction of subsequent phases can be undertaken.
Preliminary Plat Issues
The Medtronic CRM preliminary plat, date stamped October 5, 2005, was prepared by E. G.
RUD & Sons, Inc. The plat proposes six distinct lots in one block. The lot layout is
summarized in the table below. Copies of the Medtronic CRM preliminary plat have been
provided to the City’s public works department, the City Attorney and Ramsey County.
Ramsey County will forward copies of the plat to MnDOT.
Table 2. Lot Layout.
Lot Proposed Usage Lot Area (acres / sq. ft.)
Lot 1 Phase 1
Parking Ramp
13.93 acres
606,720 sq. ft.
Lot 2 Phase 1
820,000 sq. ft.
14.46 acres
630,000 sq. ft.
Lot 3 Phase 2
380,000 sq. ft.
3.78 acres
164,826 sq. ft
Lot 4 Phase 3
300,000 sq. ft
3.07 acres
133,516 sq. ft
Lot 5 Blaine lots, parking
areas
15.83 acres
689,453 sq. ft.
Outlot A Wetlands, ponds,
mitigations areas
34.20 acres
1,489,701 sq. ft.
Total area:85.27 acres
3,714,216 sq. ft
Medtronic Review
October 10, 2005
Page 10
The Medtronic CRM plat has been updated to show proposed easements associated with the
Medtronic CRM subdivision, to which Staff proposes minor changes as follows:
1. The easement over the Met Council sanitary sewer interceptor may not be vacated.
2. All of Outlot A shall be protected by public drainage and utility easement.
3. The periphery easement on Lot 3 shall be widened from ten feet to 40 feet.
The easements to be vacated are shown on the page labeled Sketch and Description showing
Existing Easements to be Vacated. These described areas (with the exception of identified
parcel 7 which is the Met Council interceptor) are the easements are rights of way proposed
for vacation via Ordinance 765.
Right of Way
No internal road system will be needed with this development and no right of way will be
platted with the exception of the northernmost point of the project area abutting Coral Sea
Street where the proposed round-about would encroach into proposed Lot 1. Given that
public traffic will be conveyed through this area, it is recommended that the preliminary plat be
revised to show the area as dedicated right of way rather than a simple access easement.
There is excess right of way shown on the page labeled “Sketch and Description showing
Existing Easements to be Vacated” proposed for vacation: Ardan Avenue, Edgewood Drive
and Jackson Drive. These rights of way were originally platted with the Laport Meadows
subdivision from the 1940s yet were never improved. According to the City Charter, excess
right of way (as well as any excess easement) is vacated by ordinance. Ordinance 765 will
accomplish the proposed vacations.
Park Dedication Fees
Consistent with and as articulated in the Purchase Agreement and Contract for Private
Development, a park dedication fee in the amount of $865,000 is applicable with this
subdivision of land. Ordinarily the City will assess a fee of either five or ten percent of the land
value (less improvements) as determined by the Ramsey County Assessor. The 2006
County assessed valuation of the land being subdivided is $7,500,000. Assuming a ten
percent dedication, the City would have received a dedication of $750,000. In this case, the
dedication was agreed upon during the contract negotiations based on the purchase price of
the land. The dedication fee will be paid at the time of building permit application.
Comprehensive Plan Consistency
The division of land as proposed by the preliminary plat would be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, as amended by the City Council and approved by the Metropolitan
Council. The Future Land use Map designates this land as “Office” which is the use planned
with this subdivision.
Medtronic Review
October 10, 2005
Page 11
3. Rezoning
With the general concept plans for the Medtronic Planned Unit Development approved, the
City must consider a rezoning of the project area from the existing Light Industrial (I-1)
designation to Planned Unit Development (PUD). Typically this is done at the development
stage of the PUD process consistent with the final Council approval of the site plans. The City
Code requires that the Planning Commission examine potential adverse effects associated
with a proposed rezoning by addressing five questions. The questions, along with their
responses, are as follows:
(1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan.
The rezoning to PUD would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the
City Council recently authorized an amendment to the future land use map from
Outdoor Sport Recreation and Passive Open Space to Office. While the current Light
Industrial zoning of the site is consistent with the Office designation, the PUD zoning
would provide greater flexibility, clustering of buildings, open space preservation and
staging of the development along with the added protection of a very specific set of
land-use requirements articulated in the PUD document.
(2) The geographical area involved.
The area is located north of Highway 10 and west of Interstate 35W, effectively
detached from the rest of the community. A 46-acre wooded natural area is adjacent
to the site to the west with developed industrial uses to the north. Nearly sixteen acres
of the project area are in the City of Blaine, the rezoning action being considered
would not extend into Blaine as Mounds View does not have zoning jurisdiction in
other communities.
(3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
The current Ramsey County assessed valuation for the project area is set at $7.5
million. Currently the site generates no taxes and does not contribute to County and
school district tax collections. After the sale of land, the area would immediately
become taxable and it is anticipated the County will establish a valuation in excess of
current levels. Taxes would be payable to all taxing jurisdictions on the base value of
the land. After the first phase of the project has been constructed, taxes would be
paid on the value of the land and the improvements, the value of which will likely
exceed $75,000,000. For these and other reasons, the rezoning will not depreciate
the area in which it is proposed.
(4) The character of the surrounding area.
The surrounding area is predominately industrial, with industrial buildings, industrial
uses, offices and other accessory industrial features such as outdoor heavy
equipment parking and storage, loading docks, shipping and receiving terminals
bordered by freeways and a busy county road. The proposed rezoning will allow for a
corporate office campus Medtronic’s Cardiac Rhythm Management division.
Medtronic Review
October 10, 2005
Page 12
(5) The demonstrated need for such use.
The need has been demonstrated by more than a year of discussions and
negotiations between the City and Medtronic, discussions and negotiations
between the City and the legislature, between the City and various state agencies
and has been expressed in a year of discussion and cooperation between the City
and the counties or Ramsey and Anoka, and the cities of Blaine and Shoreview, all
of who are supportive of this project.
Adverse Effects Summary: Staff and the Planning Commission, by virtue of their
resolution recommending approval of the rezoning, would submit that there are no
compelling adverse effects associated with this project, and any impacts resulting from
the proposed development will be or have been mitigated to the satisfactory approvals
of all governing agencies, including the Met Council, the Department of Natural
Resources, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the Rice Creek Watershed
District, the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Aviation Administration.
Planning Commission Action:
The Planning Commission reviewed and considered the development stage plans, the
preliminary plat and proposed rezoning at their meetings on September 21, 2005 and again
on October 5, 2005. Their resolution of approval is attached for the Council’s reference.
Recommendation:
Based upon all of the above information, the supporting plans and documentation associated
with this request, staff and the Planning Commission recommends the City Council open the
public hearing and take testimony from staff, the applicants, residents and other interested
parties and then consider the following actions:
1. Approve the Medtronic CRM development stage plans. Resolution 6630 is attached
for the Council’s consideration.
2. Approve the Medtronic CRM preliminary plat. Resolution 6631 is attached for the
Council’s consideration. Along with the resolution approving the preliminary plat,
Ordinance 765 which vacates the excess easements and right of way associated with
the Medtronic plat has been prepared and is available for introduction and first reading.
3. Introduce and approve the first reading of Ordinance 764, an ordinance rezoning the
Medtronic CRM campus from I-1, Light Industrial, to PUD, Planned Unit Development.
If anyone should have questions regarding this report or the plans which you already have in
your possession, please do not hesitate to contact me at 763-717-4021.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Ericson
Community Development Director
Zoning Map
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 815-05
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE MEDTRONIC DEVELOPMENT
STAGE PLANS, THE MEDTRONIC CRM PRELIMINARY PLAT AND THE REZONING
OF THE PROJECT AREA FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT; PLANNING CASES PD2005-002 AND MA2005-02
WHEREAS, Medtronic, Inc., has submitted an application for a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) for an 1,500,000 square foot corporate office campus on 72 acres of land
and is requesting approval of the PUD development stage plans; and,
WHEREAS, Medtronic, Inc., has submitted an application for a Major Subdivision of the
project area to support the requested Planned Unit Development; and,
WHEREAS, the land to be developed by Medtronic represents the City’s Bridges Golf
Course located north of Highway 10 and west of Interstate 35W at 8290 Coral Sea Street,
legally described as follows:
Refer to Exhibit A
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on August 22, 2005 and
at this meeting approved the general concept plans for the Medtronic PUD; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed Chapter 1120 of the
Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to planned unit developments; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed Chapter 1120 and
Title 1200 of the Mounds View Municipal Code relating to PUDs and subdivisions of land,
respectively; and,
WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the development
stage plans and preliminary plat date-stamped September 9, 2005, relative to this request.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission,
recognizing that the general concept plans have been approved, makes the following findings
of fact related to the Medtronic development stage plans, preliminary plat and rezoning
request:
1. The development stage plans are consistent with the approved general concept
stage plans.
2. The development stage plans satisfy all codes, requirements and regulations.
Resolution 815-05
Page 2
3. The Medtronic project is a staged development—no further review will be required
of subsequent phases so long as they remain consistent with the approved plans.
4. An extensive amount of natural areas, wetlands, woods, ponds and open space is
preserved in the development area.
5. The City Forester has reviewed and supports the landscape plan as presented.
6. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has consented to the proposed building
heights of 140 feet.
7. The proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
8. The Medtronic CRM preliminary plat satisfies all requirements of Title 1200 relating
to land subdivisions.
9. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will not
cause or generate adverse effects to adjoining property owners or the community in
general.
10. As addressed in the Bridges Office Park AUAR, a mitigation plan was adopted to
address transportation and traffic deficiencies resulting from the development with
preparations for the improvements already underway as illustrated in Exhibit B.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission takes the following actions relating to the Medtronic CRM development:
1. Recommendation of approval of the development stage plans date-stamped
September 9, 2005 for the Medtronic PUD subject to the following conditions:
a. The applicant or applicant’s representatives shall prepare and submit a
detailed light plan with exterior fixture specifications, light standard heights
and a photometric analysis.
b. The plans shall be revised to show areas set aside for snow storage.
c. Accessory storage structures, while none are shown on the plan, shall be
allowed consistent with provisions of Title 1000 and Title 1100 of the Mounds
View Municipal Code.
d. The applicant shall request and obtain approval for all proposed work to occur
in the City of Blaine.
e. The applicant shall execute a development agreement relating to the project
and a PUD Narrative document outlining the specific requirements associated
with the project.
f. The transportation improvements as outlined in Exhibit B shall be completed
and fully operational prior to a certificate of occupancy (CO) being issued for
Phase 1 of the project.
Resolution 815-05
Page 3
2. Recommendation of approval of the Medtronic CRM preliminary plat date-
stamped September 9, 2005 and associated easement and right of way vacations subject to
the following conditions:
a. The preliminary plat shall be revised to show a perimeter drainage and utility
easement and easements over all ponds, wetlands, mitigation areas and
drainage conveyances.
b. Legal descriptions shall be prepared by the applicant or applicant’s
representative for those areas proposed to be vacated.
c. The applicant shall seek and gain approval from the City of Blaine regarding
the preliminary plat, specifically, proposed Lot 4.
d. The applicant shall execute a subdivision agreement as required by Section
1202.05 of the Subdivisions regulations. The terms of such an agreement
may be incorporated within the development agreement referred to in
condition 1e above.
3. Recommendation of approval of the proposed rezoning of the project area within the
City of Mounds View from Light Industrial to Planned Unit Development as consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this
resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 5th day of October, 2005.
_______________________________________
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Jim Ericson, Community Development Director
(SEAL)
EXHIBIT A – Medtronic PUD Legal Description
Parcel 1:
Outlot A and Lot 4, Block 1, North Star Industrial Park 2nd Addition, according to the recorded
plat thereof; and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Parcel 2:
Lot 16, Block 2, North Star Industrial Park, except the easterly 40 feet thereof, according to
the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Parcel 3: That part of Tract A described below:
Tract A.
The South Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 5, Township 30 North, Range 23 West,
Ramsey County, Minnesota, which lies northerly and westerly of the following described
line:
Commencing at the center of said Section 5; thence north on an azimuth of 359
degrees 23 minutes 10 seconds (azimuth oriented to Minnesota State Plane
Coordinate System) along the north and south quarter line of said Section 5 for 781.42
feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence on an azimuth of 108
degrees 12 minutes 41 seconds, 231.14 feet; thence on an azimuth of 98 degrees 27
minutes 03 seconds, 1486.78 feet; thence run northeasterly for 447.16 feet on a non-
tangential curve, concave to the northwest, having a radius of 720 feet, a delta angle of
35 degrees 35 minutes 02 seconds and a chord azimuth of 76 degrees 55 minutes 11
seconds; thence on an azimuth of 59 degrees 07 minutes 40 seconds, 192.89 feet;
thence run northerly 398.14 feet on a non-tangential curve concave to the northwest,
having a radius of 850 feet; a delta angle of 26 degrees 50 minutes 15 seconds and a
chord azimuth of 29 degrees 26 minutes 05 seconds; thence on an azimuth of 16
degrees 00 minutes 57 seconds, 303.65 feet to the north line of said Tract A and there
terminating;
Parcel 4:
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14 and 15, Block 1 and Lots 1, 2, 3, Lot 4 except the South 60 feet and Lot
5 except the South 222.2 feet, Block 2, Laport Meadows, according to the recorded plat
thereof, and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota, except those portions which lie
southwesterly of a line run parallel with and distant 100 feet northeasterly of the following
described line:
Beginning at a point on the west line of Section 5, Township 30 North, Range 23 West
distant 688.09 feet south of the northwest corner thereof; thence run southeasterly at
an angle of 142 degrees 35 minutes 45 seconds with said west section line for 1278.48
feet; thence deflect to the left on a 03 degrees 00 minute curve (delta angle 33 degrees
39 minutes 25 seconds) for 1121.90 feet; thence on a tangent to said curve for
1100.00 feet and there terminating.
(These legal descriptions do not include parcels in Blaine.)
County Road J Improvement Project
About the Project
Ramsey County, in cooperation with the
cities of Mounds View, Blaine,
Shoreview, Anoka County, and
Mn/DOT, along with its consultant, Short
Elliott Hendrickson Inc. (SEH), is
conducting roadway design work to
improve County Road J (85th Avenue
NE). The limits of this much needed
transportation project extend from
approximately Airport Road (93rd Lane
NE) on the west to Rice Creek
Parkway/Naples Street on the east.
The proposed improvements consist of:
z Widening County Road J to accommodate a continuous four-lane divided roadway with a raised center
concrete median
z Replacing the narrow two-lane bridge over I-35W with an expanded four-lane bridge with turn lanes
z Installing two additional traffic signals
z Adding left and right turn lanes at public street intersections
z Intersection improvements
z Modifications to driveways and access points
z Constructing a continuous pedestrian path along the roadway
Based on preliminary technical analysis completed by the project partners, a conceptual design for the proposed
roadway improvements was recommended (shown below).
Improvements are needed to increase both capacity and safety. The current two-lane bridge at I-35W and the
absence of turn lanes along County Road J cause congestion and traffic conflicts. The frequency and severity of
these problems will continue to grow as Medtronic office facilities and other planned commercial and residential
developments are completed. The proposed improvements will safely accommodate traffic volumes anticipated
at full build-out of properties served within the corridor.
The following graphic and paragraphs describe the recommended improvements in more detail:
Exhibit B
Click to view larger view of this image
1. County Road J will be widened from approximately Airport Road (93rd Lane NE) on the west to Rice
Creek Parkway/Naples Street on the east to accommodate a continuous four-lane divided roadway with a
raised center concrete median.
2. The northbound I-35W exit ramp will be widened to accommodate additional turn lanes at the ramp
terminal. Furthermore, the existing temporary traffic signal will be replaced with a permanent full traffic
actuated control signal system.
3. The bridge over I-35W will be reconstructed and will be widened and lengthened to accommodate four
through lanes, left and right turn lanes and a pedestrian path.
4. The I-35W Service Road intersection will be improved to accommodate additional turn lanes at all
intersection approaches. Other improvements will include the construction of a raised median for the
northern and southern approaches and the replacement of the existing temporary traffic signal with a
permanent full traffic actuated signal control system with protected left turn phasing.
5. A pedestrian path will be constructed along County Road J throughout the entire project area.
6. The County Road J and Coral Sea St. intersection will be reconstructed into a single full access
intersection. The proposed intersection improvement will require a minor realignment of the northern
approach. Furthermore, a new full traffic actuated signal control system with protected left turn phasing
will be installed at the intersection.
7. A modified full traffic actuated signal control system will be installed at the County Road J and Xylite St.
intersection.
