HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2005/10/24CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
NEW BRIGHTON CITY HALL
Monday, October 24, 2005
7:00 p.m.
(REVISED AS OF OCTOBER 24, 2005 @5:00PM)
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Cub Scout Pack 367, Den 2, will be conducting the Pledge.
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. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. 7:05pm Consider Resolution 6657 Adopting a Special Assessment Levy for Delinquent Public Utility
Accounts. (This Public Hearing will be rescheduled for November 14, 2005 7:10pm)
B. 7:10pm Consider Resolution 6658 Adopting a Special Assessment Levy for Diseased Tree Removals.
(This Public Hearing will be rescheduled for November 14, 2005 7:15pm)
C. 7:15pm Public Hearing to Consider the Second Reading of Ordinance 763, an Ordinance Authorizing the
Vacation of an Excess Drainage and Utility Easement Associated with the SYSCO Plat.
D. Resolution 6662 Resolution of Support to Accept Alternatives for Contracts 2.20 and 2.60 in Bid Package
#1 for New SBM Fire Station #3.
E. Resolution 6660 Approving a Charitable Gambling Permit to the Mounds View Lion’s Club to Conduct
Charitable Gambling at The Mermaid.
F. Resolution 6663 Amending Resolution 6626 Designating No Parking Areas on Edgewood Drive from
County Road H to Woodale Drive.
G. Resolution 6665 Approving the Terms of Proposal for the sale by the City of Blaine of its G.O. Capital
Improvement Bonds, for SBM Fire Department Improvements.
H. Resolution 6654 Approving new Health Care Insurance Provider for 2006.
I. Resolution 6653 Setting an Interest Rate and Administrative Fee for Special Assessments Certified During
2005
J. Resolution 6667 Amend Proposal for Auction Services
8. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Resolution 6655, Authorization to Enter into a Grant Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Public
Safety, Office of Traffic Safety Safe and Sober Project
B. Resolution 6664 Authorizing Entering into Grant Agreement with Minnesota Department of Employment and
Economic Development (DEED) in the Amount of $1,635,500.
C. Licenses for Approval.
D. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, November 14, 2005 at 7:05 pm to Consider the First Reading and Adoption
of Ordinance 766, an Ordinance Authorizing the Vacation of a Drainage and Utility Easement Associated
with the Belting Development.
E. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, November 14, 2005 at 7:10pm to Consider Resolution 6657 Adopting a
Special Assessment Levy for Delinquent Public Utility Accounts.
City Council Agenda
October 24, 2005
Page 2
8. CONSENT AGENDA continued
F. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, November 14, 2005 at 7:15pm to Consider Resolution 6658 Adopting a
Special Assessment Levy for Diseased Tree Removals.
G. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, November 14, 2005 at 7:20pm to Consider Resolution 6661 Approving an
On-Sale Wine and an On-Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor License for Taiko Sushi Bar located at 2394 Highway 10 in
Mounds View.
9. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Minutes, July 25, 2005.
B. Executive Session Minutes, October 10, 2005.
C. October 10, 2005 City Council Meeting Minutes will be presented at the November 14, 2005 City Council
Meeting.
10. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS
11. REPORTS
A. Reports of Mayor and Council
B. Reports of Staff
1. Finance Department Quarterly Report
2. Budget
3. Storm Damage Report
4. Anoka County/Blaine Airport Advisory Committee Update
C. Reports of City Attorney
1. Report on Premium Stop Compliance
12. Next Council Work Session: (New Brighton City Hall) Monday, November 7, 2005 @ 7:00 pm
Next Council Meeting: (New Brighton City Hall) Monday, November 14, 2005 @ 7:00 pm
Item No: 07E
Meeting Date: October 24, 2005
Type of Business: CB
City Administrator Review: ____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree Crane, Assistant to the City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6660 Approving a Charitable Gambling Permit to
the Mounds View Lion’s Club to Conduct Charitable
Gambling at the Mermaid
The Mounds View Lion’s Club, a non-profit charitable organization, would like to
renew their Charitable Gambling Permit to hold charitable gambling at The
Mermaid, located at 2200 Highway 10 in Mounds View.
The Mound View Lions Club currently hold a charitable gambling premise permit
for The Mermaid and their permit will expire on January 31, 2006. The Mounds
View Lions Club has been in existence for more than three years, and has at
least thirty (30) active members, as required in Ordinance 691 (attached for your
reference).
The Gambling Control Board requires that local unit of government (city or
county), pass a resolution specifically approving or denying the Premises Permit
Application. This resolution (approving or denying the application) must be voted
on and the resolution forwarded to the Minnesota Gambling Control Board.
Recommendation:
Attached is the Lawful Gambling Application from The Lion’s Club of Mounds
View and Resolution 6660. Staff recommends approval of the Resolution and
permit.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree Crane
RESOLUTION 6660
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING PREMISE PERMIT FOR THE LION’S CLUB
TO PERMIT CHARITABLE GAMBLING AT THE MERMAID LOCATED IN THE
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Lion’s Club presently holds a charitable
gambling premise permit approved by the City of Mounds View; and
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Lion’s Club is requesting renewal of its
charitable gambling license; and
WHEREAS, State Law requires the Mounds View Lion’s Club to obtain
premise permits to allow charitable gambling at the following location:
The Mermaid
2200 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of Mounds View hereby approves the renewal of the charitable gambling premise
permits for the location listed in this resolution for the Mounds View Lion’s Club.
Adopted this 24th day of October, 2005
___________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No. 07F
Meeting Date: October 24, 2005
Type of Business: Council Business
City Administrator Review _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Mike Sommer, Police Chief
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6663 Approval of Altering the Prohibition
of Parking on Edgewood Drive from County Road H
to Woodale Drive
Background:
On September 26, 2005 the City Council approved Resolution 6626, which
granted approval of prohibition of parking on Edgewood Drive from County Road
H to Woodale Drive and designated a drop off and pick up zone from County
Road H to the North driveway of Edgewood School. See attached report.
At the October 10, 2005 City Council meeting, residents along Edgewood Drive
expressed concerns regarding the parking prohibition that was established by
Resolution No. 6626. To address these concerns, the City Council directed Staff
to conduct a neighborhood meeting in an effort to seek a parking plan that would
be agreeable to the residents and still provide public safety and meet the needs
of the City and School District.
Discussion:
A neighborhood meeting was conducted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005. There
were eight property owners in attendance along with Penny Howard, Principal of
Edgewood Elementary School, Greg Lee, Public Works Director, Officer Kirk
Leitch, and myself.
After lengthy discussions and consideration of many different aspects of parking
along Edgewood Drive, the group reached a consensus that by adding
stipulations to limit the no parking restrictions in the drop off and pick up zone
established by Resolution 6626 would be a workable, although not perfect,
solution that could be agreed upon.
The signage in the drop off and pick up zone established by Resolution 6626 will
read “ No Parking - drop off and pick up zone only”. An additional sign would be
added below this sign, which would contain the stipulation that reads “School
Days – 6AM to 4PM”.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving altering the
prohibition of parking on Edgewood Drive from County Road H to Woodale Drive.
Specifically, Staff is recommends limiting the no parking restrictions in the drop
off and pick up zone established by Resolution 6626 by adding the stipulation
“School Days – 6AM to 4PM”.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mike Sommer, Police Chief
RESOLUTION 6663
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVAL OF ALTERING THE PROHIBITION OF PARKING ON
EDGEWOOD DRIVE FROM COUNTY ROAD H TO WOODALE DRIVE
WHEREAS, on September 26, 2005 the City Council approved
Resolution 6626, which granted approval of prohibition of parking on Edgewood
Drive from County Road H to Woodale Drive and designated a drop off and pick
up zone from County Road H to the North driveway of Edgewood School, and
WHEREAS, at the October 10, 2005 City Council meeting,
residents along Edgewood Drive expressed concerns regarding the parking
prohibition that was established by Resolution No. 6626; and
WHEREAS, a neighborhood meeting was conducted on Tuesday,
October 18, 2005, and a consensus was reached that by adding stipulations to
limit the no parking restrictions in the drop off and pick up zone established by
Resolution 6626 would be a workable, although not perfect, solution that could
be agreed upon; and
WHEREAS, said stipulation would be “School Days – 6AM to
4PM”.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1. The parking prohibited on the East side of Edgewood Drive from
County Road H to the North driveway of Edgewood School shall be
limited to School Days – 6AM to 4PM.
2. The Mounds View Public Works Department is hereby authorized
to purchase the necessary signage and erect said signage as per
the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devises.
Adopted this 24th day of October 2005.
____________________________________
ATTEST: Rob Marty, Mayor
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No. 9D
Meeting Date: September 26, 2005
Type of Business: Consent Agenda
City Administrator Review _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Mike Sommer, Police Chief
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6626 Approval of Prohibition of Parking
on Edgewood Drive from County Road H to Woodale
Drive and Designating a Drop Off and Pick Up Zone.
Background:
School officials from Edgewood Middle School, the School Resource Officer
assigned to Edgewood Middle School and the City Public Works Department
have identified a need to create a no parking zone and a drop off and pickup
zone along Edgewood Drive that would benefit both Edgewood Middle School
and the City. The current parking situation has created some safety concern.
Presently cars are allowed to park on the east side of Edgewood near the school,
due to this, parents drop off their children on the west side of Edgewood Drive
who must cross two lanes of ongoing traffic to get to school. Additionally,
because cars are parked on the east side of Edgewood, city sanding and plowing
vehicles do not have adequate access to the street; this further exacerbates the
safety issue for school children. To remedy this situation staff suggests creating
no parking areas, and a drop off and pick up area for parents to safely pick up
their children.
Discussion:
The no parking area would be created by placing no parking signs on the east
side of Edgewood Drive from County Road H to Woodale Drive. The east side of
Edgewood from County Road H to the North driveway of the School would be
designated a drop off and pick up area.
In the event of a large event that required parking on the street, with permission
from the City, the no parking signs could be covered for the event, which would
allow temporary parking permission. Also, if a citizen had an emergent need to
park on the street the citizen could request permission from the police
department to park for the special circumstance.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving No Parking
along the east side of Edgewood Drive from County Road H to Woodale Drive,
with a drop off and pick up zone designated on the East side of Edgewood from
County Road H to the North Driveway of Edgewood School.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mike Sommer, Police Chief
RESOLUTION 6626
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVAL OF PROHIBITION OF PARKING ON EDGEWOOD DRIVE FROM
COUNTY ROAD H TO WOODALE DRIVE.
WHEREAS, School Officials, the Police Department, and the Public
Works Department have identified safety issues with regard to the parking and
drop off and pick up areas along Edgewood school, and
WHEREAS, these safety issues can be remedied by designating
no parking areas and designating a pick up and drop off zone for students; and
WHEREAS, the Public Works and Police Departments and
Edgewood School Officials have reviewed the segment of Edgewood Drive near
the school and recommend that the City post ”No Parking” signs and No
Parking/Pick up and Drop Off Only” signs on the East side of Edgewood Drive to
create a safer situation for parking and movement of students entering and
exiting the school.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1. Parking shall be prohibited on the East side of Edgewood Drive
from County Road H to Woodale Drive. The area from County
Road H to the North driveway of Edgewood School shall be
designated by signage as a pick up and drop off zone only.
2. The Mounds View Public Works Department is hereby authorized
to purchase the necessary signage and erect said signage as per
the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devises.
Adopted this 26th day of September 2005.
____________________________________
ATTEST: Rob Marty, Mayor
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
1827140v1
Item No: 07G
Meeting Date: October 24, 2005
Type of Business: CB
City Administrator Review: ______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6665 Approving the Terms of Proposal for the sale by
the City of Blaine of its G.O. Capital Improvement Bonds
Background:
The Cities of Mounds View, Spring Lake Park and Blaine, as part of their fire
department joint powers agreement, have agreed to acquire a site and construct and
equip a new fire station in Blaine to replace two fire stations that will be removed from
service.
The City of Mounds View, Minnesota held a public hearing on February 14, 2005 on the
adoption of a capital improvement plan for, among other things, the Fire Station, and
identified General Obligation Capital Improvement Plan Bonds to finance the project.
Also on February 14, 2005, the City adopted a Resolution approving a supplement to
Joint Powers Agreement that gave preliminary approval to the issuance by the City of
Blaine of General Obligation Capital Improvement Bonds in the principal amount of
$8,400,000 for the project. The terms of proposal for the issuance of the Bonds by the
City of Blaine are attached.
Discussion:
The City is asked to provide the following:
- Approval of the issuance of the Bonds in substantially the form attached hereto,
and authorization for the City of Blaine to accept the offer of the lowest bidder
for the sale of the Bonds.
- To affirm its obligation to under the Joint Powers Agreement to pay its
proportionate share of the debt service on the bonds.
The City has been a consistent supporter of the Joint Powers Agreement and has
received excellent fire protection service from the joint fire department at a cost far
lower than could be done on its own. It is recommended that the City continue its
support of the organization through the continued joint sponsorship of facilities. Debt
service on the bonds has been included as part of the proposed 2006 levy.
Recommendation:
Attached is the resolution recommended for consideration and approval by the City
Council that approves the Terms of Proposal for the sale by the City of Blaine of its G.O.
Capital Improvement Plan Bonds.
1827140v1 2
1827140v1 3
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
MINNESOTA
HELD: October 24, 2005
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of
the City of Mounds View, Minnesota, was duly held at the City Hall in the City on the 24th day of
October, 2005, at 7 o'clock P.M. for the purpose, in part, of approving the terms of the sale of
General Obligation Capital Improvement Plan Bonds to be issued by the City of Blaine,
Minnesota.
The following members were present:
and the following were absent:
Member ________________ introduced the resolution 6665 and moved its
adoption.
1827140v1 4
RESOLUTION NO. 6665
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TERMS OF THE SALE OF THE
GENERAL OBLIGATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN BONDS
TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY OF BLAINE, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, the Cities of Mounds View, Spring Lake Park and Blaine (collectively, the "Cities")
propose pursuant to a joint powers agreement, as supplemented from time to time (the "Joint Powers
Agreement"), to acquire, construct and equip a new fire station (the "Fire Station"); and
WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View, Minnesota (the "City"), held a public hearing on February
14, 2005 on the adoption of a capital improvement plan for, among other things, the Fire Station, and
the issuance of General Obligation Capital Improvement Plan Bonds to finance the same; and
WHEREAS, on February 14, 2005, the City also adopted a Resolution approving a Supplement to
Joint Powers Agreement by and among the Cities and giving preliminary approval to the issuance by
the City of Blaine of General Obligation Capital Improvement Bonds in the principal amount of
$8,400,000 (the “Bonds”); and
WHEREAS there is attached hereto as Exhibit A the Terms of Proposal for the issuance of the
Bonds by the City of Blaine; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds View,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City Council hereby approves the Terms of Proposal for the issuance of the Bonds in
substantially the form attached hereto, and authorizes the City of Blaine to accept the offer of
the lowest bidder for the sale of the Bonds.
The City hereby affirms its obligations under the Joint Powers Agreement to pay its
proportionate share of debt service on the Bonds.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member _______________ and, after full discussion thereof and upon a vote being
taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same: ___________________
___________________
____________________
Adopted this 24th day of October, 2005.
__________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(seal)
1827140v1 5
1827140v1 6
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Administrator of the City of
Mounds View, Minnesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have compared the attached and
foregoing extract of minutes with the original thereof on file in my office, and that the same is a
full, true and complete transcript of the minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City of
Mounds View, duly called and held on the date therein indicated, insofar as such minutes relate
to approving the Terms of Proposal for Capital Improvement Plan Bonds to be issued by the
City of Blaine, Minnesota.
WITNESS my hand this _____ day of ________________, 2005.
______________________________________
Administrator
1827140v1 A-7
EXHIBIT A
THE CITY HAS AUTHORIZED SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED TO NEGOTIATE THIS
ISSUE ON ITS BEHALF. PROPOSALS WILL BE RECEIVED ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS:
TERMS OF PROPOSAL
$8,400,000
CITY OF BLAINE, MINNESOTA
GENERAL OBLIGATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2005A
(BOOK ENTRY ONLY)
Proposals for the Bonds will be received on Thursday, November 17, 2005, until 10:00 A.M.,
Central Time, at the offices of Springsted Incorporated, 380 Jackson Street, Suite 300, Saint
Paul, Minnesota, after which time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of
the Bonds will be by the City Council at 7:30 P.M., Central Time, of the same day.
SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS
Springsted will assume no liability for the inability of the bidder to reach Springsted prior to the
time of sale specified above. All bidders are advised that each Proposal shall be deemed to
constitute a contract between the bidder and the City to purchase the Bonds regardless of the
manner in which the Proposal is submitted.
(a) Sealed Bidding. Proposals may be submitted in a sealed envelope or by fax (651) 223
3046 to Springsted. Signed Proposals, without final price or coupons, may be submitted to
Springsted prior to the time of sale. The bidder shall be responsible for submitting to Springsted
the final Proposal price and coupons, by telephone (651) 223 3000 or fax (651) 223 3046 for
inclusion in the submitted Proposal.
OR
(b) Electronic Bidding. Notice is hereby given that electronic proposals will be received via
PARITY®. For purposes of the electronic bidding process, the time as maintained by PARITY®
shall constitute the official time with respect to all Bids submitted to PARITY®. Each bidder
shall be solely responsible for making necessary arrangements to access PARITY® for
purposes of submitting its electronic Bid in a timely manner and in compliance with the
requirements of the Terms of Proposal. Neither the City, its agents nor PARITY® shall have
any duty or obligation to undertake registration to bid for any prospective bidder or to provide or
ensure electronic access to any qualified prospective bidder, and neither the City, its agents nor
PARITY® shall be responsible for a bidder's failure to register to bid or for any failure in the
proper operation of, or have any liability for any delays or interruptions of or any damages
caused by the services of PARITY®. The City is using the services of PARITY® solely as a
communication mechanism to conduct the electronic bidding for the Bonds, and PARITY® is not
an agent of the City.
If any provisions of this Terms of Proposal conflict with information provided by PARITY®, this
Terms of Proposal shall control. Further information about PARITY®, including any fee
charged, may be obtained from:
1827140v1 A-8
PARITY®, 1359 Broadway, 2nd Floor, New York, New York 10018
Customer Support: (212) 849-5000
DETAILS OF THE BONDS
The Bonds will be dated December 1, 2005, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest
payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 2006. Interest will be
computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months.