8. The existing four-lane undivided bridge over Highway 10 will remain in-place.
9. The County Road J and Airport Road (93rd Lane NE) intersection will be improved to accommodate
additional lanes and a pedestrian path. Modifications to the traffic signal will occur at the intersection.
10. The northbound and southbound lanes of Airport Road between County Road J and the south ramp
terminal will be widened to accommodate additional traffic lanes.
11. The eastbound Highway 10 exit ramp at Airport Road will be widened to accommodate a new right turn
lane. Furthermore, a new full traffic actuated signal control system will be installed at the ramp terminal
intersection.
12. A free-right turn lane to the access ramp onto westbound Highway 10 will be constructed on the
northbound lanes of Airport Road.
Previous Page
Get Adobe Acrobat Reader
Exhibit B
Service DriveEdison Street NEXylite Street NECounty Road J
E
B
T
H
1
0
W
B
T
H
1
0Airport Roadfeetscale
800 8000
SCALE: 1" = 800’
PROPOSED ROADWAY
PROPOSED SHOULDER, PAVED
RAISED MEDIANS, CURBS
LEGEND
PROPOSED BRIDGES
PROPOSED WALK / TRAIL Rice Creek PkwyLake Driv
eNB I-35WSB I-35WCoral Sea StreetI-35W Service DriveNaples StreetBridges Golf Course
12
11
10
9 8
7 6
5
4 3 2 1
Preliminary Layout
Subject to Change
Preliminary Layout
Subject to Change
Preliminary Layout
Subject to Change
Exhibit B
RESOLUTION NO. 6630
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MEDTRONIC CRM DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANS;
PLANNING CASE PD2005-002
WHEREAS, Medtronic, Inc., has submitted an application for a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) for an 1,500,000 square foot corporate office campus on 72.2 acres of
land and is requesting approval of the PUD development stage plans; and,
WHEREAS, the land to be developed by Medtronic represents the City’s Bridges Golf
Course located north of Highway 10 and west of Interstate 35W at 8290 Coral Sea Street,
legally described as follows:
Refer to Exhibit A
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on August 22, 2005 and
at this meeting approved the general concept plans for the Medtronic PUD; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on October 10, 2005
and at this meeting reviewed and considered the development stage plans date-stamped
September 9, 2005; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed Chapter 1120 of the Mounds View
Municipal Code pertaining to planned unit developments; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has received a recommendation of approval
from the Mounds View Planning Commission as evidenced by Resolution 815-05.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council makes the
following findings of fact related to the Medtronic development stage plans:
1. The development stage plans are consistent with the approved general concept
stage plans.
2. The development stage plans satisfy all codes, requirements and regulations.
3. The Medtronic project is a phased development—with the exception of updating the
transportation mitigation plan, no further review will be required of subsequent
phases so long as they remain consistent with the approved plans.
4. An extensive amount of natural areas, wetlands, woods, ponds and open space is
preserved within the development area.
5. The City Forester has reviewed and supports the landscape plan as presented.
6. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has consented to the proposed building
heights of 140 feet.
7. The proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Resolution 6630
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council
approves the development stage plans date-stamped September 9, 2005 for the Medtronic
CRM planned unit development subject to the following conditions:
1. The plans shall be revised to show areas set aside for snow storage.
2. Accessory storage structures, while none are shown on the plan, shall be allowed
consistent with provisions of Title 1000 and Title 1100 of the Mounds View
Municipal Code.
3. The applicant shall request and obtain approval for all proposed work to occur in
the City of Blaine.
4. The applicant shall execute a PUD Narrative document outlining the specific
requirements associated with the project.
5. The Phase 1 transportation improvements identified in the AUAR Mitigation Plan
shall be completed and fully operational prior to a certificate of occupancy (CO)
being issued for Phase 1 of the project. The mitigation plan will need to be re-
approved prior to subsequent phase build-outs.
Adopted this 10th day of October, 2005.
_______________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk / Administrator
(SEAL)
EXHIBIT A – Medtronic PUD Legal Description
Parcel 1:
Outlot A and Lot 4, Block 1, North Star Industrial Park 2nd Addition, according to the recorded
plat thereof; and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Parcel 2:
Lot 16, Block 2, North Star Industrial Park, except the easterly 40 feet thereof, according to
the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Parcel 3: That part of Tract A described below:
Tract A.
The South Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 5, Township 30 North, Range 23 West,
Ramsey County, Minnesota, which lies northerly and westerly of the following described
line:
Commencing at the center of said Section 5; thence north on an azimuth of 359
degrees 23 minutes 10 seconds (azimuth oriented to Minnesota State Plane
Coordinate System) along the north and south quarter line of said Section 5 for 781.42
feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence on an azimuth of 108
degrees 12 minutes 41 seconds, 231.14 feet; thence on an azimuth of 98 degrees 27
minutes 03 seconds, 1486.78 feet; thence run northeasterly for 447.16 feet on a non-
tangential curve, concave to the northwest, having a radius of 720 feet, a delta angle of
35 degrees 35 minutes 02 seconds and a chord azimuth of 76 degrees 55 minutes 11
seconds; thence on an azimuth of 59 degrees 07 minutes 40 seconds, 192.89 feet;
thence run northerly 398.14 feet on a non-tangential curve concave to the northwest,
having a radius of 850 feet; a delta angle of 26 degrees 50 minutes 15 seconds and a
chord azimuth of 29 degrees 26 minutes 05 seconds; thence on an azimuth of 16
degrees 00 minutes 57 seconds, 303.65 feet to the north line of said Tract A and there
terminating;
Parcel 4:
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14 and 15, Block 1 and Lots 1, 2, 3, Lot 4 except the South 60 feet and Lot
5 except the South 222.2 feet, Block 2, Laport Meadows, according to the recorded plat
thereof, and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota, except those portions which lie
southwesterly of a line run parallel with and distant 100 feet northeasterly of the following
described line:
Beginning at a point on the west line of Section 5, Township 30 North, Range 23 West
distant 688.09 feet south of the northwest corner thereof; thence run southeasterly at
an angle of 142 degrees 35 minutes 45 seconds with said west section line for 1278.48
feet; thence deflect to the left on a 03 degrees 00 minute curve (delta angle 33 degrees
39 minutes 25 seconds) for 1121.90 feet; thence on a tangent to said curve for
1100.00 feet and there terminating.
(These legal descriptions do not include parcels in Blaine.)
RESOLUTION NO. 6631
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MEDTRONIC CRM PRELIMINARY PLAT
PLANNING CASE MA2005-002
WHEREAS, Medtronic, Inc., has submitted an application for a Major Subdivision to re-
plat the 85.27 acres land associated with the Medtronic CRM project area and is requesting
approval of the Medtronic CRM Preliminary Plat date-stamped October 5, 2005 prepared by
E. G. Rud and Sons, Inc.; and,
WHEREAS, the land to be subdivided by Medtronic represents the Mounds View
Bridges Golf Course located north of Highway 10 and west of Interstate 35W at 8290 Coral
Sea Street, and adjoining parcels in the city of Blaine, all legally described as follows:
Refer to Exhibit A
WHEREAS, the conditions and requirements regarding the proposed sale of real
property from the City and the EDA to Medtronic are fully addressed in the Purchase
Agreement and Contract for Private Development as executed by the parties on August 31,
2005; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on October 10, 2005
regarding the Medtronic CRM preliminary plat; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed Title 1200 of the Mounds View Municipal
Code pertaining to subdivisions of land; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has received a recommendation of approval
from the Mounds View Planning Commission as evidenced by Resolution 815-05.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council makes the
following findings of fact related to the Medtronic CRM preliminary plat:
1. The preliminary plat date-stamped October 5, 2005 is consistent and complies
with the City’s subdivision regulations as articulated in Title 1200.
2. The submitted preliminary plat is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive
Plan.
3. Easements sufficient to protect all water courses, ponds, wetlands and drainage
areas and public utilities are provided and dedicated on the preliminary plat.
4. Excess right of way and excess easements will be vacated according to the
regulations and requirements of the City of Mounds View and state of Minnesota.
5. Park dedication fees in the amount of $865,000 have been negotiated between the
City and Medtronic and will be due at the time of Phase 1 building permit approval.
Resolution 6631
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council
approves the Medtronic CRM Preliminary Plat date-stamped October 5, 2005 subject to the
following conditions:
1. The easement over the Met Council sanitary sewer interceptor shall not be vacated.
2. All of Outlot A shall be protected by public drainage and utility easement.
3. The periphery easement on Lot 3 shall be widened from 10 feet to 40 feet.
4. City Council approval is subject to Ramsey County approval.
5. If deemed necessary by the City Attorney, the Applicant shall execute a subdivision
agreement consistent with the requirements and regulations of he City of Mounds View
and state of Minnesota.
6. The Applicant shall submit the Medtronic CRM final plat within six months from the
date of preliminary plat approval or the preliminary plat approval shall be rendered null
and void.
Adopted this 10th day of October, 2005.
_______________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk / Administrator
(SEAL)
EXHIBIT A – Medtronic CRM Legal Descriptions
Outlot A and Lot 4, Block 1, North Star Industrial Park 2nd Addition, according to the recorded
plat thereof; and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Lots 10 through 16, Block 2, North Star Industrial Park, according to the recorded plat thereof,
and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota.
That part of Tract A described below:
Tract A.
The South Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 5, Township 30 North, Range 23 West,
Ramsey County, Minnesota, which lies northerly and westerly of the following described
line:
Commencing at the center of said Section 5; thence north on an azimuth of 359
degrees 23 minutes 10 seconds (azimuth oriented to Minnesota State Plane
Coordinate System) along the north and south quarter line of said Section 5 for 781.42
feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence on an azimuth of 108
degrees 12 minutes 41 seconds, 231.14 feet; thence on an azimuth of 98 degrees 27
minutes 03 seconds, 1486.78 feet; thence run northeasterly for 447.16 feet on a non-
tangential curve, concave to the northwest, having a radius of 720 feet, a delta angle of
35 degrees 35 minutes 02 seconds and a chord azimuth of 76 degrees 55 minutes 11
seconds; thence on an azimuth of 59 degrees 07 minutes 40 seconds, 192.89 feet;
thence run northerly 398.14 feet on a non-tangential curve concave to the northwest,
having a radius of 850 feet; a delta angle of 26 degrees 50 minutes 15 seconds and a
chord azimuth of 29 degrees 26 minutes 05 seconds; thence on an azimuth of 16
degrees 00 minutes 57 seconds, 303.65 feet to the north line of said Tract A and there
terminating;
And,
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14 and 15, Block 1 and Lots 1, 2, 3, Lot 4 except the South 60 feet and Lot
5 except the South 222.2 feet, Block 2, Laport Meadows, according to the recorded plat
thereof, and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota, except those portions which lie
southwesterly of a line run parallel with and distant 100 feet northeasterly of the following
described line:
Beginning at a point on the west line of Section 5, Township 30 North, Range 23 West
distant 688.09 feet south of the northwest corner thereof; thence run southeasterly at
an angle of 142 degrees 35 minutes 45 seconds with said west section line for 1278.48
feet; thence deflect to the left on a 03 degrees 00 minute curve (delta angle 33 degrees
39 minutes 25 seconds) for 1121.90 feet; thence on a tangent to said curve for
1100.00 feet and there terminating.
ORDINANCE NO. 765
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE VACATING EXCESS RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE MEDTRONIC CRM PLAT
WHEREAS, there are easements and right of way previously platted and dedicated to the
City of Mounds View within the Medtronic CRM plat that are excess and unnecessary, all legally
described as follows:
1. All of the drainage easement across Outlot A as dedicated in NORTH STAR
INDUSTRIAL PARK 2ND ADDITION, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
2. All of the drainage easement and all of the drainage and utility easement as dedicated
in Lot 4, Block 1, NORTH STAR INDUSTRIAL PARK 2ND ADDITION, Ramsey
County, Minnesota.
3. That part of the street easement across the west 33.00 feet of the South Half of the
Northeast Quarter of Section 05, Township 30, Range 23, Ramsey County, Minnesota,
which lies northerly of the northerly right of way line of U.S. Highway No. 10, as
described in document number 1714471 as found in the office of the Ramsey County
Recorder.
4. Those parts of Ardan Avenue, Edgewood Drive and Jackson Drive as dedicated in
LAPORT MEADOWS, Ramsey County, Minnesota, which lie northerly of the northerly
right of way line of U.S. Highway No. 10.
5. The drainage easement across the north 50.00 feet of Lot 1, Block 1 and across the
north 5.00 feet of Lot 15, Block 1, all in LAPORT MEADOWS, Ramsey County,
Minnesota, as described in document number 1670999.
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the above-described drainage, utility and right
of way easements, as shown on attached Exhibit A, no longer serve a public purpose and it is
in the public interest to vacate such unneeded drainage, utility and right of way easements.
NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. The City of Mounds View Municipal Code Appendix D is hereby amended to
include reference to the following Special Ordinance No. 765.
Subd. 1. The City has made a determination that the above-described drainage, utility
and right of way easements no longer serve a public purpose, and as such, it is in the public
interest to vacate such areas.
Ordinance 765
Page 2
Subd. 2. There are no public utilities, buried or otherwise, within the easements to be
vacated except those to be protected by easements dedicated with the proposed Medtronic CRM
plat.
Subd. 3. The City Council of the City of Mounds View finds that there is no public interest
or purpose served in retaining the excess and unneeded drainage, utility and right of way
easements proposed for vacation.
Subd. 4. The drainage, utility and right of way easements legally described herein and
shown on Exhibit A are hereby vacated.
SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect thirty (30) days after its publication.
First read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 10th day of October, 2005.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this ___ day of _____, 2005.
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk-Administrator
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Exhibit A 1 234 5
ORDINANCE 764
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A REZONING OF THE MEDTRONIC CRM
DEVELOPMENT AREA FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (I-1) TO PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Appendix A of the Mounds View Municipal Code entitled “Specific Rezonings”
is hereby amended to include reference to the following Ordinance 764.
Subdivision 1. Purpose. The Mounds View City Council has determined that to
further economic development and organized land use controls that the present zoning
classification of certain parcels should be reclassified to be consistent with the Mounds View
Zoning Code and the proposed Mounds View Comprehensive Plan.
Subdivision 2. The Mounds View Planning Commission and City Council have
determined that there would be no adverse effects to adjoining properties resulting from the
rezoning and that the rezoning would not be detrimental to the community at large.
Subdivision 3. Accordingly, the Mounds View City Council approves the rezoning and
directs that the City’s official Zoning Map and the zoning classification for the following
described parcel be amended as follows:
Parcel Legal Description
Existing Zoning
Designation
New Zoning
Designation
Refer to Exhibit A I-1 PUD
and as shown on the map attached Exhibit B.
SECTION 2. This ordinance is effective thirty days after its publication.
First read and introduced by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 10th
day of October, 2005.
Second reading and adoption by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on
this ____ day of _____, 2005.
_______________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST
_______________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk / Administrator
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
Scott Riggs, City Attorney
EXHIBIT A – Medtronic PUD Legal Description
Parcel 1:
Outlot A and Lot 4, Block 1, North Star Industrial Park 2nd Addition, according to the
recorded plat thereof; and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Parcel 2:
Lot 16, Block 2, North Star Industrial Park, except the easterly 40 feet thereof, according to
the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Parcel 3: That part of Tract A described below:
Tract A.
The South Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 5, Township 30 North, Range 23
West, Ramsey County, Minnesota, which lies northerly and westerly of the following
described line:
Commencing at the center of said Section 5; thence north on an azimuth of 359
degrees 23 minutes 10 seconds (azimuth oriented to Minnesota State Plane
Coordinate System) along the north and south quarter line of said Section 5 for
781.42 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence on an
azimuth of 108 degrees 12 minutes 41 seconds, 231.14 feet; thence on an azimuth
of 98 degrees 27 minutes 03 seconds, 1486.78 feet; thence run northeasterly for
447.16 feet on a non-tangential curve, concave to the northwest, having a radius of
720 feet, a delta angle of 35 degrees 35 minutes 02 seconds and a chord azimuth of
76 degrees 55 minutes 11 seconds; thence on an azimuth of 59 degrees 07 minutes
40 seconds, 192.89 feet; thence run northerly 398.14 feet on a non-tangential curve
concave to the northwest, having a radius of 850 feet; a delta angle of 26 degrees 50
minutes 15 seconds and a chord azimuth of 29 degrees 26 minutes 05 seconds;
thence on an azimuth of 16 degrees 00 minutes 57 seconds, 303.65 feet to the north
line of said Tract A and there terminating;
Parcel 4:
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14 and 15, Block 1 and Lots 1, 2, 3, Lot 4 except the South 60 feet and
Lot 5 except the South 222.2 feet, Block 2, Laport Meadows, according to the recorded plat
thereof, and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota, except those portions which lie
southwesterly of a line run parallel with and distant 100 feet northeasterly of the following
described line:
Beginning at a point on the west line of Section 5, Township 30 North, Range 23
West distant 688.09 feet south of the northwest corner thereof; thence run
southeasterly at an angle of 142 degrees 35 minutes 45 seconds with said west
section line for 1278.48 feet; thence deflect to the left on a 03 degrees 00 minute
curve (delta angle 33 degrees 39 minutes 25 seconds) for 1121.90 feet; thence on a
tangent to said curve for 1100.00 feet and there terminating.