The Bonds will mature February 1 in the years and amounts as follows:
2007 $245,000 2012 $345,000 2017 $415,000 2022 $505,000
2008 $305,000 2013 $360,000 2018 $430,000 2023 $530,000
2009 $315,000 2014 $375,000 2019 $450,000 2024 $550,000
2010 $325,000 2015 $385,000 2020 $470,000 2025 $575,000
2011 $335,000 2016 $400,000 2021 $485,000 2026 $600,000
Proposals for the Bonds may contain a maturity schedule providing for a combination of serial
bonds and term bonds. All term bonds shall be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption
and must conform to the maturity schedule set forth above at a price of par plus accrued interest
to the date of redemption. In order to designate term bonds, the proposal must specify "Years
of Term Maturities" in the spaces provided on the Proposal Form.
BOOK ENTRY SYSTEM
The Bonds will be issued by means of a book entry system with no physical distribution of
Bonds made to the public. The Bonds will be issued in fully registered form and one Bond,
representing the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds maturing in each year, will be
registered in the name of Cede & Co. as nominee of The Depository Trust Company ("DTC"),
New York, New York, which will act as securities depository of the Bonds. Individual purchases
of the Bonds may be made in the principal amount of $5,000 or any multiple thereof of a single
maturity through book entries made on the books and records of DTC and its participants.
Principal and interest are payable by the registrar to DTC or its nominee as registered owner of
the Bonds. Transfer of principal and interest payments to participants of DTC will be the
responsibility of DTC; transfer of principal and interest payments to beneficial owners by
participants will be the responsibility of such participants and other nominees of beneficial
owners. The purchaser, as a condition of delivery of the Bonds, will be required to deposit the
Bonds with DTC.
REGISTRAR
The City will name the registrar, which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City
will pay for the services of the registrar.
OPTIONAL REDEMPTION
The City may elect on February 1, 2016, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds due on or
after February 1, 2017. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part at the option of the
City and in such manner as the City shall determine. If less than all Bonds of a maturity are
called for redemption, the City will notify DTC of the particular amount of such maturity to be
prepaid. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant's interest in such maturity to
1827140v1 A-9
be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in
such maturity to be redeemed. All prepayments shall be at a price of par plus accrued interest.
»
SECURITY AND PURPOSE
The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and
credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. The proceeds will be used to finance
the acquisition, construction and furnishing of buildings and equipment for municipal fire
protection.
TYPE OF PROPOSALS
Proposals shall be for not less than $8,286,600 and accrued interest on the total principal
amount of the Bonds. Proposals shall be accompanied by a Good Faith Deposit ("Deposit") in
the form of a certified or cashier's check or a Financial Surety Bond in the amount of $84,000,
payable to the order of the City. If a check is used, it must accompany the proposal. If a
Financial Surety Bond is used, it must be from an insurance company licensed to issue such a
bond in the State of Minnesota, and preapproved by the City. Such bond must be submitted to
Springsted Incorporated prior to the opening of the proposals. The Financial Surety Bond must
identify each underwriter whose Deposit is guaranteed by such Financial Surety Bond. If the
Bonds are awarded to an underwriter using a Financial Surety Bond, then that purchaser is
required to submit its Deposit to Springsted Incorporated in the form of a certified or cashier's
check or wire transfer as instructed by Springsted Incorporated not later than 3:30 P.M., Central
Time, on the next business day following the award. If such Deposit is not received by that
time, the Financial Surety Bond may be drawn by the City to satisfy the Deposit requirement.
The Deposit received from the purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement
and no interest will accrue to the purchaser, will be deposited by the City. In the event the
purchaser fails to comply with the accepted proposal, said amount will be retained by the City.
No proposal can be withdrawn or amended after the time set for receiving proposals unless the
meeting of the City scheduled for award of the Bonds is adjourned, recessed, or continued to
another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples
of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1%. Rates must be in level or ascending order. Bonds of the same maturity
shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional
proposals will be accepted.
AWARD
The Bonds will be awarded on the basis of the lowest interest rate to be determined on a true
interest cost (TIC) basis. The City's computation of the interest rate of each proposal, in
accordance with customary practice, will be controlling.
The City will reserve the right to: (i) waive non-substantive informalities of any proposal or of
matters relating to the receipt of proposals and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all proposals
without cause, and (iii) reject any proposal that the City determines to have failed to comply with
the terms herein.
BOND INSURANCE AT PURCHASER'S OPTION
If the Bonds qualify for issuance of any policy of municipal bond insurance or commitment
therefor at the option of the underwriter, the purchase of any such insurance policy or the
1827140v1 A-10
issuance of any such commitment shall be at the sole option and expense of the purchaser of
the Bonds. Any increased costs of issuance of the Bonds resulting from such purchase of
insurance shall be paid by the purchaser, except that, if the City has requested and received a
rating on the Bonds from a rating agency, the City will pay that rating fee. Any other rating
agency fees shall be the responsibility of the purchaser.
Failure of the municipal bond insurer to issue the policy after Bonds have been awarded to the
purchaser shall not constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery on
the Bonds.
CUSIP NUMBERS
If the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the
Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect
thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery of the
Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers
shall be paid by the purchaser.
SETTLEMENT
Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the
purchaser through DTC in New York, New York. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the
purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Briggs and Morgan, Professional Association, of
Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota, and of customary closing papers, including a no-
litigation certificate. On the date of settlement, payment for the Bonds shall be made in federal,
or equivalent, funds that shall be received at the offices of the City or its designee not later than
12:00 Noon, Central Time. Unless compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds has
been made impossible by action of the City, or its agents, the purchaser shall be liable to the
City for any loss suffered by the City by reason of the purchaser's non-compliance with said
terms for payment.
CONTINUING DISCLOSURE
On the date of actual issuance and delivery of the Bonds, the City will execute and deliver a
Continuing Disclosure Undertaking (the "Undertaking") whereunder the City will covenant for the
benefit of the owners of the Bonds to provide certain financial and other information about the
City and notices of certain occurrences to information repositories as specified in and required
by SEC Rule 15c2-12(b)(5).
OFFICIAL STATEMENT
The City has authorized the preparation of an Official Statement containing pertinent information
relative to the Bonds, and said Official Statement will serve as a nearly final Official Statement
within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. For copies of
the Official Statement or for any additional information prior to sale, any prospective purchaser
is referred to the Financial Advisor to the City, Springsted Incorporated, 380 Jackson Street,
Suite 300, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101, telephone (651) 223-3000.
The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addendum or addenda specifying the
maturity dates, principal amounts and interest rates of the Bonds, together with any other
information required by law, shall constitute a "Final Official Statement" of the City with respect
1827140v1 A-11
to the Bonds, as that term is defined in Rule 15c2-12. By awarding the Bonds to any
underwriter or underwriting syndicate submitting a proposal therefor, the City agrees that, no
more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without cost to the
senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded 250 copies of the
Official Statement and the addendum or addenda described above. The City designates the
senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded as its agent for
purposes of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each Participating Underwriter.
Any underwriter delivering a proposal with respect to the Bonds agrees thereby that if its
proposal is accepted by the City (i) it shall accept such designation and (ii) it shall enter into a
contractual relationship with all Participating Underwriters of the Bonds for purposes of assuring
the receipt by each such Participating Underwriter of the Final Official Statement.
Dated October 20, 2005 BY ORDER OF THE city council
/s/ Jane M. Cross
City Clerk
Item No: 8A
Meeting Date: October 24, 2005
Type of Business: Consent Agenda
City Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Mike Sommer, Police Chief
Item Title/Subject: Authorization to enter into a grant agreement with the
Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of
Traffic Safety Safe and Sober project
Date of Report: October 24, 2005
Background: The Mounds View Police Department in partnership with the New Brighton
Police Department applied for and has been awarded a grant from the Department of
Public Safety for the Safe and Sober project. The purpose of the grant is to allow
agencies to conduct highly publicized, overtime enforcement projects addressing traffic
safety issues with an emphasis on impaired driving and passenger protection use. The
Safe & Sober Grant Program provides funds to law enforcement agencies to conduct
stepped-up traffic enforcement and community outreach. Each year, requests for Safe &
Sober overtime grants equal about twice the federal funding available. The grant funds
are available on a cost reimbursement basis; costs are reimbursed after they are incurred
and paid by the grantee agencies. The project year begins on October 1, 2005 and ends
on September 30, 2006. The Mounds View Police Department is expected to be granted
approximately $8,000.00 for the program. The Mounds View Police Department was
awarded a Safe and Sober grant in 2003-2004 in partnership with the Ramsey County
Sheriff’s Department
The Mounds View Police Department along with the New Brighton Police Department will
use the funds from the current grant to pay officers to work various traffic enforcement
projects in both cities along with some joint enforcement projects involving both Cities
Police Departments.
Recommendation: Staff recommends Council authorize acceptance of the grant.
_______________________
Respectfully submitted by
Mike Sommer, Police Chief
RESOLUTION 6655
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MOUNDS VIEW POLICE DEPARTMENT TO
ENTER INTO A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY, OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY FOR THE SAFE AND SOBER
PROJECT FROM OCTOBER1, 2005 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30,2005.
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Police Department along with the New Brighton Police
Department have applied for and been awarded a grant from the Department of Public Safety
Safe and Sober program to conduct highly publicized, overtime enforcement projects addressing
traffic safety issues; and,
WHEREAS, the grant funds will cover overtime personnel costs incurred through Safe
and Sober enforcement efforts which will be reimbursed to the city of Mounds View; and,
WHEREAS, all allocated manpower resources will be on a volunteer basis, and will be
on an officers scheduled time off; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does
hereby authorize the Mounds View Police Department to enter into a grant agreement with the
Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety for the project entitled SAFE &
SOBER COMMUNITIES during the period from October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006;and,
NOW, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chief of Police of the Mounds View Police
Department is hereby authorized to execute such agreements and amendments as are necessary to
implement the project on behalf of the Mounds View Police Department, and to be the fiscal agent
and administer the grant.
Adopted this 24th day of October, 2005
_______________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk / Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No: 08C
Meeting Date: October 24, 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.
K & K Concrete Cement/Masonry New
Hutton & Rowe, Inc. HVAC New
Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3
4
Regular Meeting 5
July 25, 2005 6
Mounds View City Hall 7
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 8
7:25 P.M. 9
10
11
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 12
13
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 14
15
3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Gunn, Flaherty, Stigney and Thomas 16
17
NOT PRESENT: 18
19
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 20
21
A. Monday, July 25, 2005 City Council Agenda. 22
23
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Gunn. To Approve the Monday, July 25, 2005 agenda as 24
presented. 25
26
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 27
28
5. PUBLIC INPUT 29
30
Rick Prose, represents the owners of the PAC building located at 2032 Highway 10, and asked if 31
the Council is aware of the problems they are having with their project. He explained that they 32
came before the Council in November to receive approval for the curb cut noting that he has 33
documentation showing the approval and was presented at the closing. He stated that over the 34
last eight months he has been working with Jim Lavalle about getting the parking lot done and 35
working out the plans. He stated that they finely got it done and planned to give him an easement 36
agreement noting the reason they did not sign the easement agreement is because Mr. LaValle 37
would not sign a letter outlining the scope of the work they planned to do including the timeline 38
and completion dates. He stated that this went on for approximately five days and they 39
implemented the plan to develop the catch basin adding that during the course of time they were 40
not able to rent the building. He acknowledged that it looks terrible adding that he does want to 41
fix it up. He stated that owners want him to use the rent to finance the repairs adding that right 42
now he does not have a parking lot and he has people who want to rent space but want to know 43
when the parking lot would be finished. He stated that he has not been able to provide a date 44
because Belmier won’t give him a set date for when they plan to complete the work. He stated 45
Mounds View City Council July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
that they needed to get certain things done to in order to get occupancy noting that he has talked 1
with Director Ericson about this and asked if could rent the building without the parking lot or 2
does he have to wait until Belmier decides to follow through with the plans they submitted to 3
him. He stated that he is asking the Council what to do. He stated that the City approved the 4
plans and a contractor came in from out of state and built on a piece of property they have owned 5
for over fifty years. He stated that he did discuss the project with Director Ericson and Economic 6
Development Coordinator Backman and told them that they were willing to sell the project 7
because they did not want to ruin the integrity of the building. He stated that they wanted to 8
share the right in and right out access noting that since that time they have lost the integrity of the 9
building, the parking lot is not done and the right in/right out access is not very convenient. He 10
expressed frustration stating that he does not know what to do and asked if the City would be 11
able to help him with Belmier. 12
13
Director Ericson confirmed that there have been some difficulties dealing with the developer and 14
getting the project done. He stated that the property owner has been working with Belmier in 15
getting the project done as to what was originally promised for the PAC building site. He stated 16
that they do have a letter executed by Belmier indicating that they would honor and abide by their 17
original agreement to do improvements on the PAC building site and Staff feels confident that 18
they will follow through with it, recognizing that they have already been put out for several 19
months and are not sure when it would actually be completed. He stated that as to the question 20
of whether or not they can rent the building with the parking lot in the condition it is in, they can 21
rent the building noting that it is not in the condition that the either the City or he would prefer. 22
23
Mr. Prose explained that one of the reasons he does not want to rent the building the way it is 24
right now is because of the problems he has had. He expressed concerns stating that he does not 25
want to misrepresent the issues with the new buyers from CDS adding that he is not sure if the 26
new buyers are aware of all the ramifications and problems he has had with Belmier. He stated 27
that he did meet with the new owner of the building noting that the new owner was livid. He 28
stated that it is obvious that the new owner was misrepresented by his employee noting that he 29
tried to talk to the owner about it and was basically told to hit the road and take care of it himself. 30
He explained that one of the reasons he does not want to be in charge of the planning for this 31
project is because the grades were screwed up from the beginning. He stated that he does have 32
the capability of hiring the subcontractors to get the job done but if he does that he does not want 33
them to come back and accuse him of goofing it up. He stated that he wants Belmier to put in the 34
parking lot and follow through on their commitment. He stated that the paperwork Staff received 35
from Belmier includes one of the amendments to their purchase agreement but it does not include 36
the second amendment, which was the amendment for the curb removal. He indicated that 37
Kirsten signed off on the amendment for the curb removal noting that had he not had that signed 38
piece of paper at the time of closing, they would not have closed and wouldn’t have been dealing 39
with Belmier. He stated that he does not know what their stance is on this issue adding that he is 40
currently discussing this concern with his attorney and they are trying to put together a plan. He 41
stated that currently it has been left where he is supposed to be responsible for the parking lot and 42
get it finished. He expressed concerns stating that he does not want the liability noting that the 43
bond that Belmier is holding does not cover the costs of the scope of work left to be done. He 44
asked if Council would visit the site. 45
Mounds View City Council July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
1
Mayor Marty stated that he did visit the site noting that currently it is pretty muddy. 2
3
Mr. Prose stated that they alleviated the water problem by installing the catch basin and the cost 4
of the catch basin was a lot. He indicated that they could have done a better job noting that they 5
had worked out a better plan, which had been shared with Director Ericson. He stated that it was 6
his understanding that this was the plan that would be used, until the last minute adding that 7
within five days Belmier had torn up the parking lot and installed the catch basin. He stated that 8
all along, back when he had presented his case, everyone thought the parking lot was fine noting 9
that he has yet to meet with the City Engineers. He stated that he would like to have an engineer 10
inspect the site to help him determine if the parking lot is right. He stated that the way the water 11
is flowing is not correct and there is a problem. He asked if he could contact Staff for their 12
assistance. 13
14
Council Member Flaherty agreed with Mr. Prose stating that the Council has identified that this 15
is a piece of property that the City does want something done with it. He recalled the 16
conversations with Belmier and agreed that promises were made. He stated that it is time to 17
investigate and see what is going on. He suggested contacting Belmier and having a City 18
Engineer visit the site. 19
20
Mayor Marty stated that they wanted this done last fall and asked Director Ericson to research 21
this issue and provide a summary at the next Council work session. 22
23
Cindy Palm, 2266 Terrace Drive, stated that on behalf of the Greenfield Park Neighborhood she 24
would like to invite the Mayor and City Council, along with the Community, to their Park 25
Dedication Ceremony. She stated that the ceremony is scheduled for this Thursday, July 28, 26
2005 from 5:30 p.m. to 6:15 p.m. She stated that Steve Zevinski and his crew worked very hard 27
this past month in 90-degree weather to install the equipment noting that it is fabulous. She 28
stated that she recently visited the park noting that she heard several positive comments about the 29
equipment. She stated that it is a great park and the neighborhood would like to celebrate their 30
new park with the community. 31
32
Mayor Marty stated that Ms. Palm also had a lot to do with the park and thanked her for her time. 33
34
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated that he reviewed the tape of the last meeting and 35
noted that most of the people who spoke before him spoke a lot longer than he did and more 36
often, yet when it came to his turn he was asked to sit down before he got an answer to his 37
question. He stated that he does not understand why Council allowed that to happen adding that 38
he would like an answer to his question. He asked the Council if they think the billboards should 39
pay for the golf course. 40
41
Mayor Marty agreed that the billboards should pay for the golf course rather than tax the citizens. 42
43
Mr. Jahnke stated that based on the survey 80-percent of the golfers are from outside of the City 44
and 20-percent are from Mounds View and clarified that the billboard money belongs to the City. 45
Mounds View City Council July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 4
He further clarified that the billboard money goes into a fund and take it out of the fund to 1
support the golf course. He stated that 80-percent of the users must be overjoyed that Mounds 2
View is supporting a golf course when the City has bad roads in need of repair. He stated that 3
the City needs the money. He suggested closing down the golf course and use the money from 4
the billboards to take care of the things that need to be repaired in the City. He expressed 5
concerns stating that he does not know this City anymore and doesn’t understand why the 6
Citizens are supporting a golf course that is losing money for the City. He indicated that over the 7
last three years twelve golf courses have had to close because they were losing money. He 8
recalled that the Mayor has said in the past that the Council would do what is best for the 9
Citizens and he does not understand why the City would take money from the billboards to 10
support a golf course that only 20-percent of its citizens use. 11
12
Mayor Marty explained that when some of the land that was deeded to the City by MnDOT and 13
SYSCO, the deeds, on their portions deeded to the City, stated that the land had to be used for 14
public purpose or a public facility. He stated that the Council reviewed potential areas for a 15
soccer, baseball or football field noting that it would be a source of maintenance and Council 16
decided to sink some money into it to create a golf course. He stated that the Council understood 17
that it would cost more to install a golf course but believed that once it was installed it would 18
become a positive source of revenue for the City. He stated that he agreed that this was a 19
relatively sound idea versus a baseball or soccer field noting that the City could get some revenue 20
from the use of the fields but the golf course would take some initial capital outlay, which is 21
where they fell behind. He explained that some of the property had been previously used as a 22
landfill. 23
24
Mr. Jahnke acknowledged all of that noting that if they just put up the billboards and closed the 25