(These legal descriptions do not include parcels in Blaine.)
Exhibit B. Zoning Map
PUD
PUD
PUD
Item No: 8B
Meeting Date: Oct 10, 2005
Type of Business: PH
Administrator Review : ______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of the Second
Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 763, an Ordinance
Authorizing the Vacation of Easements and Right of
Way Associated with the SYSCO Second Addition
Major Subdivision; Planning Case MA2005-001
Discussion:
Due to actions beyond the control of the applicant, this item and all other Sysco items
previously scheduled for review at this meeting have been rescheduled for the October 24,
2005 Council meeting. Because a public hearing had been set, published and noticed for
this particular item, the City Attorney recommends the Council open the public hearing and
continue the hearing until October 24, 2005.
Recommendation:
Open the public hearing to consider the second reading and adoption of Ordinance 763, an
ordinance Authorizing the Vacation of Easements and Right of Way Associated with the
SYSCO Second Addition Major Subdivision, and continue the hearing to the October 24,
2005 Council meeting.
James Ericson
Community Development Director
Item No: 8D
Meeting Date: Oct 10, 2005
Type of Business: CB
Administrator Review: ____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Minor Subdivision of the Properties
Located at 8123 Pleasant View Court and 8117-8119
Pleasant View Court; Mounds View Planning Case
MI2005-007.
Introduction:
The owner and applicant, James Benson, has applied for an approval of a lot line adjustment
between the properties he owns at 8123 Pleasant View Court and 8117-8119 Pleasant View
Court. The subdivision would move the common lot line of 8123 Pleasant View Court
(heretofore referred to as Lot 9) south 33.80 feet to meet the most southeasterly corner of
8117-8119 Pleasant View Court (heretofore referred to as Lot 6). James Benson owns both
properties – he resides at 8123 Pleasant View Drive, and 8117-8119 is a duplex currently
being used as rental property. The purpose of the land transfer is to move the property line
to correspond with the corner of Lot 6, along with allowing more yard space for Lot 9.
Discussion:
According to the Mounds View City Code, a minor subdivision is a division of land less than
two acres in area in which only one additional lot is created. The definition also includes lot
line adjustments, even though no new lots (such as with this request) may be created by the
adjustment.
After the subdivision, both lots would comply with the area and setback requirements of their
respective zoning districts.
Easements: There are 5-foot wide side lot line and 10 foot wide rear lot line easements
proposed over where the new lot line would be. There is no storm sewer along this property
line.
Zoning: Lot 6 (the duplex lot) is zoned R-2, Single & Two Family Residential; and Lot 9 is
zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential. While a zoning change is not required for this
subdivision, after the adjustment, the property at 8123 Pleasant View Court will exhibit both
R-2 and R-1 zoning designations. (A detached single-family house is permitted in an R-2
district.) Staff would recommend that the next comprehensive rezoning undertaken in the
City include the slice of land divided from Lot 6.
Park Dedication Requirements: Every subdivision of land is ordinarily subject to park
dedication requirements. The City Council adopted Ordinance 745 last year however which
provided for some flexibility in determining what—if any—dedication would be required.
Because no new lots are created by this subdivision and no additional development would
occur, no dedication should be required.
Benson Report
Oct 10, 2005
Page 2
Public Notice. Public notice is not required for this request. Given that no new development
will occur, a public hearing or public notice was not warranted and notices were not sent to
adjoining property owners.
Planning Commission Review. The Planning Commission reviewed this subdivision on
September 21, 2005. Finding that the lot line adjustment was consistent with the subdivision
regulations, the zoning code and the comp plan, the Commission adopted Resolution 816-05
which recommends approval of the requested subdivision.
Recommendation:
This proposed subdivision is merely a redrawing of one common lot line between two parcels
in order for the lot line to meet with the rear corner of Lot 6. The associated uses will not be
changing as a result of the subdivision. There will not be any impacts to traffic or congestion
and the subdivision would not be inconsistent with either the Comprehensive Plan or the
Zoning Code and Subdivision Code. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Resolution 6634.
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
Attachments:
1. Planning Application
2. Zoning Map
3. Existing lot lines
4. Proposed Subdivision
5. Photographic Documentation
6. Resolution 816-05
7. Resolution 6634
Zoning Map
Aerial View
Existing
Lot Lines
Proposed
Lot Line
Plat Map
Lot 6
Lot 9
Photographic Documentation
Photo of home located at 8123 Pleasant View Court, looking southeast
along the lot line between the properties
Lot 9 property line would move from the end of the fence to the pink stake.
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 816-05
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION
OF 8123 PLEASANT VIEW COURT AND 8117-8119 PLEASANT VIEW COURT;
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MI2005-007
WHEREAS, the Applicant, James Benson, has requested approval of a minor
subdivision to adjust the common lot line between 8117-8119 Pleasant View Court and
8123 Pleasant View Court; and,
WHEREAS, the property located at 8117-8119 Pleasant View Court is zoned R-2,
Single and Two-family Residential, and the property located at 8123 Pleasant View Court is
zoned R-1, Single Family Residential; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted a Certificate and Plat of Survey for the
identified properties, dated August 12, 2005; and,
WHEREAS, both properties are owned by the Applicant and are legally described as
follows:
8123 Pleasant View Court
Pin #: 06-30-23-23-0016
8117-8119 Pleasant View Court
Pin #: 06-30-23-23-0017
Lot 9, Block 3, Mounds View
Development Company No.1,
Ramsey County, Minnesota
Lot 6, Block 3, Mounds View
Development Company No. 1,
Ramsey County, Minnesota,
subject to easements.
WHEREAS, the 33.80 feet of land being detached from Lot 6 and attached to Lot 9
is legally described as follows:
That part of Lot 6, Block 3 lying northeasterly of a line from the
northeast corner of said Lot 6 to the most southeasterly corner of
said Lot 6, Block 3, Mounds View Development Company No. 1,
Ramsey County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the applicant’s request for a
minor subdivision and has determined that it is in conformance with Chapters 1104, 1201,
and 1202 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the applicant’s request for a minor
subdivision is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and,
Resolution 816-05
Page 2
WHEREAS, a copy of the Certificate and Plat of Survey has been forwarded to the
City Attorney for his review; and,
WHEREAS, no park dedication fees will be recommended with this subdivision due
to there being no new additional lots created by this subdivision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission recommends approval of the minor subdivision request made by James
Benson, owner of 8123 Pleasant View Court and 8117-8119 Pleasant View Court, subject
to the following:
1. The applicants shall execute and record two easement documents (one for each lot)
which dedicate to the public for public use the proposed additional easement areas.
2. The applicants shall be responsible for recording new property deeds to effectuate
the subdivision with Ramsey County within 60 days of Council approval. Failure to
do so within the prescribed time frame (excluding unavoidable delays as determined
by the Community Development Director) shall render the minor subdivision null and
void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs
staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 21st day of September, 2005
_____________________________________
Jean Miller, Vice Chairperson
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
(SEAL)
RESOLUTION NO. 6634
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION
OF 8123 PLEASANT VIEW COURT AND 8117-8119 PLEASANT VIEW COURT;
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MI2005-007
WHEREAS, James Benson has requested approval of a minor subdivision to adjust
the common lot line between properties he owns at 8117-8119 Pleasant View Court and
8123 Pleasant View Court; and,
WHEREAS, the property located at 8117-8119 Pleasant View Court is zoned R-2,
Single and Two-family Residential, and the property located at 8123 Pleasant View Court is
zoned R-1, Single Family Residential; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted a Certificate and Plat of Survey for the
identified properties, dated August 12, 2005; and,
WHEREAS, both properties are owned by the Applicant and are legally described as
follows:
8123 Pleasant View Court
Pin #: 06-30-23-23-0016
8117-8119 Pleasant View Court
Pin #: 06-30-23-23-0017
Lot 9, Block 3, Mounds View
Development Company No.1,
Ramsey County, Minnesota
Lot 6, Block 3, Mounds View
Development Company No. 1,
Ramsey County, Minnesota,
subject to easements.
WHEREAS, the 33.80 feet of land being detached from Lot 6 and attached to Lot 9
is legally described as follows:
That part of Lot 6, Block 3 lying northeasterly of a line from the
northeast corner of said Lot 6 to the most southeasterly corner of
said Lot 6, Block 3, Mounds View Development Company No. 1,
Ramsey County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the applicant’s request for a minor
subdivision and has determined that it is in conformance with Chapters 1104, 1201, and
1202 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the applicant’s request for a minor
subdivision is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and,
Resolution 6634
Page 2
WHEREAS, a copy of the Certificate and Plat of Survey has been forwarded to the
City Attorney for his review; and,
WHEREAS, no park dedication fees will be recommended with this subdivision due
to there being no new additional lots created by this subdivision.
WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission supported the request by
adopting Resolution 816-05 which recommends approval of the minor subdivision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council
approves the minor subdivision request made by James Benson, owner of 8123 Pleasant
View Court and 8117-8119 Pleasant View Court, subject to the following:
1. The applicant shall execute and record two easement documents (one for each lot)
which dedicate to the public for public use the proposed additional easement areas.
2. The applicant shall be responsible for recording new property deeds to effectuate
the subdivision with Ramsey County within 60 days of Council approval. Failure to
do so within the prescribed time frame (excluding unavoidable delays as determined
by the Community Development Director) shall render the minor subdivision null and
void.
Adopted this 10th day of October, 2005
_____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk/Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No. 8E
Meeting Date: August 22, 2005
Type of Business: CB
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6651 Authorizing the Layoff of Regular
Full-time Golf Course Employees and Providing
Severance
Background:
In anticipation of the golf course redevelopment and closing, the City Council
adopted a severance package for the three regular full-time golf course employees
on August 22, 2005 with passage of Resolution 6585. The consensus of the
Council at that time was to allow payout of vacation and sick leave in accordance
with current policy and to allow accumulated flextime to be used by employees.
The Council also determined that there be additional severance pay of one week
per year of service.
Section 4.15 of the City’s Personnel Policy provides that the “City Administrator,
with the approval of the City Council, may lay-off any employee whenever such
action is deemed necessary by reason of shortage of work funds, the elimination of
the position, changes in the organization, or other causes.”
The golf course has three full-time employees who would be impacted by the sale
and closure of the golf course. The positions that would be eliminated are the Golf
Course Manager, the Clubhouse Manager/Golf Instructor, and the
Grounds/Equipment Manager. None of the existing golf course employees applied
for other available City jobs during the last few months in which one position in
Public Works and one in Community Development were filled.
Discussion:
The attached resolution makes the implementation of lay-off notices dependant
upon the closing and transfer of the golf course property. If for any reason the
closing and transfer of property does not occur, this item will be brought back to
the Council for reconsideration.
Based upon current vacation and sick leave balances, the severance cost to the
City would be approximately $50,000 total. Based upon current flextime balances,
all employee flextime will be fully paid-out by mid-January 2006. The employee’s
specific termination date will vary based upon the expiration of their flextime
balances.
All of the full-time golf course employees are non-union and therefore covered by
the City Personnel Manual in regard to severance.
According to Section 4.35 of the Mounds View Personnel Manual:
SEPARATION COMPENSATION
Vacation
An employee will be compensated for accrued vacation and compensatory time upon
separation.
Sick Leave Severance
Severance pay shall be granted to employees who leave in good standing in the amount
of fifty percent (50%) of unused sick leave to employees who have completed two years
of service. Maximum accumulation of sick leave is 120 days. Additional banked sick
leave hours will not be computed in severance pay.
The spouse or family of an employee is eligible for severance benefits, if the following
conditions are met:
• Employee worked for the City for two years prior to the termination of employment; or;
• The employee died while an employee of the City.
Employees who have completed ten years of service and retire may elect, in lieu of
severance pay, to have the employer use sixty-five percent (65%) of the employee’s
accrued and unused sick leave for the retiree’s group health, dental and life insurance
premiums for as long as the funds are available up to the retiree’s 65th birthday.
Severance benefits will be paid at the employee’s regular rate of pay on the last date as
an employee.
According to the Mounds View Personnel Manual Section 4.15 in regard to
Layoff it states:
Notice of Layoff
The City Administrator shall give written Notice of a Layoff to a regular or probationary employee
at least 14 calendar days before the effective date of the Layoff. A copy of the notice shall be
provided to the Human Resource Representative.
The Council granted an additional severance of one week’s pay per year of
service due to economic lay-off. Employees will have completed three, nine,
and three years of employment respectively by the end of 2005. The total for
the years of service pay for all employees is $12,670, which is included in the
$50,000 total.
Specific severance amounts will be brought back for Council approval at the time
of each respective employee’s termination.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution 6651
Authorizing the Layoff of Regular Full-time Golf Course Employees and Providing
Severance. Pursuant to the previously adopted Resolution 6585, the severance
package includes standard severance pay of vacation and sick leave as provided
in the Personnel Manual, plus consideration of the employee’s balance of
flextime hours. Additionally, a severance benefit of one weeks pay per year of
service is included.
RESOLUTION NO. 6651
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AUTHORIZING THE LAYOFF OF REGULAR FULL-TIME
GOLF COURSE EMPLOYEES AND PROVIDING SEVERANCE
WHEREAS, the City Council has taken action to close the municipal golf course
known as The Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course effective October 3, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the golf course has three full-time employees whose jobs will be
eliminated upon the sale and closure of the golf course; the Golf Course Manager,
the Clubhouse Manager/Golf Instructor, and the Grounds/Equipment Manager; and
WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City to provide a severance package to these
employees that is consistent with City policy, and recognizes the efforts of the golf
course employees; and
WHEREAS, Section 4.15 of the City’s Personnel Policy provides that the “City
Administrator, with the approval of the City Council, may lay-off any employee
whenever such action is deemed necessary by reason of shortage of work funds,
the elimination of the position, changes in the organization, or other causes.”
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View City Council
hereby affirms and authorizes the City Administrator to lay-off the three current
regular full-time golf course employees, subject to the closing and transfer of the
golf course property.
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED, that the termination date of each golf course
employee will be established within the Notice of Layoff to account for the
individual employee’s flextime balance and, further, each employee shall be given
an additional severance payment of one week’s pay for each complete year of
service, and accorded all severance benefits as provided in the City’s Personnel
Policy and subject to the terms and conditions therein.
Adopted this 10th day of October 2005.
_________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No: 09C
Meeting Date: October 10, 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.