golf course the City would be further ahead. He stated that they have to consider the financials 26
and if they close the golf course and use the revenue from the billboards the City would be 27
farther ahead than if they keep the golf course open. He stated that the City is losing money by 28
keeping the golf course open. 29
30
Mayor Marty clarified that he did not have anything to do with putting the golf course there. He 31
explained that the City has bonds and debts associated to the golf course that have to be paid and 32
the City had to find a way to pay off this debt without impacting the citizens, which is how they 33
got into the billboard deal. 34
35
Mr. Jahnke stated that even if the City didn’t have Medtronic it would be better to close the golf 36
course and use the money from the billboards for the City. 37
38
Mayor Marty recalled that one of the last things Mr. Hansen had said was that if the golf course 39
didn’t have the debt there could be a slight revenue from the golf course. 40
41
Mr. Jahnke asked the Council to think about this. He stated that he feels it is totally wrong for a 42
City to support a golf course and the billboards. 43
44
Mounds View City Council July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 5
Council Member Stigney referenced the April 1992 survey stating that a question was asked if 1
the citizens would support the project if it were projected to show a profit to lower our taxes after 2
three years noting that the response from the citizens was positive to have the City do it versus a 3
private contract. He stated that it never did happen and he doubts that it ever will. He stated that 4
it might break even with the billboards adding that how it started was due to a false premise that 5
it would make money. He stated that currently the City is looking very strongly at Medtronic 6
noting that Medtronic would be a very viable option for bringing money into the City. 7
8
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 9
10
A. YMCA Quarterly Report 11
12
Pat Remersmith, Vice President of Operations, YMCA of the Greater St. Paul provided the 13
Council with a brief overview of the YMCA Quarterly Report. She reviewed the programs that 14
would be starting in the near future noting that they have ten teams currently registered for 15
softball, six teams for the co-recreational and four men's teams. She stated that it is similar to the 16
turnout in past years. She stated that the summer playground programs at Groveland, Hillview 17
and Lambert have 97 individuals enrolled in the program and they are going well. She stated that 18
next week they start Safety Camp, which is a collaborative effort between Mounds View, New 19
Brighton and Spring Lake Park. She stated that they currently have 85 students enrolled noting 20
that they accept up to 100 individuals for this program. She stated that most of the programs in 21
the report are fairly consistent with what they have run in the past. 22
23
Mayor Marty referenced the entry for the New Brighton programs and asked for clarification. 24
25
Marta McIntire. Program Director, explained that they manage the summer program registration 26
process for the Sunny Square Park in New Brighton. 27
28
Council Member Thomas referenced the low enrollment and asked what the threshold is for 29
cancellation. 30
31
Ms. Remersmith explained that the hope is to have at least five to six individuals enrolled in a 32
program. 33
34
Council Member Thomas reference the Teen Nights and asked how many Teen Nights do they 35
have. She noted that the cost of the project $758 and they are $606 in the hole and asked how it 36
is balancing out. 37
38
Ms. Remersmith explained that the report shows the basic net and revenue for expenses. She 39
further explained that for some of the teen nights they do receive approximately $1500 in 40
collaborative dollars from the suburban Ramsey Family Collaborative that is used throughout the 41
year. She stated that they also receive Y-Partner dollars that they raise during the years helps to 42
offset the costs. She stated that the teens are part of their mission noting that they are aware that 43
the events don’t make money but they want to serve them and this is how they offset the 44
expenses. 45
Mounds View City Council July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 6
1
Ms. McIntire explained that they hold teen dances throughout the summer and is put on by the 2
local teens and bands, which also helps to offset the costs. 3
4
Council Member Gunn asked if they could use volunteers for teen nights. 5
6
Ms. Remersmith stated that they could always use volunteers and invited anyone who would like 7
to be involved to contact the YMCA for further information. 8
9
Ms. Remersmith stated that they are privileged to have hired Dan Weldon. She stated that Mr. 10
Weldon is a native of Blaine and graduated from the University of Minnesota-Mankato and 11
provided Council with a brief background. She stated that he has been working with the YMCA 12
now for the past three weeks and they are lucky to have him on the team. 13
14
7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS. 15
16
Ms. Berg asked Council to let her know if they want better explanations or clarifications included 17
on the report. She stated that if they contact them prior to the meeting they would include 18
whatever information they need to understand the expenses. 19
20
MOTION/SECOND. Marty/Flaherty. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as presented. 21
22
Ayes - 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 23
24
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS. 25
26
A. 7:05 Public Hearing to Consider Resolution 6587, Awarding a Construction 27
Contract and authorizing a Letter of Agreement with TKDA for the 28
Groveland Park Building Replacement Project. 29
30
Public Works Director stated that on July 14, 2005 the City received bids for the Groveland Park 31
Building Replacement Project. He stated that they received two bids, the low bid came from 32
Unicore Incorporated with a total base bid of $289,700 and as directed by City Council, the air 33
conditioning unit was broken out as a separate bid alternate noting that the bid was for a total of 34
$7,000. He stated that if the City Council should decide to proceed with this project the next two 35
action steps would be to award a contract for this project and to authorize a letter of agreement 36
with TKDA for construction services in the amount of $14,000. He stated that the total cost of 37
this project including the engineering, the base bid, the bid alternate for the air conditioning unit 38
and the construction services is $330,300. He stated that 65-percent would be funded through 39
the Park Dedication Fund and 35-percent would be funded from the Special Project Fund. He 40
stated that if City Council awards a contract for this project work would begin in August and 41
would be substantially completed by November 30, 2005. He stated that along with the report 42
submitted there are two letters included from TKDA, the letter of agreement for construction 43
services and a letter of explanation as to why masonry construction is more expensive than 44
residential stick construction and why masonry construction was recommended for this project. 45
Mounds View City Council July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 7
He stated that Staff is recommending that a public hearing be held to allow interested parties an 1
opportunity to speak on this project. 2
3
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. 4
5
William Werner, 2765 Shorewood Road, asked if Public Works Director Lee stated that there 6
would be air conditioning in this unit. He stated that he is appalled that they would put air 7
conditioning into these buildings adding that it is amazing that the Council would even consider 8
this. 9
10
John Kroeger, 8280 Pleasant View Drive, Chairman of the Parks, Recreation and Forestry 11
Commission, stated that it was the recommendation of the Parks, Recreation and Forestry 12
Commission to include air conditioning in this building due to the number of activities that are 13
held in this building on a regular basis. 14
15
Mr. Werner asked what people would be doing in this building that they would need air 16
condition. He stated that if they want to do something that requires air conditioning they should 17
go to the Community Center. 18
19
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, expressed his agreement stating that he can’t believe that 20
the City would put air conditioning in a playground building. He stated that his children grew up 21
participating in recreation programs and none of the buildings had air conditioning then and they 22
all survived the heat. He stated that with all of the other things this City has to take care of they 23
should take into consideration the finances and be more frugal with City funds. 24
25
Cindy Palm, 2266 Terrace Drive, stated that she is a member of the Parks, Recreation and 26
Forestry Commission noting that her son is currently participating in the summer playground 27
program and explained that they are looking at this structure as a community building where 28
family reunions, Lions meetings and Scout activities could take place during the evening and on 29
the weekends. She stated that they want these groups to be able to utilize and enjoy this facility 30
in an air-conditioned capacity, as well as enjoying the playground and other facilities this park 31
has to offer. She stated that this opens up the resources in the City, it is not just about the 32
playground it is also about the community. 33
34
Marta McIntire, YMCA, explained that the Groveland park building is probably the worst park 35
building, as far as its condition is concerned and reviewed with Council. She further explained 36
that one of the factors they considered for the air conditioning is the ability to rent the facility for 37
various events. She stated that they have already received several reservation requests for family 38
reunions due to the air conditioning of the facility. She stated that this is a factor when someone 39
is considering the building for an event. She noted that the air conditioning is a nice feature to 40
include, as it would help increase revenue through the additional events held at this park 41
building. 42
43
Dale Auke, 2458 Sherwood Road, stated that he is also a member of the Parks, Recreation and 44
Forestry Commission. He stated that he is not sure if the air conditioning is the main issue that 45
Mounds View City Council July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 8
they would be discussing tonight. He acknowledged that the bids came in much higher than 1
anticipated and agreed that the costs should be reviewed. He stated that the air conditioning costs 2
are a minor issue noting that he does not want to say that a $5,000 to $7,000 cost is a minor issue, 3
he is not saying this, but, if the intent is to add the air conditioning in the future the retrofit would 4
be more expensive than including it now as a part of the construction process. He stated that this 5
building and Hillview, in comparison to the Community Center, where there is a lot of activity, 6
would provide an ideal location for events such as wedding parties and reunions. He noted that 7
people would not want all of the activities around them during these events and this building 8
could provide that avenue. He explained that the rental fees could be structured and tiered to 9
compensate for the use and the energy used. He stated that the air conditioning makes the 10
building a better asset for the City than a liability. 11
12
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:02 p.m. 13
14
Council Member Thomas agreed with Mr. Aukee noting that whether they include or exclude the 15
air conditioning for this project means absolutely nothing when you think of the overall costs. 16
She stated that the air conditioning would be great and probably is a necessity for events. She 17
stated that Council has to consider the overall costs of the building. She stated that she cannot, in 18
good conscience, agree to this project. She stated that she would have been fine without the 19