Air Comfort Specialists, Inc. HVAC New
Arkay Construction Company General (Commercial) New
Commercial Plumbing & Heating, Inc. HVAC New
Hennen Siding, Inc. General (Commercial) New
Hoffman Refrigeration and Heating HVAC New
Horizon Retail Construction General (Commercial) New
St. Croix Tree Service Tree Trimming/Removal New
Soderlin Plumbing, Heating & A/C HVAC New
Vogt Heating, Air Conditioning & Plumbing HVAC Renewal
Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3
4
Regular Meeting 5
September 26, 2005 6
Mounds View City Hall 7
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 8
7:02 P.M. 9
10
11
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 12
13
Mayor Marty advised there are currently some problems in broadcasting the meeting live but it 14
will be taped for later broadcast. 15
16
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 17
18
3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, and Thomas 19
20
NOT PRESENT: None. 21
22
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 23
24
A. Monday, September 26, 2005 City Council Agenda 25
26
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Gunn. To Approve the Monday, September 26, 2005 agenda as 27
presented. 28
29
Ayes –5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 30
31
5. PUBLIC INPUT 32
33
William Werner, 2765 Sherwood Road, stated that a while go the Medtronic property was to be 34
signed over but he has now heard rumor that it was shifted to another date. 35
36
City Administrator Ulrich explained the closing of the property has to be scheduled to coincide 37
with all documents that need to be processed. A number of documents had to be gathered and 38
finalized by the City Attorney and Medtronic attorney so the closing date was moved from 39
September 23 to September 30. He noted that Agenda Item 8H will address additional items that 40
need to occur prior to the closing and, if the closing is held on September 30, 2005, a special 41
Council meeting will need to be scheduled. 42
43
Mounds View City Council September 26, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
Mr. Werner asked if the delay is on the City side. City Attorney Riggs explained the City had to 1
wait for the deed from the State of Minnesota. That deed was just received today so it is ready to 2
close on September 30, 2005. 3
4
Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, advised that a number of citizens, many of them 5
petitioners on Chapter 760, have formed a nonprofit corporation, the Mounds View Citizens 6
Taxpayers Association. He introduced Association officers as being Vice Chair Ken Glidden, 7
Second Vice Chair Dennis Hammes, Treasurer Connie Hammes, Secretary Barbara Haake, 8
Director at Large Ed Benson, and Director at Large Mary Kay Walsh (who was not in 9
attendance). Mr. McCarty asked Secretary Haake to give the mission statement followed by his 10
closing statement. 11
12
Barbara Haake, 3024 County Road I, stated the Mounds View Citizens Taxpayers Association 13
mission statement and the primary purpose of this corporation is to protect, preserve, and up hold 14
the principals of self governance and participatory democracy embodied in the Mounds View 15
City Charter and to ensure that the Mayor, City Council, and other elected and non-elected 16
officials of the City of Mounds View uphold and comply with the provisions of the Mounds 17
View City Charter in the performance of their official duties and responsibilities. She provided a 18
copy of an August 31, 2005 memorandum she had prepared for the Council’s consideration, 19
explaining that it provides greater detail of what this is all about. 20
21
Mr. McCarty stated they have formed a 501C4 corporation under the State of Minnesota laws 22
and in accordance with the mission statement, retained an attorney to represent them in a law suit 23
against the City over Ordinance 760 referendum issue. Mr. McCarty advised that a complaint 24
will be filed in the morning in district court. 25
26
Tori Johnson, 7730 Long Lake Road, stated she would like to suggest that Mounds View 27
improve its website. Ms. Johnson explained that after the storm of last week, surrounding city 28
web sites contained information on emergency storm information. However, the Mounds View 29
web site did not contain storm information. She stated she had talked to City Administrator 30
Ulrich earlier tonight about this matter. She stated she found it embarrassing that there was no 31
communication with citizens about the storm information. 32
33
Connie Hammes, 5511 Quincy Street, reported the Petition Committee has submitted an 34
additional 11 sheets with 41 individual signatures, thereby making sufficient the collection of the 35
989 signatures required for sufficiency on Ordinance 760. Ms. Hammes stated her opinion that 36
they did not really need to do that because she found that 77 signatures should have been made 37
correct and, when added to 945 signatures, that would have been sufficient. Ms. Hammes stated 38
she is wondering if City Administrator Ulrich was the person responsible, and if so, why the 39
Council voted him a raise if that is what he did to 77 residents. Ms. Hammes provided the 40
Council with a copy of her information. 41
42
City Administrator Ulrich stated Staff is in the process of validating the additional signatures that 43
were received in the office. In accordance with the Charter, there are five days for the City 44
Administrator to report back to the Council. 45
Mounds View City Council September 26, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
1
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, reminded the Council of the survey done indicating that 2
almost 60% of the people wanted to get rid of the golf course. He noted there is a small group of 3
people who think otherwise and while he respects their opinion, he wants to remind the Council 4
of the survey. Also, residents elected the Council to do the job for Mounds View and the 5
Council has a duty to run the City because they have been elected to do that. Mr. Jahnke stated 6
he thinks the Council is running the City in good fashion. 7
8
Ken Glidden, 5240 Edgewood Drive, asked the Council to look at the petition filed because it is 9
not about the golf course. The issue is with the financing and the deal given to Medtronic that 10
short changes the citizens of Mounds View for 25 years. He stated that is far more important 11
than the golf course that has been on the table for five or ten years. Mr. Glidden restated it is not 12
about the golf course but the tax burden that is being put on the shoulders of the tax payers and 13
off the shoulders of Medtronic. 14
15
Councilmember Stigney stated it is his intention to lift the tax burden from the resident’s 16
shoulders by bringing in Medtronic. 17
18
Mr. Glidden stated a lot of information has come forward that the income coming in is a “spit in 19
the wind” compared to if Medtronic paid their full tax as he does. 20
21
Councilmember Stigney stated he disagrees with Mr. Glidden’s comments and will see what the 22
Council can do with it for the residents. 23
24
Ed Benson, 1951 Long Lake Road, stated everyone has heard about the deal at every meeting but 25
the deal was taken before anyone knew the City would give away the golf course and saddle 26
residents with Tax Increment Financing for 25 years. He stated that made a big difference for 27
Mounds View residents and the Council should know that. 28
29
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUISNESS 30
31
A. Proclamation Proclaiming October 2005 as Toastmaster Month in the City of 32
Mounds View 33
34
Mayor Marty read in full a proclamation proclaiming October of 2005 as Toastmaster Month in 35
the City of Mounds View and presented it to Lori Higgins. 36
37
Lori Higgins, representing Toastmasters International, stated they are proud of their group and 38
she pleased to receive this recognition. 39
40
B. Proclamation of Appreciation for the Hard Work and Dedication of City 41
Staff during the September 21, 2005 storm 42
43
Mayor Marty read in full a proclamation of appreciation for the hard work and dedication of City 44
Staff during the September 21, 2005 storm. 45
Mounds View City Council September 26, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 4
1
Mayor Marty explained that he asked City Administrator Ulrich to prepare this proclamation. He 2
reviewed how quickly City Staff responded to the storm including Police Officers using flood 3
lights to check power lines, trees, and putting out safety cones. A resident had commented to 4
him that while most are in their basement, Staff was out in the storm to assure the resident’s 5
safety. Mayor Marty stated he was able to receive a full report the night of the storm. 6
7
Mayor Marty reviewed that the next morning Staff was getting telephone calls so he toured the 8
neighborhoods with City Administrator Ulrich, Police Chief Sommer and the Deputy Police 9
Chief. He explained the northern side neighborhoods did not have much damage but the eastern 10
side, south of County Road I sustained more damage. Mayor Marty stated that he was informed 11
yesterday morning that some residents still do not have power. 12
13
Mayor Marty stated he saw neighbors helping neighbors and it gave him a good feeling about 14
Mounds View. He noted there is still a lot of clean-up to do but a lot has been done, even by 15
school children since they did not have school. Mayor Marty thanked Staff and all who helped 16
their neighbors throughout the City. 17
18
Ms. Haake cautioned residents about tree removal contractors who provide a very high bid and 19
suggest to homeowners that the cost can be put against their homeowners insurance. She advised 20
of the $8,500 bid she received to remove three oak trees and one evergreen tree but was then able 21
to settled on a bid of $1,000. Ms. Haake advised that tree removal costs cannot go on insurance 22
unless the tree hits the house. 23
24
Mayor Marty announced that storm damage cleanup begin on September 27 and will continue 25
until the City has been picked up. Pickup will occur through the City one time so it is important 26
to assure all trees and brush are at the boulevard as soon as possible. He advised that residents 27
can also use a no-cost temporary brush site in New Brighton located on Old Highway 8 and 28
reviewed the days and hours of collection. Mayor Marty stated this service is only available to 29
residents of Mounds View, Arden Hills, and New Brighton and residents must show their drivers 30
license at the time of disposal. In addition, Ramsey County has a free brush disposal site in 31
Arden Hills located at Hudson Avenue and New Brighton Road. He reviewed the days and hours 32
the site is open for collection. 33
34
Mayor Marty asked that this information be posted on the City’s web site. Community 35
Development Director Ericson advised that it is already posted. 36
37
7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 38
39
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Gunn. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as Presented. 40
41
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 42
43
Mounds View City Council September 26, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 5
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1
2
A. 7:05 PM: Consideration of the SYSCO Second Addition Preliminary Plat, 3
the Rezoning of the Three-Acre Piece of SYSCO Outlot A, the disposition of 4
the Three-Acre Piece of SYSCO Outlot A to SYSCO, and the Vacation of an 5
Excess Easement and Excess Right-of-Way: 6
7
1. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6627 Approving the 8
SYSCO Second Addition Preliminary Plat 9
10
2. Public Hearing, First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 761 11
Rezoning the Three-Acre Piece of SYSCO Outlot A from I-1, Light 12
Industrial, to PUD, Planned Unit Development 13
14
Mayor Marty opened the Public Hearings at 7:28 p.m. 15
16
Community Development Director Ericson stated that he will present the Staff report for both 17
SYSCO public hearings. He advised that SYSCO Minnesota has submitted an application for a 18
major subdivision of their land located at 2400 County Road J and the City-owned land between 19
SYSCO and the golf course. The subdivision is a replat of the original SYSCO plat, approved in 20
1989. The replat takes three acres from SYSCO Outlot A and combines it with SYSCO Lot 1, 21
Block 2. Currently, the developed SYSCO parcel is 24.2 acres while the undeveloped Outlot A 22
is 45.8 acres. After the subdivision, the SYSCO site would be 27.2 acres and the undeveloped 23
outlot reduced to 42.9 acres. 24
25
Director Ericson explained that in addition to consideration of the preliminary plat, the area to be 26
transferred will need to be rezoned to be consistent with the SYSCO site and ordinances 27
approved relating to the transfer. 28
29
Director Ericson reviewed the road alignment and right-of-way that was not vacated in 1989, but 30
utilities are present. Ramsey County was asked if they want to retain it but if not, then Staff 31
recommends it be returned as one larger lot. The SYSCO lot is zoned Planned Unit 32
Development (PUD) and the proposed subdivision would be consistent with the existing zoning 33
of the property. The three acre piece being subdivided from Outlot A is zoned I-1, Light 34
Industrial, which is not inconsistent with the SYSCO property. However, rather than having one 35
piece with dual zoning designations, Staff prefers to have all of it with the PUD zoning 36
designation. The Planning Commission recommended approval of that rezoning. 37
38
Director Ericson explained that with the preliminary plat, Staff looked at easements, park 39
dedication fees, and other aspects related to subdivision ordinance regulations. The request is 40
straight forward by taking three acres from Outlot A and deeding it to SYSCO to make room for 41
their expanded parking lot and allow for the relocation of the drive aisle. An easement needs to 42
be vacated with the subdivision and the relocated lot line will cross the wetland easement but that 43
easement is not needed because they plan to fill approximately one-half acre of land. 44
45
Mounds View City Council September 26, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 6
Director Ericson noted the site plan that shows the existing SYSCO building and to the east the 1
three acre sliver of land that would be taken from Outlot A and added to the developed parcel of 2
SYSCO, as SYSCO Second Addition, Lot 1, Block 1. He explained that with the subdivision of 3
land, Staff looked at park dedication fees. Given that SYSCO deeded the 46 acres of land to the 4
City and paid a park dedication fee in 1989, it had been previous Council consensus to not 5
require another park dedication fee. 6
7
Director Ericson reviewed again the easement to be vacated and action requested by the Council 8
which includes land disposition from Mounds View back to SYSCO. The City Charter requires 9
that to be done by ordinance. 10
11
Director Ericson explained that Agenda Item 8.A.5. relates to Metropolitan Council and their 12
review of the Comprehensive Plan amendment which the Planning Commission recommended 13
and Council adopted. The Metropolitan Council felt it was somewhat inconsistent because the 14
AUAR did not anticipate any impact to the wetlands. The Metropolitan Council is requiring that 15
the City authorize an amendment to the Bridges Office Development AUAR to reflect the fact 16
that there will be impacts to wetlands on the SYSCO Outlot A parcel. The Planning 17
Commission adopted a resolution that addressed the fact that the AUAR would need to be 18
amended to show there would be a one-half acre of wetland impact on the SYSCO property. The 19
mitigation would be accomplished consistent with the standards of the Rice Creek Watershed 20
District. 21
22
Director Ericson noted this project has been heard at several previous meetings and the Planning 23
Commission adopted a resolution recommending approval of all actions being considered by the 24
Council. He summarized the resolutions and ordinances before the Council at the meeting this 25
evening and offered to answer questions. He also noted that representatives of SYSCO are in the 26
audience. 27
28
Mayor Marty asked the audience if anyone wished to address this issue. 29
30
Hearing none, Mayor Marty closed the Public Hearings at 7:36 p.m. 31
32
Councilmember Flaherty asked about the cost to amend the AUAR and if SYSCO will cover 33
those costs. Director Ericson stated there is probably a cost and SYSCO would be responsible 34
for that cost. 35
36
Councilmember Flaherty stated the City is grateful that SYSCO dedicated the land to the City. 37
However, in the future, he would like it stricken so that issue does not keep coming up before the 38
City. He explained that by doing so it makes the Council feel obligated to deed it back. He 39
stated in future negotiations he does not want the dedication issue raised again. 40
41
Mayor Marty stated that while he understands the issue, it was SYSCO’s land. 42
43
Councilmember Flaherty stated he understands that but SYSCO deeded the land to the City. 44
45
Mounds View City Council September 26, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 7
Councilmember Stigney stated his agreement with Councilmember Flaherty’s point. He asked 1
how much increment will be generated by the driveway and parking lot and how long it will take 2
to pay back the TIF. 3
4
Director Ericson stated he is not prepared to answer that question. 5
6
Councilmember Stigney asked if this increment for the driveway and parking lot will provide a 7
payback period within two years. Director Ericson stated it will probably not for the three acres 8
of land. 9
10
Councilmember Stigney stated they are asking for a $250,000 donation that will not be paid 11
back. He stated he has a problem with that and is also concerned about cutting down 70-some 12
mature trees to put in a driveway. For those reasons and because 50 more semitrailers will be 13
using County Road J, he thinks SYSCO should do this project on their own “dime.” He stated he 14
does not support this request for those reasons, and probably other reasons as well. 15
16
Mayor Marty stated SYSCO has been a good neighbor and business in Mounds View since their 17
inception. He agreed that the parking lot won’t pay the City back, but SYSCO will pay the City 18
back within two years. By expanding this parking lot, SYSCO will add 100 new jobs that they 19
need and they are jobs that citizens of Mounds View can apply for and get. Mayor Marty stated 20
there are quite a few SYSCO employees living in Mounds View. He stated to help a Mounds 21
View business grow, he sees as a “plus” for Mounds View. He noted that right now they are 22
limited in space so SYSCO has to jockey around the trucks. With the new parking lot area, the 23
trucks will not have to be restarted and moved around. The trucks can come in, be unloaded, and 24
then leave. 25
26
Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, asked if they will be 100 new jobs and not imported 27
from another city. Mayor Marty stated that is his understanding. 28
29
Councilmember Stigney pointed out that if the City was not allowing this TIF money to go to 30
SYSCO, the TIF District could be closed next year and the TIF money come into the general 31
fund for another purpose. If this is approved, the TIF will go to SYSCO instead of the City, 32
which is another reason he does not support it. 33
34
Ed Benson, 1951 Long Lake Road, suggested that if the City doesn’t give this to SYSCO then it 35
can go to Medtronic, a $10 billion company. 36
37
Mayor Marty stated this $250,000 to SYSCO creates 100 jobs and will be paid back in two years. 38
39
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Flaherty. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6627 40
Approving the SYSCO Second Addition Preliminary Plat. 41
42
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 43
44
Mounds View City Council September 26, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 8
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Marty. To approve First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 1
761 Rezoning the Three-Acre Piece of SYSCO Outlot A from I-1, Light Industrial, to PUD, 2
Planned Unit Development. 3
4
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 5
6
3. First Reading an Introduction of Ordinance 762, an Ordinance 7
Authorizing the Disposition of Real Property to SYSCO Minnesota 8
9
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Thomas. To approve First Reading an Introduction of Ordinance 10
762, an Ordinance Authorizing the Disposition of Real Property to SYSCO Minnesota. 11
12
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 13
14
4. First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 763, an Ordinance 15
Authorizing the Vacation of an Excess Drainage and Utility Easement 16
and Excess Right-of-Way Associated with the SYSCO Second 17
Addition Plat 18
19
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Gunn. To approve First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 20
763, an Ordinance Authorizing the Vacation of an Excess Drainage and Utility Easement and 21
Excess Right-of-Way Associated with the SYSCO Second Addition Plat. 22
23
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 24
25
5. Resolution 6645 Authorizing an Amendment to the Bridges Office 26
Development AUAR 27
28
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Marty. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6645 29
Authorizing an Amendment to the Bridges Office Development AUAR. 30
31
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 32
33
B. Continued Public Hearing from August 22, 2005 for Resolution 6600 A 34
Transfer of Ownership of an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Jake’s 35
Sports Café located at 2400 Highway 10. Transfer of Ownership is from 36
Mounds View Jake’s Inc., to Thomas Stuart 37
38
Administrative Assistant Crane stated that a Public Hearing was opened on August 22, 2005 for 39
public comment for this transfer of license. No public comment was made. Thomas Stuart has 40
submitted the City liquor license application materials (to include the application to stay open 41
until 2 a.m. per Ordinance 717), and the applicable fees. 42
43
Administrative Assistant Crane advised that the report from the Minnesota Department of 44
Criminal Apprehension for Thomas Stuart came back as satisfactory. Jake’s Sports Café has 45
Mounds View City Council September 26, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 9
paid in full the utility billing and the City’s Fire Marshal has inspected the location currently 1
called Jake’s Sports Café and issued a satisfactory report. 2
3
Administrative Assistant Crane noted that Thomas Stuart still needs to submit a Certificate of 4
Insurance for his liquor license. She advised that she informed Mr. Stuart that this Certificate is 5
needed before the City can forward his application to the Minnesota Department of Public 6
Safety. City Administrator Crane stated Staff recommends that the City Council approve City 7
Tavern’s On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License pending receipt of their Certificate of Insurance. 8
9
Councilmember Flaherty noted they are requesting to remain open until 2 a.m. and asked if that 10
is also in effect for other establishments. Administrative Assistant Crane answered in the 11
affirmative, noting Roberts and the Mermaid are both open until 2 a.m. 12
13
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Thomas. To waive the reading and adopt 6600 A Transfer of 14
Ownership of an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Jake’s Sports Café located at 2400 15
Highway 10. Transfer of Ownership is from Mounds View Jake’s Inc., to Thomas Stuart. 16
17
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 18
19
C. Consideration of Resolution 6637 Approving Bid Package One for Fire 20
Station Number 5 Site Work 21
22
Fire Chief Zikmund introduced Mark Halveson, Project Executive, and Pat Sims, Project 23
Manager. 24
25
Mr. Halveson stated bids for Package One were opened on September 22, 2005 and there are five 26
contracts to be awarded. Staff interviewed all apparent low bidders and all are Minnesota 27
contractors, two of which are local firms. Mr. Halveson stated he is happy to report that the bids 28
are within one-half of one percent of the budget at this point. 29
30
Mr. Halveson advised they expect Bid Pack Two for the building package and remaining 31
elements to be issued mid-October for bids on that packet, which will be due mid-November. 32
33
Mr. Halveson presented the apparent low bidders for the five contracts as follows: Northland 34
Contractor for the earthwork; Nobel Nursery for the landscaping; Midwest Asphalt for the 35
asphalt and site concrete; Northland Concrete for the footings and foundations; and Moline 36
Concrete for the pre-cast concrete. Mr. Halveson reviewed the bid recap summary. 37
38
Finance Director Beer asked about the large discrepancy of $100,000 between the bid from 39
Northwest Asphalt and the engineer’s estimate for the earthwork. Mr. Halveson explained that 40
Alternate 3 is a significant soil correction item that was not included in the original engineer’s 41
estimate but was included in the addendum after the budget was set. 42
43
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Marty. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6637 44
Approving Bid Package One for Fire Station Number 5 Site Work. 45
Mounds View City Council September 26, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 10
1
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 2
3
Fire Chief Zikmund thanked the Council for this action and advised that this matter will go to the 4
Spring Lake Park Council next week and Blaine City Council on October 6. He invited all to 5
attend the ceremonial ground breaking on October 11 at 5 p.m. 6
7
Fire Chief Zikmund reported that the Blaine City Council did approve the bid for the purchase of 8
two fire engines and awarded the contract to General Safety Equipment. Staff will probably take 9
both engines since they will include some additional features if both are ordered. 10
11
On the EMAC request, Fire Chief Zikmund advised that staff continues to be in stand down 12
mode and no further action has been requested. 13
14
Mayor Marty asked the Fire Chief to pass on the City’s appreciation to the Fire Department for 15
their work after the storm. 16
17
Fire Chief Zikmund reported the Fire Department had responded to 70 calls during that 14 hour 18
period or 15% of their total volume. The only serious call was a structure collapse but the state 19
patrol officer who lived in that area had already rescued the lady. 20
21
D. Consideration of Resolution 6636, a Resolution Approving a Minor 22
Subdivision of 7851 Spring Lake Road 23
24
Community Development Director Ericson explained that Donald Olson has requested approval 25
to subdivide his lot located at 7851 Spring Lake Road. As proposed, the subdivision would split 26
off the rear 255 feet of 7851 Spring Lake Road, creating a land-locked lot. Mr. Olson resides at 27
2933 Oakwood Drive, directly south of the proposed new lot, and would like the new lot added 28
to his Oakwood Drive parcel to provide more backyard space. 29
30
Director Ericson noted the proposed subdivision is in the form of a Registered Land Survey. In 31
this case, there are four tracts of land created by the subdivision. Tract A runs the length of 7851 32
Spring Lake Road and ranges in width from 7 feet to 16 feet. It would be deeded to the owner to 33
the north at 7865 Spring Lake Road. That will correct a 16 foot discrepancy between the plated 34
lines of the subdivision and where the monuments are located. Tract B is an eight foot wide strip 35
along the front of 7851 Spring Lake Road. This would be deeded to the City as Spring Lake 36
Road right-of-way. Tract C is the improved remainder of that lot while Tract D would be the 37
back of the lot, to be added to 2933 Oakwood Drive where Mr. Olson has his home. 38
39
Director Ericson advised this property was reviewed by the Planning Commission and it found 40
the remaining lot satisfies all regulations. Tract D would satisfy all requirements if fronting 41
right-of-way but it does not front full right-of-way so the City is requesting a deed restriction be 42
added that would indicate “Tract D does not constitute an independent buildable lot and shall not 43
be developed for any purpose other than typical accessory uses implied or expressly permitted by 44
the Mounds View Zoning Code.” He advised that the City Attorney’s office has reviewed this 45
Mounds View City Council September 26, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 11
language and found no issues with the subdivision. The Public Works Department suggested the 1
lot line of Tract C and D be lined up with the property to the south but the survey monuments 2
have already been set and the mylars for the registered land survey produced so Staff 3
recommends the City accept it as submitted. He advised that Mr. Olson has consented to 4
easements and park dedication is not applicable since no new lots are being created. Director 5
Ericson explained that a public hearing was not required but Staff did notify adjacent property 6
owners and no comments were received. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend 7
approval and Mr. Olson is in the audience to answer questions, if any. 8
9
Mayor Marty asked about the restriction recommended for Tract D and how enforceable it would 10
be since it would qualify as an independent lot. Director Ericson stated that is correct and is why 11
it is important to include that restriction since it does not front on a full right-of-way. He stated 12
his understanding that deed restrictions are difficult to get rid of and at some point, if Knollwood 13
Drive is improved and goes through, then the property owner at that time can request the City to 14
remove that deed restriction. Until that time, the restriction assures that the property cannot be 15
built upon except for typical accessory uses. 16
17
Mr. Olson stated he has nothing to add and asked the Council to approve the request. 18
19
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6636, a 20
Resolution Approving a Minor Subdivision of 7851 Spring Lake Road. 21
22
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 23
24
E. Resolution 6601 Awarding a Construction Contract for the Emergency 25
Vehicle Preemption (EVP) Installation Project 26
27
Public Works Director Lee stated the City received and opened six bids on September 20, 2005 28
for the construction contract for the Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) Installation Project. 29
The low bid was from Eagan Companies, Inc. at $59,500. The engineer’s estimate was $60,000. 30
He reviewed that Staff did receive quotes about a month ago but they were rejected since the 31
dollar amount was in excess of $50,000 and the City Attorney recommended competitive bids be 32
received. Public Works Director Lee recommended the Council adopt the resolution awarding a 33
construction contract to Eagan Companies, Inc. and entering into a maintenance contract with 34
Ramey County for the EVP systems. 35
36
Councilmember Flaherty commented on the language of the County’s contract that indicates all 37
the costs are to the City of Mounds View and that the City is always liable. He noted he found 38
no dollar figure reflected. Public Works Director Lee explained that the devices would be 39
owned, operated, and maintained by the City which is why the Ramsey County contract reflects 40
that the City is responsible for the cost and liability. 41
42
Councilmember Flaherty asked if the Ramsey County vehicles would be tied into this system. 43
Public Works Director Lee answered in the affirmative. 44
45
Mounds View City Council September 26, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 12
Councilmember Thomas asked if there is an idea of the yearly maintenance costs. Public Works 1
Director Lee estimated it will be virtually zero maintenance except for minor maintenance once 2
in a while. He stated the systems are rugged and reliable so there is very little maintenance until 3
replacement in 25-30 years. 4
5
Mayor Marty stated he also reviewed the County contract and asked if the City already pays for 6
the signal system power. Public Works Director Lee stated that is correct. 7
8
Mayor Marty stated if the lights were changed to LED, the power would be reduced. Public 9
Works Director Lee stated the City is already in the process of switching the lights to LED. 10
11
Mayor Marty noted the contract indicates that only vehicles responding to an emergency as 12
defined in Minnesota Statutes can operate the system. He asked the Police Chief if they can be 13
set off by law enforcement personnel while in pursuit to alleviate a possible accident. Police 14
Chief Sommer answered in the affirmative. 15
16
Mayor Marty noted the contract indicates Ramsey County will receive a report each time the 17
system is used and asked if the City can also get a report. Public Works Director Lee stated the 18
City will not get a report unless that is requested. 19
20
Mayor Marty noted if the County deems the system is being misused, then they can turn it off. 21
He stated he would like the City to also get the report so they are aware of how often the system 22
is being used. Public Works Director Lee stated he can make that request and noted the reports 23
are probably periodically monitored by Ramsey County. 24
25
Mayor Marty stated he is happy the cost came down a little. Public Works Director Lee stated 26
the cost came down enough to cover the City’s cost to advertise for bids. 27
28
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Stigney. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6601 Awarding 29
a Construction Contract for the Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) Installation Project. 30
31
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 32
33
F. Resolution 6623 Approving the Renewal of the 2005-2006 School Resource 34
Officer Agreement Between the Cities of Mounds View and New Brighton 35
and ISD #621 36
37
Police Chief Sommer stated this contract is up for renewal for the 2005-2006 school year. He 38
reviewed that last year there was discussion about this and the amount to contribute for this 39
position was reduced in order to fund a third sergeant police position in the Mounds View Police 40
Department. The amount was reduced from roughly $12,500 to $7,400, which is paid by 41
Mounds View to New Brighton to fund the School Resource Officer. Police Chief Sommer 42
advised that New Brighton is committed to have this officer in place regardless of the funding 43
and it has already been approved by the school district. He stated that New Brighton would 44
probably like the funding increased if Mounds View would like to do so. 45
Mounds View City Council September 26, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 13
1
Mayor Marty reviewed that about a year ago when another sergeant was discussed, Staff had 2
indicated New Brighton Director of Public Safety Bob Jacobson was surprised that Mounds 3
View was paying anything. 4
5
City Administrator Ulrich explained the portion of cost is divided by the students from Mounds 6
View and New Brighton. The New Brighton City Manager did request that Mounds View pay its 7
proportional share of the officer and is requesting $5,100 more than the amount presented 8
tonight. If the Council approves paying the original amount, he would recommend tabling so 9
Staff can identify an additional $5,100 in funding. Last year it was discussed and cleared with 10
New Brighton to put those costs towards Supervisory Staff of the Police Department. 11
12
Mayor Marty stated it was also mentioned that New Brighton didn’t really see the need for 13
Mounds View to pay so funding was reduced to provide funding for a third sergeant. Now it 14
appears they have changed their minds. 15
16
City Administrator Ulrich stated it was not their Council’s direction but the City Manager who is 17
making the request, probably in their budget considerations and 12.5% increase in levy. 18
19
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Flaherty. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6623 20
Approving the Renewal of the 2005-2006 School Resource Officer Agreement Between the 21
Cities of Mounds View and New Brighton and ISD #621 with $7,400 as annual contribution. 22
23
Councilmember Thomas asked if the City has done a calculation of the number of Mounds View 24
students. Police Chief Sommer stated it is a rough number but close to what it would be. Last 25
year it was $12,500 and this year there would be a 3-4% increase. 26
27
City Administrator Ulrich noted the Mounds View City Council will be going to New Brighton 28
for the next six months to use their City Hall free of charge. 29
30
Councilmember Stigney suggested there should be “no strings attached” to hold meetings at the 31
New Brighton City Hall. 32
33
Mayor Marty stated that New Brighton has been a good neighbor to Mounds View and many 34
departments work together, including Public Works. He stated he would support this motion and 35
then hold additional discussion at the next Council Work Session. 36
37
Councilmember Thomas stated this is a contract so approving it now and then trying to change it 38
later may be difficult to accomplish. She noted it could be tabled for two weeks to find 39
additional funding. 40
41
Mayor Marty asked if there is a deadline for the contract. Police Chief Sommer stated the school 42
year has started and payment is typically made at the end of the year. 43
44
Mayor Marty noted there is time to table this consideration for two weeks. 45
Mounds View City Council September 26, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 14
1
SUBSTITUTE MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Marty. To postpone consideration of Resolution 2
6623 Approving the Renewal of the 2005-2006 School Resource Officer Agreement Between the 3
Cities of Mounds View and New Brighton and ISD #621 to the next Council meeting. 4
5
Mayor Marty asked if Staff will be able to prepare budget information within two weeks. City 6
Administrator Ulrich answered in the affirmative. 7
8
Councilmember Stigney stated his support to keep funding at the current level. 9
10
Councilmember Thomas noted that is still an option. 11
12
Councilmember Stigney stated he is not interested in a two week postponement, but to approve it 13
at the current level tonight. 14
15
Substitute Motion to Postpone: 16
17
Ayes-3 Nays-2 (Flaherty, Stigney) Motion carried. 18
19
Mayor Marty asked if the Council could meet the shared Irondale Officer while the Mounds 20
View Council is meetings at the New Brighton City Hall. Police Chief Sommer stated he will 21
make that request. 22
23
Mayor Marty reviewed language in the contract and asked if it should indicate that Edgewood is 24
a middle school since it is not an elementary school. Police Chief Sommer stated the City has an 25
independent consideration for Edgewood School so it is not included in this contract. 26
27
G. Resolution 6638 Authorizing Assistant to the City Administrator Job 28
description and appointing that position to Desaree Crane 29
30
City Administrator Ulrich stated it is recommended this resolution be adopted which authorizes 31
the Assistant to the City Administrator position and appointing that position to Desaree Crane. 32
He reviewed the job responsibilities that Ms. Crane has assumed, many being the duties of the 33
Assistant City Administrator with the vacancy of that position at the end of 2002. Since that 34
time, Ms. Crane has received compensation at a rate of ten percent (10%) above her level and 35
continued to do the duties. 36
37
City Administrator Ulrich advised that Labor Relations has performed an assessment of the 38
Assistant to the City Administrator position in terms of number of points relative to other jobs in 39
the City. They also looked at comparable pay scales to other similar jobs throughout the 40
metropolitan area. He noted that Ms. Crane recently received her Bachelor’s Degree and done a 41
great job in this position. The proposed rate would go from $22.63 an hour to $26.93 an hour. It 42
would be a new position with a new title. Because the job has been performed for the last two 43
years, Staff recommends action be retroactive to July 1, 2005 and pay be implemented at Step 5 44
at the current job position. 45
Mounds View City Council September 26, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 15
1
Mayor Marty noted the indication that this is an exempt and non-union position, so it is a 2
management position. He asked if this should be salaried and not hourly. City Administrator 3
Ulrich clarified that it is a salaried position and exempt from overtime but broken down in the 4
report to show the hourly rate. Currently Ms. Crane does qualify for overtime pay. 5
6
Mayor Marty commented that Ms. Crane has done a great job and grown into the job. He stated 7
he does not know what the City would do if she left and he believes this is well warranted. He 8