letter from TKDA, which was the biggest piece of BS she has seen in quite some time. She 20
stated that the Council has to re-evaluate this proposal adding that she cannot support $300,000 21
for this building. 22
23
Council Member Flaherty stated that he would like to table this discussion until they can get 24
further clarification on the information provided. He stated that at this point no one has been 25
able to justify the costs for this building noting that it is his hope that the parks are not trying to 26
compete with each other for activities and events. He stated that this is a community and what 27
they are talking about is one neighborhood and he wants to see the costs for stick construction. 28
He suggested tabling this discussion until the Council has all of the answers on this project. He 29
stated that the Parks and Recreation Commission has a meeting scheduled for this Thursday and 30
recommended that they include this issue on their agenda. 31
32
Council Member Stigney stated that $330,000 for a cement block building at a park is 33
outrageous. He stated that as far as the air conditioning is concerned, the price for the unit is 34
only about 2-percent of the total and asked why the building would cost so much. He stated that 35
the Council should take a serious look at what is being spent for this project adding that whatever 36
they determine for the cost, he is not in favor of the 35-percent funding from the Special Funds. 37
He stated that he would not have a problem with loaning the funds but he would want to see it 38
paid back. He stated that if they want it that bad they can pay for it but he is uncomfortable with 39
the $330,000 figure. 40
41
Council Member Gunn agreed that this is way too much. She stated that they should look at an 42
alternative to the masonry, as it is a lot of money to spend. 43
44
Mounds View City Council July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 9
Mayor Marty stated that TKDA’s charges alone are $33,600 and if you remove that cost it would 1
be under $300,000. He noted that the Hillview building originally started at $179,000 and he 2
received a lot of calls for that building. He stated that $330,000 for a cinder block building is too 3
much. He agreed that there is a need for a building but this is too much money. He 4
acknowledged that there would be additional amenities included with this building but agreed 5
that Council should pull back and review this request. He stated that one of his concerns is the 6
rental costs for these events noting that he was aware of a resident who called to inquire about a 7
family reunion at the Community Center and they were told that they could have it for $2,000 if 8
they bring their own food and just wanted the room. He stated that if these are the prices for 9
events at the Community Center he could understand the interest in utilizing the park buildings. 10
He acknowledged that it does get rather warm in the summer but Minnesota has more cold 11
months than hot months and the City does not have the money for this kind of a project. He 12
stated that he would like to see this whole building come in at $200,000 tops. He stated that the 13
amenities would be nice and would make it more rentable but there is a need to look at ways to 14
scale this project back. He asked how often are the park buildings rented for special events. 15
16
Ms. McIntire stated that she did do a breakout of the rent as far as special events and regular 17
programming noting that it is available for Council to review. She stated that they have a lot of 18
after school programs noting that it is used more during the school year. She stated that people 19
who book it for continual usage like to book the same building throughout the year. 20
21
Mayor Marty stated that he would like to review the break down between special events and 22
regular programming before the next meeting. 23
24
Council Member Thomas agreed that there is a need for a new building at Groveland. She stated 25
that she could support the air conditioning if they are talking about a building within a more 26
reasonable price range. She stated that they should reevaluate how this is being done noting that 27
her issue is the overall cost of the project, not the air conditioning. 28
29
Council Member Gunn agreed that there is a need for air conditioning in the building. She 30
referenced Mr. Werner’s comment about kids growing up without air conditioning and surviving, 31
but times change and she agreed that it would make the building more useable but she is not in 32
support of the $330,000 cost for the building. 33
34
Council Member Flaherty asked for a breakout of the costs with and without the air conditioning 35
unit. He stated that he would also like to see the differences between masonry and stick 36
construction. 37
38
Ms. McIntire clarified that their biggest program use is during the summer months. 39
40
Council Member Stigney asked if their intent was to make a profit on renting the structure or just 41
cover the costs. He asked how they currently handle the rental process. 42
43
Ms. McIntire stated that the Council would determine the fee schedule. She stated that currently 44
they receive a fee of $20.00 for Residents and $50.00 for Non-Residents with a $100.00 deposit. 45
Mounds View City Council July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 10
1
Council Member Stigney stated that he would like to know the actual costs for operation of the 2
building. 3
4
Ms. McIntire stated that a cost comparison was done two years ago between Mounds View and 5
New Brighton adding that it was found that Mounds View was very reasonable and affordable. 6
7
MOTION/SECOND. Flaherty/. To Postpone to a later date pending a re-evaluation of the 8
stick construction and include alternatives for construction that would include numbers on the 9
usage for all parks including Groveland. 10
11
Public Works Director Lee stated that they do have this information. He stated that in terms of 12
what to do with the bids, based on the direction just recommended, he would recommend 13
canceling the bids because the City has a 45-day window to award a contract. He stated that it 14
would take several months to go back and redesign the building and that it would be better to 15
cancel the bids and take a few steps back to come up with the information. He stated that they 16
also run into an issue where they paid TKDA approximately $20,000 to develop the design of the 17
proposed building and they do not want to pay that much to get a design for the stick 18
construction. He suggested going through a different contractor for the stick design. 19
20
Council Member Stigney asked if they could utilize the current design. 21
22
Public Works Director Lee explained that the City does not own the design and cannot provide 23
this design to another contractor. 24
25
Council Member Thomas stated that she couldn’t justify spending $330,000 for this building just 26
because the City paid $20,000 for design plans. 27
28
Council Member Flaherty withdrew his motion to postpone. 29
30
Council Member Gunn stated that the City could also consider utilize volunteers to help with 31
certain phases of the construction noting that there are several who would be willing to donate 32
their time. 33
34
Council Member Flaherty agreed with the concept noting that the savings would be minimal. He 35
stated that there is a possibility that the City could save some money and agreed that it could be 36
included as an option but he is not sure of the actual return the City would see. 37
38
Mayor Marty noted that there have been several projects in the City where volunteers have 39
donated time to help in the process. He stated that it would be good to see some of the residents 40
take more pride in the ownership. 41
42
Council Member Stigney asked if the City could contact specific contractors for bids or does the 43
City have to place an ad in the approved press and wait to see who responds. 44
45
Mounds View City Council July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 11
Public Works Director Lee stated that they could only get quotes from specific contractors if the 1
project is less than $50,000 noting that legally, because the City is a public entity and the project 2
cost is over $50,000, the City would have to go out for competitive bidding. He stated that the 3
City could not specifically ask individual contractors to bid on the process but specific 4
contractors could provide the City with their cost estimates for the project adding that the City 5
would also have to open the bid process to competitors. He explained that the City would have 6
to have plans and specifications for stick construction done before the City could open the bid 7
process noting that the City is back to square one in the planning process. 8
9
Council Member Thomas suggested exploring some of the local community colleges as a 10
possibility for construction resources. She stated that utilizing the students could be a significant 11
savings for the City. 12
13
Council Member Flaherty referenced the letter from TKDA to Steve Dezinski regarding stick 14
construction and reviewed the letter with Council. He clarified that Council was not asking for a 15
recommendation on stick construction they are asking for variety of options that would include a 16
breakout of the costs for those options. He stated that in the future Council would like options 17
from TKDA. 18
19
Public Works Director Lee acknowledged their request stating that providing options would be 20
an additional cost. He stated that he would ask them to include the comparisons. 21
22
Mr. Werner clarified that TKDA charged the City $20,000 for the purpose of giving the City a 23
bid. 24
25
Mayor Marty clarified that the $20,000 is what TKDA charged for designing the plans and 26
reviewed the process with Council. 27
28
Public Works Director Lee further clarified that the $19,600 was for the plans and specifications 29
noting that TKDA came in the lowest bid noting that other engineering firms had stated that they 30
could not come close to that bid. 31
32
Mayor Marty thanked the Parks, Recreation and Forestry Commission for their work noting that 33
the Council is not trying to shoot them down. He explained that Council would like further 34
review of the options noting that the City can’t afford this and should work to determine what 35
would work best. He stated that this is too extravagant and should be more realistic. 36
37
Cindy Palm, Parks, Recreation and Forestry Commission stated that she too was surprised at the 38
amount when the bid came back from TKDA. She stated that she had expected this reaction 39
from Council and agreed that the Council should consider other options including stick 40
construction. She also agreed that the bid was too high and expensive and explained that they 41
had to bring the current bids before Council for their review in order to get to this point in the 42
process where they could move forward with considering alternate options. 43
44
Mounds View City Council July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 12
John Kroeger, Chairperson for the Parks, Recreation and Forestry Commission expressed his 1
agreement with Ms. Palm noting that the Commission was quite surprised at the amount of the 2
TKDA bid. He stated that the Commission is not sure why or how TKDA ended up so far off 3
with their bid amount noting that the Commissioners realized that the Council would have 4
additional questions about the project. He stated that the Commission would review other 5
construction resources and options noting that the current options available would be to leave the 6
building as it is, anything besides this would cost money. He stated that when they looked at the 7
Hillview building they did review stick construction versus cement construction. He indicated 8
that the stick did cost less noting that there was discussion regarding the long-term. He noted 9
that the cement block would stay longer adding that in looking at the Groveland building, had 10
they used the cement block you have to wonder if we would even be having this discussion. He 11
stated that ultimately they might be surprised at the costs for stick construction. He stated that in 12