advised that during his exit interview, former Finance Director Charlie Hanson stated that his 9
department and all departments are understaffed but if an Assistant to the City Administrator 10
could cover some duties from each department, all would be helped out. He noted that Ms. 11
Crane has been doing that all along and he saw it as an excellent suggestion by Mr. Hanson. 12
13
Councilmember Thomas asked if the old position would be phased out. City Administrator 14
Ulrich stated the position would be vacated and taken off the books so it would not be filled. He 15
noted it is not in the budget to be filled next year and if, in the future, it is to be filled, Council 16
can look at it at that time. 17
18
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Flaherty. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6638 19
Authorizing Assistant to the City Administrator job description and appointing that position to 20
Desaree Crane. 21
22
Councilmember Stigney stated he thinks Ms. Crane does an excellent job and he is happy to see 23
her go towards this position. However, he does not support filling it using Stanton 6 to justify 24
the salary of a $9,000 immediate raise and another 3% raise at the beginning of the year when 25
someone is started at Step 5. He noted the Human Resources Committee, of which he is a 26
member, has been looking at alternatives to Stanton 6. He does not think the Council should deal 27
with Stanton 6 in the trading of new jobs. Rather, it should be followed through on the 28
promotions through the steps for the existing jobs. He suggested the Human Resources 29
Committee be allowed to look at other options, such as property based tax rates of comparable 30
cities. He stated he thinks it is the wrong time to proceed with this. 31
32
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Stigney. To Postpone consideration of Resolution 6638 Authorizing 33
Assistant to the City Administrator Job description and appointing that position to Desaree 34
Crane, until resolved by the Human Resources Committee. 35
36
Councilmember Gunn read the memorandum that indicates there is no Stanton 6 matching these 37
duties and that the Human Resources Committee did review the job description and 38
recommended Ms. Crane be reclassified. 39
40
Councilmember Stigney stated he serves on the Human Resources Committee and did not make 41
that statement at all. What was asked is to go out and point existing duties at this time, not 42
creating a new position based on Stanton. 43
44
Mounds View City Council September 26, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 16
City Administrator Ulrich clarified that the recommendation is not based on Stanton because this 1
type of position and this breadth of duties does not exist in the standard group of six cities. It is 2
looking at the total market and what the salary range would be across different cities for a job of 3
this type. He stated that Councilmember Stigney is correct that the Human Resources Committee 4
has made a commitment to look at the salary structure based not solely on Stanton 6 but different 5
combinations of cities to determine what would be the best structure for Mounds View. At this 6
time, this salary level is irrespective of Stanton 6 but fits within jobs performed doing similar 7
work at other cities regardless of the Stanton group they fall into. 8
9
Councilmember Stigney stated he does not agree with all of those statements and does not see 10
where overnight this job creates a $9,000 increase in salary, especially when you have not 11
compared against comparable cities based on tax base, which the Human Resources Committee 12
is working on. He noted if the action is postponed it allows time for the Human Resources 13
Committee to make that comparison. 14
15
SECOND: /Marty for discussion purposes. 16
17
Mayor Marty stated it is not creating a new job because this job has been here for years. The new 18
job was created in 2000 or 2001 to change the Assistant City Administrator position to be 19
Assistant to the City Administrator. The position has been vacant since 2002 and Ms. Crane has 20
been doing the job since that time. 21
22
City Administrator Ulrich pointed out that if talking about replacing the job vacated in 2002, that 23
job is yet another step above this job, or an additional $20,000 more than this recommendation. 24
The recommendation puts the position at a level commensurate with the job responsibilities at 25
this time. 26
27
Councilmember Thomas stated this position replaced the job before that one was elevated. She 28
suggested this is a different position even though the same title so it is creating a new job 29
position. Councilmember Thomas stated this is the salary rate and the question is whether it is 30
fair to pay Ms. Crane for what she does. That is the decision to be made, whether or not it is 31
creating another job. 32
33
Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated the Charter requires this position and the City 34
Administrator is authorized to appoint that position. He stated when the Charter was written it 35
looked at staffing and a weakness was an overextending of the chief officer. This provision was 36
written into the Charter in 1980, that the Administrator had the authority to appoint an assistant 37
with the approval of the Council. 38
39
Councilmember Stigney stated his concern is not the title of the job but the enumeration being 40
paid whether Stanton has the position or not. He stated the position should be based on tax 41
capacity of comparable cities rather than proceeding at this time. Councilmember Stigney stated 42
that Ms. Crane is the perfect person to fill the position but that is not the issue. 43
44
Mounds View City Council September 26, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 17
Councilmember Thomas stated it is a comparison to the other jobs we have in Mounds View and 1
this is paying an equitable amount compared to the jobs we already have here. She agreed that 2
Stanton 6 is not the way to do it but that would require a complete reworking of all positions not 3
negotiated by labor union and it is not fair to ask for a delay until that correction occurs. 4
5
Mayor Marty agreed and stated that coming up with our own plan requires looking at all 6
positions in the City and some may have a pay freeze until the adjustment is made, or it could go 7
the other direction. He stated he does not think it is justified to start that change with this one 8
position. 9
10
Substitute motion to postpone: 11
12
Aye-1 (Stigney) Nays-4 Motion failed. 13
14
Motion to approve: 15
16
Ayes-4 Nays-0 Abstain-1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 17
18
H. Consideration of Holding a Special City Council Meeting prior to the 19
Transfer of Real Property Commonly known as The Bridges of Mounds 20
View Golf Course 21
22
City Administrator Ulrich reviewed that there are a number of items for the Council to consider 23
to close the sale to Medtronic by September 30, 2005 and a special meeting would have to be 24
called, requiring at least a 3-day notice. He distributed a list of eight items and stated if the 25
meeting is to be held on Thursday, it would have to be posted this evening. He reviewed other 26
potential meeting dates. 27
28
City Attorney Riggs explained that these items were dealt with in a different capacity, either 29
through contract or as result of the contract or transaction. Staff felt the Council should consider 30
them again before they are finalized. He stated the items are being finalized today and tomorrow, 31
based on timing of deeds and leases received as well as proposed language for various 32
agreements for the closure of the golf course. City Attorney Riggs stated that those items are 33
listed as either separate resolutions or separate agreements that he, Staff, and Ehlers felt should 34
go before the Council so they have a good understanding of what is called for and the finalized 35
items for this project. 36
37
Mayor Marty stated he was thinking about adding a ninth item and asked if the Council would 38
like to hold a special meeting on Thursday. He stated Medtronic’s building is going higher 39
instead of wider and using less of the 72.2 acres. He stated the last he heard they were using 25-40
30 acres. 41
42
Director Ericson indicated he cannot state the exact acreage but that sounds about right. 43
44
Mounds View City Council September 26, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 18
Mayor Marty stated that Medtronic talked about the eastern part being retained as unimproved 1
green space and asked if there is a possibility to rezone that section as open space to ensure it will 2
remain open space. City Attorney Riggs stated that is a possibility but not proposed at this time. 3
He noted it is currently designated as an Outlot and not developable until considered by the 4
Council and rezoned. 5
6
Mayor Marty stated it has been rezoned. Director Ericson stated it is platted as an outlot and the 7
City is currently under the process of rezoning. It would not be subject to development until 8
replatted as a lot. Director Ericson stated Staff can open the discussion with Medtronic about 9
considering a different zoning for the outlot. 10
11
City Administrator Ulrich stated another option is a conservation or drainage easement to assure 12
conservation. 13
14
Mayor Marty stated he wanted to bring it up before the “ink is dry” so it is not too late to 15
preserve that area as open space. 16
17
City Attorney Riggs stated he distributed a suggested agenda after discussion with Staff. If the 18
City were to receive a complaint tomorrow, that should also be discussed. City Attorney Riggs 19
explained that such a complaint would go to the League and their assigned attorney will deal with 20
it. 21
22
Councilmember Flaherty stated he is out of the State on Thursday and not available for a special 23
meeting. 24
25
City Attorney Riggs stated it is hoped that all five Councilmembers can be present but if not the 26
meeting could be held on Monday. 27
28
City Administrator Ulrich noted a Council Work Session is already scheduled for Monday. 29
30
Mayor Marty suggested that the Special Council meeting start earlier, at 6:00 p.m. The Council 31
agreed. 32
33
Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, asked if the agenda items will be available before the 34
meeting. City Attorney Riggs answered in the affirmative. 35
36
Councilmember Thomas noted the agenda may be changed and does not need to be posted until 37
Thursday. 38
39
Mayor Marty announced that a Special Council meeting will be held on Monday, October 3, 40
2005, starting at 6 p.m. 41
42
I. Resolution 6640 Authorizing the Payroll/Utility Billing Technician Job 43
Description and appointing that position to Debbie Jasper 44
45
Mounds View City Council September 26, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 19
City Administrator Ulrich advised that Payroll/Utility Technician, Debbie Jasper, has assumed 1
several important human resource duties since the vacancy of the Assistant City Administrator at 2
the end of 2002. The Payroll/Utility Billing Technician was asked to take over these duties, and 3
for those duties continues to be compensated an additional 5% of her base pay (Resolution 6006). 4
The Human Resource duties that were added to the position deal with payroll, insurance 5
coverages, and reporting to the State as well as safety inspections. 6
7
City Administrator Ulrich stated this is an important job and he does not see these duties 8
changing to another position because of their relationship to payroll. This position is budget 9
neutral, there is no additional compensation other than the 5% increase would remain permanent. 10
11
Mayor Marty noted Ms. Jasper has been doing this job and the action would make it official. 12
City Administrator Ulrich stated that is correct. 13
14
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Gunn. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6640 15
Authorizing the Payroll/Utility Billing Technician Job Description and appointing that position 16
to Debbie Jasper. 17
18
Councilmember Stigney questioned the job description and suggested reference to the golf course 19
be stricken since there will be no golf course. He asked about processing health, dental, 20
reporting new hires, and whether there is an overlap with Ms. Crane’s responsibilities. City 21
Administrator Ulrich stated these duties relate to payroll and there is no overlap. 22
23
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 24
25
J. Resolution 6641 Authorizing the Transfer of Assets from The Bridges of 26
Mounds View Golf Course to the Mounds View Parks and Recreation 27
Department 28
29
City Administrator Ulrich that this resolution authorized the transfer of golf course equipment 30
and items to the Park and Recreation Department as well as a list of items to be sold at the 31
October 20, 2005 auction. Council authorized an auctioneer and Staff is working with them to 32
get these items ready for auction. The actual auction will proceed with closure of the property. 33
City Administrator Ulrich advised that a number of items have been identified by the Parks and 34
Recreation Department as being necessary and desirable for the City’s operation and would come 35
from the golf course. City Administrator Ulrich presented Exhibit A and explained it was 36
reviewed by Public Works and Parks and Recreation Staff and the Parks and Recreation 37
Commission to assure the City really needed this equipment, storage needs are addressed, as well 38
as maintenance costs associated with this equipment. The list was developed based on that input. 39
40
City Administrator Ulrich stated the golf manager reviewed the list of items to be auctioned and 41
expanded it to include Exhibit B, dated September 19, 2005. He advised of the last minute 42
adjustments that were made and provided to the Council tonight. City Administrator Ulrich 43
noted that Medtronic has not requested the ability to purchase the irrigation system and pond 44
aerator and that can be considered on the October 3, 2005 agenda. If pulled out, the City would 45
Mounds View City Council September 26, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 20
get only a fraction of the value compared to if it remains in place. Staff will present that 1
recommendation to the Council for consideration. 2
3
City Administrator Ulrich stated three items would be reserved with a minimum bid price: the 4
Jacobson Greens Mower, the Toro Sprayer Fertilizer, and Bobcat Skid Loader. Those three 5
items have a substantial value while others on the list are fully or near fully depreciated. The 6
Skid Loader is only one year old and the minimum bid would be $22,000. He noted there has 7
been interest in purchasing the green turf from another golf course and private parties may also 8
be interested. Sand trap sand may also be of interest for purchase. City Administrator Ulrich 9
explained that turf and sand would be sold in lots as is and buyers given ten days to pick it up. 10
The buildings would be sold on site and with the City Hall being remodeled to include some of 11
the excess equipment and furniture in the auction. 12
13
Mayor Marty asked about the Toro Sprayer. 14
15
Golf Course Golf Course Manager Burg stated she sent an e-mail to Mr. Ulrich today that 16
included the value of the sprayer. It is now being recommended that the sprayer be transferred to 17
the Parks and Recreation Department. She explained that golf course staff used to do the 18
spraying in the City. The unit was purchased at $7,500 as a demo equipment and used for two 19
seasons. 20
21
Mayor Marty stated the Number 9 green sod was partially replaced and cost about $20,000. He 22
stated he talked with Dave Parker who indicated the irrigation system, heads, timers, and clocks, 23
installed, cost $250,000 to $500,000. He asked if the difference can be split with Medtronic so 24
the City gets at least $125,000 for it. He noted that would be more than if the system were 25
removed and sold. 26
27
Golf Course Manager Burg stated the irrigation system is definitely more valuable if sold 28
installed. She advised that calls have been received for the parts, noting the heads cost $100 each 29
and there are probably 10 heads per hole. 30
31
Mayor Marty stated if all the heads were transferred to the Public Works for use in City parks, it 32
would probably be worth about $7,000 to buy them used. If buying new heads, it would cost the 33
City about $25,000. 34
35
City Administrator Ulrich stated Medtronic is interested in the irrigation system so Staff will try 36
to work out something. 37
38
Golf Course Manager Burg noted that installation is worth about one-half of the cost. 39
40
Mr. McCarty stated he knows some people in the golf course business and asked if it is possible 41
to set a minimum bid on the irrigation system, in particular the pump. He suggested the system 42
be put up for the auction both with them taking it out or the buyer taking it out. Mr. McCarty 43
noted that two come-alongs will be transferred to the Parks and Recreation Department at $10 44
each, which is not enough. He stated he would offer $50 for them. 45
Mounds View City Council September 26, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 21
1
City Administrator Ulrich asked Finance Director Beer to address the transfer issue. 2
3
Finance Director Beer explained that no money is transferred between funds, it would be only a 4
paper transfer since the City already owns the equipment. 5
6
Ken Glidden, 5240 Edgewood Drive, stated there are two items in discussion valued at $125,000 7
in one case, and roughly $180,000 in the other. Both items were raised by concerned citizens 8
before this Council; the sale of the greens and irrigation system, both were brought up in 9
meetings at the Council. 10
11
Mr. Glidden stated this resolution establishes a date for the transfer of assets if sold. He asked 12
the Council to consider the other proceedings heard at the meeting tonight. He asked again if the 13
resolution establishes a date for the transfer. 14
15
Mayor Marty stated the identified items will be sold at public auction on October 20, 2005. 16
17
Mr. Glidden stated the Council heard some things this evening and should consider what that 18
date should be. He stated it seems premature to him. 19
20
Councilmember Stigney asked about the number of portable telephones. Golf Course Manager 21
Burg stated the portable telephone is a landline phone and was on the fixed asset list. The other 22
telephones are less in value than would be on a fixed asset list. 23
24
Councilmember Stigney asked if the Nextel telephones would be auctioned. Golf Course 25
Manager Burg stated they would be turned back and the contracts expired. 26
27
Councilmember Stigney asked if there is more than one picnic table and benches on the golf 28
course. 29
30
Golf Course Manager Burg stated Mr. Jahnke wants one picnic table but a lot of them are being 31
moved to the Parks and Recreation Department. 32
33
Councilmember Stigney noted that the Parks and Recreation Department is taking three tables 34
and one is being auctioned. He asked if there are only four tables. Golf Course Manager Burg 35
stated she was told to put items on the list that were over $100 in value. 36
37
City Administrator Ulrich stated that is correct and other items of lesser value will be included in 38
the auction, possibly in lots. 39
40
Councilmember Stigney noted the reference to one cable dish. Golf Course Manager Burg stated 41
they do not have cable service but have satellite so it would be the dish and converter. 42
43
Councilmember Stigney noted 14 golf carts are listed and asked how the rest would be disposed 44
of. 45
Mounds View City Council September 26, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 22
1
Mayor Marty asked if everything at the golf course was inventoried. Public Works Director Lee 2
stated an inventory list was not created but the items of value were listed. 3
4
Councilmember Stigney asked if all the items should not be included in the list for the 5
auctioneer. He asked if all items at the golf course will be auctioned that are not being 6
transferred to another department. City Administrator Ulrich answered in the affirmative. 7
8
Councilmember Thomas stated Council also asked about the irrigation system and Golf Course 9
Manager Burg had indicated the City will get more if it can be negotiated for sale by leaving it in 10
the ground. 11
12
Mr. McCarty stated his question was how it would be appraised, in the ground or out of the 13
ground. At an auction, it is an open bidding process and you can do well if people are willing to 14