reviewing it could be found that they might not want a permanent building, that they might want 13
to utilize a mobile trailer. He stated that the Commission would review these options and come 14
back to Council with an updated request for their review and consideration. 15
16
MOTION/SECOND Thomas/Marty To Approve the cancellation of the bids and Authorize 17
Staff to move forward with a new design process. 18
19
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 20
21
MOTION/SECOND Thomas/Marty To Deny Resolution 6587 Awarding a Construction 22
Contract and authorizing a Letter of Agreement with TKDA for the Groveland Park Building 23
Replacement Project. 24
25
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 26
27
B. 7:10 p.m. Public Hearing and Consideration of an Amendment to the 28
Walgreen’s Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Allow ‘Office’ as a Land 29
Use in Addition to a ‘Restaurant’ Use. Planning Case PA2005-001 30
31
Director Ericson stated that this is a request from Dr. Greg Belting, Silverview Chiropractic 32
Center has applied for an amendment to the Walgreen’s PUD with respect to the allowed land 33
uses for the vacant lot behind Walgreen’s. He stated that there is a vacant lot in between the 34
Community Center and Walgreen’s originally guided as a restaurant pad. He stated that despite 35
the best efforts of Staff, the developers and the property owners it has not been developed as 36
such. He stated that they now have Dr. Greg Belting present requesting an amendment to allow 37
that an office building be built on this site. He stated that the Planning Commission has 38
reviewed this request and examined the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and felt that 39
this was a supportable request. He stated that Staff also recommends approval of this request 40
noting that it is their belief that a single story office would blend in well, would cause less of 41
disturbance late night and less impact to the intersection of County Road 10 and Edgewood 42
Drive. He stated that Staff believes that this would be a good development for the Community 43
and is recommending that City Council approve the proposed Resolution that would amend the 44
PUD to allow an office building on this site. 45
Mounds View City Council July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 13
1
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:37 p.m. 2
3
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:38 p.m. 4
5
Council Member Gunn stated that she thinks this is a wonderful proposal. She stated that they 6
are not losing a business, they are gaining a tax base and an empty lot would be used. 7
8
Council Member Flaherty stated that he doesn’t mind open space but would like to ask the City’s 9
newest addition what the current occupancy rate is for the building on Highway 10 and Long 10
Lake Road. 11
12
Director Ericson stated that the current occupancy rate is close to zero. 13
14
Council Member Flaherty asked if Dr. Belting had looked at leasing space within the building or 15
is would he prefer to own the building. 16
17
Dr. Greg Belting, 1525 Sherman Lake Road, Lino Lakes, stated that the proposed concept would 18
include an 8,000 square foot building with an office/condo style. He stated that he does not want 19
anyth ing to do with the two-story building noting that the land is not even owned under the 20
building. He stated that the intent would be to own the land, put up a building and lease one or 21
two spaces. He stated that currently there are no signed agreements but there are interested 22
parties. 23
24
Council Member Stigney stated that first the City starts the PUD process for the purpose of 25
building a restaurant at this location and now they are proposing to change the intent from a 26
restaurant to another medical/office building. He stated that the City does not need another 27
medical/office building in this area noting that this was the intended use for the building across 28
the street from this location and it ended up being made into a parking lot because they couldn’t 29
fill the space. He stated that this should remain with the use it was intended, which is a 30
restaurant. He stated that possibly if the City were to market the location with an incentive they 31
could possibly get a restaurant in this location but he is opposed to another medical/office 32
building in this area. 33
34
Mr. Belting clarified that the PUD was done in 2000 and has been marketed for four and half 35
years and there is no restaurant. 36
37
Council Member Stigney clarified that what he said was that City Staff should work harder at 38
marketing the property. He stated that the City does not need another medical/office building. 39
40
Mayor Marty clarified that City Staff has been trying to market this area for several years. 41
42
Director Ericson confirmed that City Staff has been very aggressive working on the parcel, 43
contacting restaurant franchisees, cold-calling individuals, and sending leads over to the 44
developer noting that no one has expressed an interest in the property. He stated that those who 45
Mounds View City Council July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 14
have expressed an interest lose that interest once they see the property and realize that there is 1
shared access with Walgreen’s and has an odd shaped lot. He stated that Staff has really worked 2
to get something in this location adding that he is not going to make any promises but he believes 3
that they can get a restaurant but it won’t be this year or at this location. 4
5
Council Member Gunn clarified that Dr. Belting is proposing to take an empty piece of land that 6
has been sitting there empty for almost five years, with no usage at all, and is willing to build an 7
office building that provide the City with more tax base and improve the appearance of the 8
property. She stated that she would encourage Dr. Belting to go for it. 9
10
Council Member Thomas stated that this piece of property has been a thorn in her side since this 11
whole thing started. She recalled that she was the lone voice against the land swap that created 12
that development in the beginning because she didn’t think it was necessary to swap the land that 13
allowed it to switch over. She stated that she did not think this was a good use of City property 14
at that time noting that she did support the development agreement in the end because it had the 15
restaurant. She indicated that this was the general consensus of everyone at that time was to 16
agree to the restaurant noting that as soon as the restaurant deal fell through she knew it would 17
not happen. She stated that once a deal like this falls apart you cannot come in afterwards and 18
develop the property as a retrofit. She stated that she is excited that someone wants to build on 19
this property and put it to a good use. She stated that it fits with the concept of the corner and is 20
very excited to see the property go to a good purpose. She stated that this is one more business 21
and is all for it. 22
23
Council Member Stigney stated that if Dr. Belton could find some other space to build his office 24
building he would be all for it but this property was set up for a PUD with one purpose and that 25
is a restaurant. He stated that it has been sitting there for four and half years and with Medtronic 26
coming in other opportunities for a restaurant could present itself. He suggested leaving it as it is 27
and see what happens in the next four to five years. 28
29
Mayor Marty stated that he is aware that City Staff has been working very hard in trying to bring 30
a restaurant to this location noting that Culvers had considered the location but eventually 31
changed their minds. He stated that Staff has tried hard to attract other restaurants adding that he 32
honestly does not believe it is going to happen. He stated that he sees this as a positive asset to 33
the City noting that it signals that the owner is in it for the long haul. He stated that he does not 34
have a problem with this proposal and would support the request. 35
36
Council Member Flaherty further clarified his position stating that he does not have anything 37
against Dr. Belting and explained that he does not like looking out the City Hall window and 38
seeing the Walgreen’s sign. He stated that he would never have agreed to the Walgreen’s 39
development noting that he would have preferred to see this area be developed as a hub and 40
differentiate itself from the rest of the City. He stated that it is his feeling that if the City were to 41
develop this area further that it would clutter the area and the City Hall would be amongst 42
commercial buildings. He stated that he likes green space and would like to see if there is an 43
opportunity or possibility for something to be worked out at the newest building in the City. 44
45
Mounds View City Council July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 15
Dr. Belting stated that he did consider this location noting that due to the numbers it was not 1
feasible and he decided that he would prefer to own his own building. 2
3
Tom Belting, 1911 Park Avenue, stated that the concept they had done with Landcor was strictly 4
leasing the space. He explained that their concept would be to condo the unit where they could 5
either lease or own the space, as it would tie them to the community for a longer period of time. 6
7
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Thomas To Approve Resolution 6588 Approving the Amendment 8
to the Walgreen’s PUD Agreement by adding ‘Office’ as an allowed use on Lot 2, Block 2, 9
Mounds View City Hall Addition, Parcel 2, Mounds View Planning Case PA2005-001 and 10
waive the reading. 11
12
Ayes-3 Nays-2 (Stigney, Flaherty) Motion carried. 13
14
C. Consider Resolution 6583, Approving the Final Plans and Specifications and 15
Setting a Bid Date for the City Hall Rehabilitation Project. 16
17
Public Works Director Lee stated that detailed plans and specifications have been completed for 18
the City Hall Renovation project and have been included for Council’s review. He stated that 19
should this project proceed, the next step would be to approve the plans and specifications, as 20
submitted and set a bid date. He stated that an August 24, 2005 bid date would allow ample time 21
to do the proper notification as required by Chapter 8 of the City Charter. He stated that the next 22
step at that time, should City Council decide to proceed, would be an action to award a 23
construction contract, award a storage and moving contract, approve a contract amendment with 24
Canyon Grille, and authorization of payment to Ramsey County for office space rental. He stated 25
that it is anticipated that these items would be presented to the City Council for consideration and 26
approval on September 12, 2005. He indicated that the construction would begin sometime after 27
October 2, 2005 and would be completed in April 2006. 28
29
Council Member Thomas stated that one item she didn’t notice in the documentation was what 30
projects have been set up, the must haves, how they would re-evaluate the project and a priority 31
list of the project. 32
33
Public Works Director Lee stated that there would be line items for each item and would be 34
reviewed when the bids are returned. He explained that if items are deemed to high they would 35
consider removing them from the bid at that time. He stated that at this point in time there is 36
only one bid alternate and that is for the front entranceway to do the tower design. He explained 37
that this is considered to be more cosmetic change as opposed to dealing with energy savings or 38
the disability act. He stated that all items would be broken down within the bid. 39
40
Mayor Marty referenced the tower design and asked why it was included, as it was already 41
removed. He stated that it was his understanding that they were not going to fix the vestibule. 42
43
Public Works Director Lee explained that they kept it in the packet as a bid alternate. He 44
referenced A201 and explained that the base bid, as it is written, shows the vestibule as being 45
Mounds View City Council July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 16