remove the system, or they bid based on the City doing the removal and piling it in a trailer. Mr. 15
McCarty stated the City can set a minimum bid but maybe you can get more on an open auction 16
and let someone take out the system. Mr. McCarty stated he did not think it was very 17
competitive to let Medtronic have it for $125,000. He stated they are very expensive to install 18
and there may be people willing to bid higher. He commented that “nothing ventured, nothing 19
gained.” 20
21
Councilmember Thomas stated the irrigation system has been discussed several times and anyone 22
bidding on it would then have to pay for installation. She stated even in the bid process she does 23
not think anyone would bid $125,000 for the pieces because they then have to pay for 24
installation. She stated she is comfortable with negotiating the sale leaving the system in place. 25
26
City Administrator Ulrich stated he asked Golf Course Staff to give an estimate of the system if it 27
was not installed. That estimate can be compared to what Medtronic would pay for a system that 28
is in place and operational. 29
30
City Attorney Riggs stated the Council is talking about selling the system as a fixture, pulling it 31
out and auctioning it, or if it is over $50,000 having to competitively bid it on the sale. He asked 32
the Council to keep in mind that if it is valued over $50,000, the City will have to get competitive 33
bids and cannot auction it. 34
35
Councilmember Flaherty asked who installed the system and suggested they be asked for a bid on 36
how much it is worth in the ground, or if removed and sold. 37
38
Councilmember Stigney stated the metal Quonset building is a similar issue. It is pieced together 39
and he suggests that rather than auctioning it off, to contact the distributor and see if they are 40
interested in purchasing it. He noted the distributor would have a market for interested buyers. 41
42
Golf Course Manager Burg stated the building was purchased and installed by Staff. When it 43
needed a new door, Staff found out that the building was no longer being made. She stated the 44
building comes apart with bolts and can be erected on another site. 45
Mounds View City Council September 26, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 23
1
City Administrator Ulrich stated that staff will contact those distributors and determine a cost. 2
He stated Staff will also amend the list to show the Toro Sprayer is being transferred to the Parks 3
and Recreation Department. 4
5
Mayor Marty noted another Toro Cart with Sprayer is listed. Golf Course Manager Burg 6
explained there are two sprayers but one cannot be sold because it is worn out and replacement 7
parts are no longer available for the sprayer. However, the cart could be sold as a workcart. 8
9
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6641 10
Authorizing the Transfer of Assets from The Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course to the 11
Mounds View Parks and Recreation Department with revisions as discussed. 12
13
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Marty) Motion carried. 14
15
K. Assess Acquisition Opportunities Associated with Harstad’s Red Oak Estates 16
#3 Townhome Project 17
18
Community Development Director Ericson stated that this item was presented at the last meeting 19
but not considered at that time. He explained that recently Mr. Harstad received court approval 20
to move forward with the project and is now going through Rice Creek Watershed District 21
approval. There was discussion of making an offer to Mr. Harstad for all or some of the lots in 22
Red Oak Estates #3 so they could be offered for sale in a manner consistent with the City’s 23
Comprehensive Plan. The current project would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 24
25
Director Ericson asked if the Council is interested in making such an offer. If so, he 26
recommended they schedule an Executive Session to discuss negotiating a price for acquisition. 27
If the Council does not want to consider this item, it can be removed from the agenda. He noted 28
that the trees are still there and no permits have been pulled so it is a good opportunity to discuss 29
this option. 30
31
Mayor Marty stated that at the neighborhood meeting with Mr. Harstad, one of the biggest 32
concern of residents in this area was the amount of traffic to be generated on Louisa and 33
Clearview by all the trips from the owners at the ends of those streets on Greenwood. Everyone 34
has come to the realization that along County Road H2 it is in the Comprehensive Plan for higher 35
density housing and County Road H2 is better equipped to handle that traffic. Also, the people on 36
the north side of Louisa Avenue like looking at the woods but know there are major drainage 37
issues and a swale was to be dug behind their and the Harstad property but it was never 38
completed. They would like the drainage issues taken care of to prevent flooding because their 39
sump pumps are running constantly. 40
41
Mayor Marty stated the rest of the neighborhood had concerns about the wetlands bordering 42
Long Lake Road. The biggest concern was the amount of extra traffic. He stated maybe the 43
Council should look at the area along Greenwood Drive. He noted Mr. Harstad came before the 44
Council several years ago and talked about single-family along Greenwood Drive but, at that 45
Mounds View City Council September 26, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 24
time, he was putting twin homes along County Road H2 and that was more amenable than any 1
other plan. Mr. Harstad wanted to tie it to Long View Estates on Silver Lake Road but the 2
Council felt it was two separate projects so they were dealt with separately. 3
4
Mayor Marty stated he would be amenable to discussing this and thinks the residents in this area 5
would also. 6
7
Councilmember Thomas stated it is talking about 33 units along Greenwood Drive. She noted 8
the City will not be able to purchase per acre because Mr. Harstad would want it purchased by 9
unit. Mayor Marty stated there are actually 34 units. 10
11
Mayor Marty referenced the staff report indicating: “…if the City felt the interior lots (taking 12
access from Louisa and Clearview) would be better suited for open space, wetlands preservation 13
or stormwater management, perhaps grants could be obtained to assist in that preservation.” He 14
asked what are the possibilities for grants for wetland preservation. 15
16
Director Ericson stated that from time to time grant programs are available for green corridors 17
that connect and staff can explore all opportunities for funding. However, it is not realistic to 18
think that one hundred percent of the acquisition could be covered by a grant. 19
20
Mayor Marty stated when the theater was constructed, it was counted as an overflow to handle 21
the drainage from the theater. He stated it seems to him that the wetland was taken into 22
consideration as far as the 100-year storm excess run off. Director Ericson stated it is not his 23
recollection that the property was considered as overflow but the water does flow in that 24
direction from the theater. He noted the historical direction of water flow did not change with 25
the construction of the theater site and the amount of flow did not increase. 26
27
Mayor Marty asked if there is Council consensus to discuss this matter in closed cession. 28
29
Councilmember Stigney stated Mr. Harstad won his law suit and should be able to develop as 30
awarded. 31
32
Councilmember Flaherty stated he thinks the Council should look at it and determine whether it 33
would be fiscally prudent to even consider. He stated that he is willing to talk about it in closed 34
session, make an offer, and see what the City gets. 35
36
Mayor Marty asked if that would have to be discussed in closed session. Director Ericson 37
answered in the affirmative. 38
39
City Administrator Ulrich stated the City is not yet at a point to make a specific offer and maybe 40
the Council direction would be to direct Staff to start working with other developers to try and 41
bridge the gap between the cost to Mr. Harstad and end development sale. He stated it may be 42
possible to talk with developers to see if there is even potential for a different type of 43
development. 44
45
Mounds View City Council September 26, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 25
Councilmember Thomas stated if the City is to put out an expense, it is in maintaining control 1
over the runoff and to then turn around, at some point, when it may be feasible to do single-2
family. But, the Council is not going to be at that point until the development on County Road 3
H2 is completed. She stated to protect the wetland is the value that could be discussed at this 4
point as well as to have lower traffic numbers. 5
6
Councilmember Flaherty stated that is not an option unless it is looked at whether the City should 7
consider making an offer. 8
9
Councilmember Thomas stated her suggestion is to discuss true cost at face value without 10
considering a revenue after development. 11
12
Mayor Marty stated if the City starts talking to other developers about marketing, it may take too 13
long and the trees could be bulldozed. 14
15
Councilmember Gunn asked if they are considering all or part of the land, or one of the ponds. 16
She stated the Council also needs to discuss where the money would come from. 17
18
Mayor Marty stated it seems to him the cost will be too prohibitive. He noted the issues are 19
wetlands, traffic safety, and adhering to the Comprehensive Plan on the eastern-most section. 20
21
Councilmember Thomas stated she thinks that 34 units will be cost prohibitive but is fine with 22
talking about it. 23
24
Mayor Marty asked if the Council wants to hold a 10-minute executive session tonight following 25
adjournment. 26
27
Councilmember Flaherty stated he does not know what the Council would even discuss. 28
29
Director Ericson stated he has consulted with Mr. Harstad who indicated he will not delay his 30
development while the City explores projects with other developers or conducts studies. He 31
advised that Mr. Harstad has indicated he is willing to consider an offer, if made, or he will move 32
forward. 33
34
City Attorney Riggs stated the Council needs to state on the record the definition of the property 35
being considered. 36
37
Councilmembers Flaherty, Gunn, and Thomas indicated a willingness to hold a 10 minute closed 38
session to assess the acquisition opportunities associated with Harstad’s Red Oak Estates #3. 39
40
L. Resolution 6643 Disposal of Golf Course Memorial Items 41
42
Golf Course Manager Burg explained that a family came to the golf course and asked to receive 43
back a tree they planted in memory of their loved one. She stated she returned the memorial 44
plaque to them. The Japanese Lilac tree is next to Judicial Ditch #1 and will be within the 45
Mounds View City Council September 26, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 26
building pad. She stated this tree is important to this family. Golf Course Manager Burg stated 1
there is also a sign on the Club House and they have requested the sign. 2
3
Golf Course Manager Burg stated several have also requested their name plate from the “Hole in 4
One” plaque. There are several plaques memorializing the club championship for the men and 5
women. Golf Course Manager Burg explained that some making the request are the children of a 6
deceased parent. Otherwise it will go to the City archives. 7
8
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Flaherty. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6643 Disposal 9
of Golf Course Memorial Items. 10
11
Councilmember Stigney asked if there is a problem with removal of the tree. City Administrator 12
Ulrich stated if the trees were being sold at auction it would be an issue but there is no issue if 13
the donator picks up the tree. 14
15
Mayor Marty stated he wondered about bringing the plaque out front on the rock to the City Hall. 16
17
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 18
19
Golf Course Manager Burg asked if the golf course should still be closed on Wednesday if the 20
sale has been delayed. She stated business is slow but people are still coming to get in their last 21
round of golf. She stated she and Ken Manthis will be there anyway. 22
23
Councilmember Thomas noted a resolution was adopted on the closing date and asked if that 24
paperwork can be handled. City Administrator Ulrich stated if the Council wants to keep it open 25
for several more days, Council can adopt a resolution tonight. 26
27
Councilmember Thomas asked if it will impact wages. City Administrator Ulrich stated there 28
will be no impact. He noted that there has been a lot of communication with residents about 29
when the last date will be. 30
31
Golf Course Manager Burg stated that even today people called who were not aware of the 32
closing so she thinks some people will still come and she is certain that more dollars can be 33
made. 34
35
Mayor Marty stated Dave Parker told him that the green grass has to be watered every three to 36
four days. Golf Course Manager Burg agreed that it is high maintenance and takes a lot of effort 37
to keep it alive, noting that during the summer months they water it twice a day. She stated that 38
customers will keep coming and as long as she is there she has no problem with selling another 39
token so the City can make more money. 40
41
City Administrator Ulrich stated he recalls the date to close was established by Council 42
consensus. He recommended the Council consider a motion to extend the closing date. 43
44
Mounds View City Council September 26, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 27
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To keep the golf course open through Monday, October 3, 1
2005. 2
3
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 4
5
Mr. McCarty stated his comments about the sale of golf course items should in no way indicate 6
that he has changed his mind in any way about the sale of the golf course. He stated he is asking 7
a question as a taxpayer and stepping aside from his position as Chair of the Mounds View 8
Citizens Taxpayers Association because he has not discussed this with the Board of Directors, 9
nor does he intend to represent them. Mr. McCarty stated this law suit is going forward and the 10
question revolves around the validity of the Charter process regarding the sale of the property. 11
He indicated the Petition Committee has made it very clear that they wholeheartedly disagree 12
with the City’s opinion that this is not a referendum item. That is why they are going forward 13
with the law suit, to decide that. Mr. McCarty stated that we do not know what the outcome will 14
be because of all the exchanges between the City’s representative and theirs will take time. 15
16
Mr. McCarty asked, as a citizen, should the Citizens Taxpayers Association prevail, the vote be 17
ordered, and citizens denied the sale of that land, where does that leave us. He stated that this 18
Council and staff continues to plod forward having had more than ample notice that this was 19
their intention and Ms. Haake again provided documentation this evening laying our their 20
feelings on this situation. He stated the City received plenty of notice that this was happening but 21
continued to plod on and on knowing full well they had nothing to petition Judicial District 2 22
with until they had a sufficient petition. Mr. McCarty stated all of these things will come into 23
play. 24
25
Mr. McCarty asked if the judge and courts decides that the election must be held and the citizens 26
turn down the authority to sell that property, where will that leave the City of Mounds View 27
should that happen. Mr. McCarty stated no one can guess the outcome but if it does turn out that 28
way, he would like an answer rather than the “old stonewall stares” we have become so 29
accustomed to. 30
31
City Attorney Riggs stated the City does not yet have a complaint to respond to. If received, it 32
will be turned over immediately to the League of Minnesota Cities defense and there may likely 33
be bonding requirements because the City has contractual obligations to fulfill at this time. He 34
noted case law discusses that and he is sure Mr. McCarty and the group have looked at that issue. 35
There are not insignificant costs coming to the City, to the developer, to the State, and to the 36
County at this time. 37
38
Councilmember Thomas stated you have provided ample forewarning and Council has provided 39
ample discussion of their thoughts as well. She stated that all of these factors and possibilities 40
were included in every decision she made so she will have to proceed on a day-by-day basis. She 41
noted this is not new information and she had the feelings and opinions in mind when she had to 42
make the decisions before and will respond on a day-by-day basis as needed. 43
44
Mounds View City Council September 26, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 28
Mr. McCarty stated if the ability to sell the property is overturned by the voters, what can we 1
expect and anticipate. 2
3
Councilmember Flaherty stated he appreciates Mr. McCarty’s hard work and he knows the 4
meeting protocol is to funnel everything through the Mayor who needs to recognize the members 5
to make a comment. He stated the blank stares may be in waiting for the Mayor to recognize 6
them for a comment. Councilmember Flaherty stated he knows he could talk with Mr. McCarty 7
all night long but the “shots across the bow” commenting about blank stares, are not appropriate 8
and beneath Mr. McCarty to even bring up. 9
10
Mr. McCarty stated Councilmember Flaherty should be addressing his comments to the Mayor. 11
He stated he will not in any way apologize or back off his comment about the “stonewall stares” 12
because this Council has not given them answers. He stated they should go back and look at the 13
film. Mr. McCarty stated he is asking for an answer from the Mayor as the presiding officer and 14
if a Councilmember wants to confer with the Mayor and give their ideas on what the answer 15
would be, he has all night long. 16
17
Councilmember Stigney stated he fails to see where this item has any place on the agenda at this 18
time and pointed out that the discussion before the Council is a resolution disposing of golf 19
course memorial items. Now Mr. McCarty has come up, asked questions, and changed the whole 20
thing. He stated that if Mr. McCarty wants to discuss this during public comments that would be 21
the place to do it. Or put it on the agenda, or discuss it with the City Administrator but not take 22
over this Council meetings by asking a bunch of questions that have nothing to do with the 23
agenda. 24
25
Mayor Marty stated Mr. McCarty is raising the issue to see how the Council will respond. He 26
stated that is why he would not vote in support of disposal of golf course property, because we do 27
not know where this is going. He stated as far as “blank stares,” the Council does look and 28
attend to citizens. Mayor Marty stated he has stood before other councils and they did not pay 29
attention to him and while maybe this Council does not have answers on the tip of their tongues, 30
if the Council is looking at you, they are aware of you. 31
32
Mr. McCarty invited the Council to review the August 22, 2005 meeting tape when he put a 33
paper up here in respect for the three minute gag rule. With regard to whether or not he has the 34
right to ask these questions, it surprised him to no end that long tenured Councilmembers still 35
have not read the City Charter with respect to the citizen’s right to address this Council on any 36
issue before the Council whether it’s during the public comments and requests section or not. It 37
includes every item the Council deals with on the agenda that the Council shall not prevent 38
citizen comments or requests on those subjects and it is not restricted only to that portion of the 39
agenda at the beginning of the meeting. 40
41
Mr. McCarty asked about the disposal of golf course equipment. He stated the Council has had 42
fair warning that the Council should be considering what will happen to him as a tax payer. He 43
stated he will ask again and then give up knowing he won’t get an answer again. Mr. McCarty 44
asked what will happen if the voters prevail and this Council, the City, is enjoined from divesting 45
Mounds View City Council September 26, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 29
that property without having adhered to all Charter requirements, you can’t sell it. If that 1
happens, where does that leave him as a taxpayer of the City of Mounds View. He asked if the 2
City has considered what the coming obligations may be in terms of Ramsey County, the 3
developer, the applicant, and the list goes on. He stated quite obviously, regardless of what over 4
1,100 citizens had to say who signed the petition, or he has said, or the people he has been 5
working with, the Council has kept plodding on oblivious of their concerns. Mr. McCarty stated 6
that is the Council’s choice and responsibility and will have to stand for that. But, as a citizen 7
taxpayer, he asked if the Council has considered, or is there even a guess of how much it will 8
cost the City should the City loose and the residents prevail on this question before the courts. 9
He asked if there has been any guess at all or understanding or consideration of the risk being 10
taken having been fully informed and appraised of a potential suit on this issue. 11
12
Councilmember Thomas stated the Council cannot speculate on legal situations they are not yet 13
in. That being said, she stated she somewhat takes offense at the term “being oblivious to the 14
concerns of the residents” because the Council is not and every step and decision was fully 15
considered. She stated she does not have a number and will not speculate legal conditions that 16
are not before the Council. She stated that with every choice that was made the Council fully 17
considered the opinions of those they agreed with and those they did not agree with. 18
19
Mayor Marty stated this can be debated all night and he has thought about this and a number of 20
different scenarios. He stated that even when the group brought in the petition, the Council 21
cannot go on hypotheticals until faced with something. Once the Council is, then they will 22
address that. 23
24
Mr. McCarty asked if the Council has considered speculating on the obvious. Mayor Marty 25
stated that until the Council is faced with a suit, that is when the Council will have to take it 26
seriously. 27
28
M. ITEM DELETED 29
30
N. Resolution 6646 Declaring a Local Emergency as a Result of the September 31
21st Storm 32
33
Mayor Marty stated he met with City Administrator Ulrich, Police Chief Sommer who is also the 34
Emergency Management Coordinator, and Councilmember Flaherty to sign an emergency 35
declaration. 36
37
Police Chief Sommer explained that a local emergency may be declared only by the Mayor of a 38
municipality for the purpose of activating the City emergency operation plan and authorizing aid 39
and assistance. The local emergency declaration empowers the City to enter into contracts and 40
incur obligations necessary to combat the emergency by protecting the health and safety of 41
persons and property, and providing emergency assistance to those in need without compliance 42
with time consuming procedures and formalities prescribed by law pertaining to the performance 43
of public work. 44
45
Mounds View City Council September 26, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 30
Police Chief Sommer explained that declaring a local emergency is necessary in order for the 1
City to receive financial aid, should it become available, for the cleanup. He recommended that 2
the City Council declare a local emergency as a result of the storm of September 21, 2005. 3
4
Mayor Marty stated a resident indicated that the City Forester had determined a tree was twisted 5
off which would not happen with straight line winds so it is an indicator of tornadic activity. 6
Mayor Marty stated he thinks there were some tornadoes that may not have touched down but did 7
skip over the City. 8
9
Mayor Marty stated Representative Bernardy’s letter to the Governor is also included to seek 10
State aid for the clean up. He requested the rest of the Council’s blessing on the resolution 11
declaring an emergency declaration. 12
13
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Flaherty. To Waive the Reading and Adopt Resolution 6646 14
Declaring a Local Emergency as a Result of the September 21st Storm. 15
16
City Administrator Ulrich stated that City Forester Rick Wriskey has been very helpful to 17
identify the downed trees and commended him for the great job he has done for both Mounds 18
View and New Brighton. 19
20
Mayor Marty stated he and Councilmember Flaherty walked through a neighborhood where the 21
power lines were located in the back of the property lines. He advised that trees had grown 22
through those power lines and it was stated that during a storm when a tree falls down, whole 23
neighborhoods can be without power. He explained that Nextel is having a difficult time getting 24
their truck into these areas. Mayor Marty stated he would like to raise that issue before the 25
Council and suggested areas of above ground power lines should be looked at to see if they can 26
be buried. 27
28
Councilmember Thomas stated he had the same conversation with that resident and asked Staff 29
to bring forward suggestions if there are ways to make Nextel’s job easier. She cautioned about 30
the need to determine the City’s responsibilities and Nextel’s responsibilities. 31
32
Councilmember Flaherty agreed with the benefit of discussing this in the future because there is a 33
lot of growth in the easement area. However, the City must first be asked by Nextel to help. 34
35
Councilmember Gunn stated she has noticed that some of the streets are starting to flood and 36
suggested residents check and clean out the storm drains. 37
38
Councilmember Stigney stated a resident called him and said he would like to learn from Nextel 39
Energy how they determine priority on which neighborhoods to first turn on electricity. 40
41
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated Nextel is responsible for the lines and laid off a lot of 42
employees to cut costs. His neighborhood only lost power for two hours because several years 43
ago their neighborhood got together and all called in to say they would not pay their bill if they 44
lost power so Nextel cleaned out the trees and brush to assure they would not lose power. 45
Mounds View City Council September 26, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 31
1
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 2
3
CONSIDER EXTENSION OF RULES 4
5
Mayor Marty noted it is has passed 10:00 p.m. 6
7
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Gunn. To extend the meeting beyond the official 10:00 p.m. 8
adjournment time. 9
10
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 11
12
9. CONSENT AGENDA 13
14
Councilmember Thomas asked to remove Item G. Mayor Marty asked to remove Item B. 15
16
A. Resolution 6612 Approving a Tobacco and a Restaurant License for City 17
Tavern located at 2400 Highway 10 in Mounds View. 18
B. Resolution 6624 Authorizing an Expenditure from the DARE Fund to Train 19
a New DARE Officer. This item was removed for a separate vote. 20
C. Resolution 6625 Authorizing the Purchase of 800MHz Portable Radios for 21
the Police Department. 22
D. Resolution 6626 Designating the East side of Edgewood Drive from County 23
Road H to Woodale Drive a No Parking Area. 24
E. Establish an Executive Session of the City Council Immediately Following 25
the City Council Meeting to Consider Possible Acquisition of Real Estate 26
F. Set a Public Hearing for 7:05 PM, Monday, October 10, 2005 (at the New 27
Brighton City Hall) to Consider the Development Stage Plans, Preliminary 28
Plat, Vacation and Rezoning Associated with the Medtronic CRM Project. 29
G. Resolution 6642 Changing Public Hearing Dates for the Proposed General 30
Fund Budget and Property Tax Levy for Fiscal Year 2006. This item was 31
removed for a separate vote. 32
H. Licenses for Approval 33
I. Set a Public Hearing for 7:10 PM, Monday, October 10, 2005 (at the New 34
Brighton City Hall) to Consider the Second Reading and Adoption of an 35
Ordinance Vacating an Easement Associated with the SYSCO Second 36
Addition Major Subdivision. 37
38
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Flaherty. To Approve the Consent Agenda Items A, C through F, H 39
and I, as presented. 40
41
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 42
43
B. Resolution 6624 Authorizing an Expenditure from the DARE Fund to Train 44
a New DARE Officer 45
Mounds View City Council September 26, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 32
1
Mayor Marty stated this is a good idea and asked when and where is the training. Police Chief 2
Sommer stated there are several training sessions this fall but none are in Minnesota or close 3
enough to drive. He stated the location will depend on where he is able to attend. 4
5
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Adopt Resolution 6624 6
Authorizing an Expenditure from the DARE Fund to Train a New DARE Officer. 7
8
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 9
10
G. Resolution 6642 Changing Public Hearing Dates for the Proposed General 11
Fund Budget and Property Tax Levy for Fiscal Year 2006 12
13
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Flaherty. To Waive the Reading and Adopt Resolution 6642 14
Changing Public Hearing Dates for the Proposed General Fund Budget and Property Tax Levy 15
for Fiscal Year 2006 to Monday, December 5, 2005, starting at 6:00 p.m., and a continuation 16
meeting date of Monday, December 12, 2005. 17
18
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 19
20
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 21
22
A. August 22, 2005 City Council Meeting Minutes 23
24
The following corrections were requested: 25
26
Page 6, Lines 34, 41, and throughout, correct name to “Sebesta” 27
Page 7, Line 1, should read: “contacted Mr. Ericson on July 27, after…” 28
Page 7, Line 5, should read: “Attorney was received prior to the vote but the actual contract was 29
not received until July 29, when City Administrator…” 30
Page 7, Line 20, should read: “stated he was on vacation until July 29th. Mayor Marty stated that 31
is when I requested it.” 32
Page 13, Line 6, “…is selling for $8.65 million so the City …” 33
Page 25, Line 19, should read: “…adjacent rights-of-way.” 34
Page 25, Line 22, should read: “…the former SYSCO land” 35
Page 25, Line 23, should read: “encompasses 46 acres…” 36
Page 25, Line 30, should read: “…TIF qualified costs.” 37
Page 25, Line 31, should read: “…adopt Resolution 6594A…” 38
Page 25, Line 33, should read: “Resolution 5494B…” 39
Page 40, Line 5, should read: “one. City Attorney Riggs answered…” 40
Page 40, Line 37, should read: “seats by 100% of the residents…” 41
42
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Flaherty. To Approve the August 22, 2005 City Council meeting 43
minutes as corrected above. 44
45
Mounds View City Council September 26, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 33
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 1
2
B. September 12, 2005 City Council Meeting Minutes 3
4
The following corrections were requested: 5
6
Page 23, Lines 39 and 41, correct the name to: “Sebesta” 7
8
Mayor Marty asked staff to check the video tape to verify his statement on Page 5, Lines 29 and 9
30. 10
11
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Marty. To Approve the September 12, 2005 City Council 12
meeting minutes as corrected above. 13
14
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 15
16
11. REPORTS 17
18
C. Reports of Mayor and Council 19
20
Councilmember Flaherty stated residents really pitched in to help each other out after the 21
Wednesday night storm. He stated it did his heart good to see the community come together and 22
he applauds residents for helping each other. 23
24
Councilmember Stigney stated during the last meeting the Mayor stated it was a fact that 25
residents were giving golf course staff a hard time and followed a beverage cart employee home. 26
At the meeting, he had questioned if Mayor Marty had personal knowledge and cautioned that 27
Mayor Marty should not be discussing it. Councilmember Stigney stated there was an 28
investigation and determined it was not factual, unsubstantiated, and unfounded. He cautioned 29
the Mayor about making such comments that are not factual. 30
31
Mayor Marty stated he talked to the golf course employees too and there was some 32
miscommunication. 33
34
Councilmember Stigney stated there was no substantiation and in the future he would 35
recommend the Mayor contact the Police Chief for documentation. 36
37
Mayor Marty commended all the citizens for their response after the storm and stated Staff went 38
above and beyond, as did neighbors and friends. He thanked everyone for pitching in and noted 39
that residents are still helping. 40
41
Mayor Marty stated that hauling of branches up to eight feet will start tomorrow. He noted the 42
information is on the web site and if residents don’t want to wait, they can haul it to the storm 43
debris dump site in New Brighton. 44
45
Mounds View City Council September 26, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 34
Councilmember Gunn cautioned residents to not create huge bonfires fires in their back yard. 1
Mayor Marty agreed and noted recreational fires require a burning permit, a fire ring, and cannot 2
burn yard waste. 3
4
Councilmember Thomas pointed out that hauling is starting on the south side but cleaning is still 5
occurring in that area so she would like them to have additional time to assure they are not 6
missed. 7
8
Mayor Marty stated there may be a possibility of a pass through next week if they are still 9
working to clear the trees. 10
11
Councilmember Thomas explained that this particular neighborhood was not able to start the 12
cleanup right away so she would like consideration of just that one particular block and is not 13
suggesting another sweep of the entire City. 14
15
Mayor Marty stated he mentioned earlier that the top of a resident’s tree was twisted off and that 16
was recognition of a tornado. He asked if that would qualify the City for more assistance. City 17
Administrator Ulrich stated it would not because the consideration is the amount of property 18
damage. 19
20
Mayor Marty mentioned Ms. Haake’s earlier caution for residents to be careful about checking 21
with their insurance companies and to shop around for a tree removal contractor. 22
23
B. Reports of Staff 24
25
1. Announce that City Hall is temporarily moving to the Mounds View 26
Community Center 27
28
City Administrator Ulrich announced that the City Hall will be moving to the Community Center 29
for approximately six months starting Monday, October 3, 2005. He advised that the City Hall 30
will be closed on Friday, September 30, and the Mounds View Community Center will be closed 31
on Saturday, October 1, in order to allow for moving. 32
33
City Administrator Ulrich noted the City Police Department will temporarily relocate to the 34
Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office in Arden Hills. A police report writing station will be located at 35
the Mounds View Community Center so officers will be there on occasion as well. 36
37
City Administrator Ulrich explained that the remodeled City Hall will be available for occupancy 38
by April 1, 2006. For people who wish to drop off utility bills, a drop off box will be provided 39
inside the community center during extended business hours only. 40
41
City Administrator Ulrich announced that beginning October 10, 2005, all Mounds View public 42
meetings will be held at the New Brighton City Hall. The Council Work Session of October 3, 43
2005 and Planning Commission of October 5, 2005 will be held in the Mounds View Council 44
Chambers. He advised that the meetings will continue to be televised. 45
Mounds View City Council September 26, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 35
1
Councilmember Stigney asked if Council will have access to the Community Center to pick up 2
meeting packets. City Administrator Ulrich stated there are some extended hours so mailboxes 3
could be considered. Director Ericson suggested Staff explore the temporary option of delivering 4
meeting packets. 5
6
Mayor Marty asked whether all of the telephone numbers will remain the same. City 7
Administrator Ulrich answered in the affirmative. 8
9
2. Update of The Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course Auction 10
11
City Administrator Ulrich stated questions were raised about the auction process at the last 12
meeting. He explained bidding “by choice” on like items so the winning bidder will have choice 13
to purchase all like golf carts for the same price as the first. Reserve bids will be used sparingly 14
and on two items identified as high valued items. He advised that the buildings will be sold in-15
place and 90 days will be available to remove large buildings. Inspection will be allowed starting 16
at noon the day before and 8:00 a.m. the day of the auction. 17
18
Councilmember Stigney asked about bidding by choice and noted they can buy as many or all, 19
not just all. City Administrator Ulrich stated that is correct. 20
21
3. Active Living Ramsey County Meeting 22
23
City Administrator Ulrich reminded the Council of the Active Living Ramsey County meeting 24
that will be held this Thursday, September 29, 2005, at 4:30 p.m., at the New Brighton Family 25
Service Center. There will be some national speakers to address improving walkability 26
throughout the community and it is sponsored by Blue Cross Blue Shield. 27
28
4. Cable Broadcast Problems 29
30
Councilmember Thomas stated the cable broadcast has been problematic and formally requested 31
an official report on what is the problem and how it can be fixed. She stated she has found it 32
extremely frustrating to turn on the channel and find only a black screen. 33
34
Mayor Marty asked about the process for hiring a cable replacement. City Administrator Ulrich 35
stated Staff is in the process of wrapping up the applications. He stated he is exploring the 36
option of sharing this position with New Brighton where each City would have one-half of a 37
position. The Cable Commission will look at applications in early October and put forward an 38
offer for the position in mid-October. 39
40
Mayor Marty suggested a joint position with Mounds View, New Brighton, and Arden Hills. 41
City Administrator Ulrich stated he will look into that option. 42
43
Mounds View City Council September 26, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 36
5. Update of the NW Area Library Taskforce 1
2
Director Ericson provided an update on the Northwest Area Library Taskforce meeting of 3
September 15, 2005. He advised that several Mounds View, Arden Hills, and New Brighton 4
residents were in attendance. He indicated he had presented information on the community and 5
several residents asked what the City’s position would be or is with regard to the Mounds View 6
Branch Library – to keep it open or have a more regional based library system. 7
8
Director Ericson stated he explained to everyone in attendance that the City would work with the 9
Library Board and Task Force. However, the Council supports the Mounds View Branch Library 10
and would like to see it remain in place. Another meeting is scheduled on September 28, 2005, 11
at the New Brighton Family Service Center at 7 p.m. He stated it would be good to have City 12
representation at that meeting. 13
14
6. National Association of Industrial and Office Properties Survey 15
16
Director Ericson distributed information on the survey from the National Association of 17
Industrial and Office Properties of metro cities. The survey asked this question: “What would it 18
take in local fees and processing time to develop this building.” Seventy-nine cities responded 19
and surprisingly, for the most part, Mounds View is where other communities are with regard to 20
fees in building and plan review. In other areas, Mounds View is very far below what other cities 21
are charging. He stated this survey is enlightening and if he has time he will provide a summary 22
of where Mounds View ranks when compared to the other cities. 23
24
Finance Director Beers stated he attended an MGFOA seminar on fees and their caution was the 25
fees are to be based on the cost of the service, not what other cities are charging. 26
27
C. Reports of City Attorney 28
29
Nothing to report. 30
31
12. Next Council Work Session: (Mounds View City Hall) Monday, October 3, 2005 32
Next Council Meeting: (New Brighton City Hall) Monday, October 10, 2005 33
34
13. ADJOURNMENT 35
36
The meeting recessed to Executive Session to consider acquisition of property known as Red 37
Oak Estates #3 at 10:53 a.m. 38
39
Transcribed and recorded by: 40
41
42
Carla Wirth 43
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 44