changed out due to energy issues. He referenced the project manual noting that for utility items 1
they would normally have line items for each item adding that he would clarify with S.E.H. to 2
determine if this would be included. 3
4
Council Member Stigney stated that what he reads is that the detailed plans and specifications 5
have been completed, have been submitted for review and they are going out for bid already. 6
7
Public Works Director Lee confirmed that they are sending the plans and specifications out for 8
bid and when the bids come back, depending on how the bids are structured, they might have a 9
line item broken down for each item of the project. 10
11
Council Member Stigney stated that he has problems with the plans and specifications. He stated 12
that he does not want to go out, get bids and accept the lowest bid. He asked if they would have 13
line item veto ability. 14
15
Public Works Director Lee stated that he does not have an answer to that adding that he is open 16
to deferring the decision until he can get an answer from S.E.H. 17
18
Council Member Stigney stated that this is important and the City should confine this to health 19
and welfare issues not total rehabilitation of City Hall. He stated that when this project was first 20
introduced it was due to the structural integrity of this building. He stated that Staff should get 21
back to this concept adding that if there are structural problems that are causing health and 22
welfare issues for the employees this is what should be addressed and drop all the rest of this. 23
24
Council Member Thomas stated that this is basically her question noting that if the City does put 25
this out to bid without having a list then the City would be in the same problem as the Groveland 26
building. She asked if they should set it up so that items are set up as bid alternates that could be 27
removed or could they remove items once the bid has been received. 28
29
Public Works Director Lee stated that it would be much easier to set it up as a bid alternate at the 30
beginning. He stated that what should probably happen at this point is to go through the plans in 31
detail and identify what items should be designated as bid alternates. 32
33
Council Member Gunn stated that it was her understanding that Council had already gone 34
through this and determined what should be done for the health, safety and well being of the 35
employees in this building. She clarified that it was not just structural items it was also interior 36
items including plumbing, wiring and ductwork. She agreed that the plan should be more 37
specific. 38
39
Council Member Flaherty stated that the Council could encourage value engineering and ask the 40
bidders that come in, to look for alternatives and utilize valued engineering. He suggested 41
including this in the actual document as a part of the process. 42
43
Council Member Stigney stated that almost everything in the bid would be alternate. He asked 44
what fund this would come from to pay for this. 45
Mounds View City Council July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 17
1
Public Works Director Lee stated that the funds would come from the Special Projects Fund. 2
3
Council Member Stigney asked how much money is actually in the Special Projects Fund. 4
5
Public Works Director Lee stated that there is approximately $3.4 million in the Special Projects 6
Fund. 7
8
Mayor Marty stated that it has already been decided that insulation in the ceiling; new duct work; 9
roof work; outside wall/exterior work; the Police Department has to be changed around and re-10
wired; bathrooms; public counters; and the basement are all areas that have been identified as 11
items within the base plan, that has to be done. He stated that when S.E.H. first came out they 12
had a beautiful, totally redesigned building for $3.5 million and the City cannot afford it or need 13
it. He stated that a resident suggested utilizing funds from the Cable Fund to pay for the roof air 14
conditioner and the re-wiring of the video room as a way to help pay for the overall project. He 15
agreed that line items should be included before it goes out for bid and should definitely be 16
included with the final packet. He stated that the plans and specifications should be more 17
specific and asked that Staff include the detail for their final review. 18
19
Public Works Director Lee stated that as part of the report S.E.H. put together, they did go 20
through the building and identify window treatment and furniture but it was not included in the 21
bids. He explained that they were identified as needs but not included in the bids. He stated that 22
the Fund balance is $3,458,000.00 23
24
Council Member Stigney referenced the $3,458,000 and asked what is allocated for expenditures 25
and scoped out for expenditure that should be included and detailed. He asked what is in this 26
fund, dedicated to what item that would be considered necessary for this project. 27
28
Mary Berg explained that at this point in time it is on the books as undesignated. She explained 29
that normally they do set aside designated and undesignated items. She stated that if there were 30
discussions, at a much higher level, as to what the future plans and projects are; she is not privy 31
to this information and cannot speak for it. She confirmed that this is not a fund that gets added 32
to on a regular basis so when it is touched they should be careful and use the funds wisely. She 33
stated that she would get back to the Council with any information made available to her. 34
35
Council Member Stigney asked Director Ericson to clarify what uses the City has identified for 36
the future where they could use this to lower the tax base. He expressed concerns stating that the 37
City gets hit by the State every time the City has unreserved funds. 38
39
Director Ericson stated that Staff would pull the information together and provide to Council for 40
review. 41
42
Council Member Thomas clarified that the Special Project Fund is actually money set aside for 43
the large projects the City is doing, it is not the Capital Improvement Fund. 44
45
Mounds View City Council July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 18
Public Works Director Lee stated that the previous Finance Director did have this project 1
designated as a line item for approximately $1.6 million in the 2004 Capital Improvement 2
Program and was carried forward to the 2005 Capital Improvement Program. 3
4
Council Member Thomas asked what kind of trouble would the City get into if they put this out 5
to bid and it comes back as an ouch for the City. She asked if the City would be able to change 6
the materials or would they have to go back for a re-bid. 7
8
Public Works Director Lee stated that they would not be able to change anything within the bid. 9
He explained that if the City wanted to change materials they would have to go out for a new bid. 10
11
Mayor Marty stated that based on the discussion Staff will have to come back to Council with a 12
more clearly defined plan. 13
14
Council Member Gunn asked if Staff could ask them to be more specific within the bid when 15
they respond. She stated that it was her understanding that Council had already gone through the 16
process and cut the items that they decided were not necessary to complete the project and that 17
this request is a result of that process. 18
19
Council Member Thomas stated that it is not Staff’s responsibility to make value judgment calls, 20
that is Council’s responsibility and Council cannot ask Staff to make those decisions. She stated 21
that this is a very big project and the City should have some form of a back up plan in the event 22
that the bids come back higher than what the City can afford. 23
24
Director Ericson stated that Staff did spend a lot of time working on the plans and specifications’ 25
pulling out what was not needed or critical to the health, safety and well being of the building. 26
He stated that he believes that they have a plan that addresses these issues without the frills going 27
down from a $3.5 million project to a $1.6 million project. He stated that this is a barebones 28
project that does address all of the issues that should be addressed noting that if the bids do come 29
back at a level that the City cannot support then it would have to be dealt with at that time. 30
31
Council Member Stigney asked if the bidders would see the line item list. 32
33
Public Works Director Lee stated that the only line item included is the bid alternate for the front 34
entryway. 35
36
MOTION/SECOND Gunn/Thomas To Approve Resolution 6583, Approving the Final Plans 37
and Specifications and Setting a Bid Date for the City Hall Rehabilitation Project and Amend to 38
Include the Line Item List in the Plans and Specifications and waive the reading. 39
. 40
Ayes-4 Nays-1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 41
42
D. Consider Resolution 6584 Revising the 2005 Fee Schedule. 43
44
Director Ericson stated that this resolution provides clarification on the amount the City can 45
Mounds View City Council July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 19
charge for photocopies and also incorporates language for fireworks licenses. He stated that this 1
would be a business license for businesses that only sell fireworks or businesses that sell 2
fireworks in addition to other retail. 3
4
Council Member Stigney referenced the rental fee and asked Staff to clarify if the rental fee is 5
supposed to bring in a profit or just pay for the maintenance. 6
7
Mayor Marty stated that the fee schedule could be amended at any time. 8
9
Director Ericson suggested including this item on the August 4th work session agenda as an item 10
for discussion. 11
12
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Flaherty. To Approve Resolution 6584 Revising the 2005 Fee 13
Schedule and waive the reading. 14
15
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 16
17
E. Consider Resolution 6567, Appointing Peter Berling to the Position of Police 18
Officer. 19
20
Police Chief Sommer stated that this resolution is to hire an officer for a current vacancy as a 21
result of a retirement. He stated that the Police Civil Service Commission certified an eligibility 22
list noting that the number one candidate is Peter Berling. He stated that Mr. Berling has 23
completed all of the required testing procedures for the position including a background 24
investigation, physical and psychological examination and a physical agility testing. He stated 25
that Mr. Berling is a recent graduate of Winona State University and Staff recommends that Mr. 26
Berling be appointed to the position effective August 1, 2005 at a step one rate of pay as defined 27
by the Law Enforcement Labor Services Contract. 28
29
Council Member Stigney asked if the Police Civil Service Commission made the 30
recommendation. 31
32
Police Chief Sommer explained that the Police Civil Service Commission recommended three 33
candidates and that Mr. Berling was the first of the three candidates listed in their 34
recommendation. 35
36
Council Member Flaherty asked if Mr. Berling has any prior experience as a Police Officer. 37
38
Police Chief Sommer stated that this is Mr. Berlings first position as a Police Officer. 39
40
Council Member Stigney asked when Mr. Berling would be eligible for wage progressions to 41
Step 2 and Step 3. 42
43
Police Chief Sommer explained that per the Law Enforcement Labor Services Contract Mr. 44
Berling would reach Step 2 six months from his start date and Step 3 would be 18 months from 45
Mounds View City Council July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 20
his start date. 1
2
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Thomas. To Approve Resolution 6567 Appointing Peter Berling to 3
the Position of Police Officer. 4
5
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 6
7
F. Consider Resolution 6582, Appointing Mark Beer as the Finance 8
Director/Treasurer. 9
10
Director Ericson stated that there is an offer on the table to Mr. Mark Beer. He stated that the 11
offer is consistent with what the City Council had discussed and is available for review and 12
approval by the Council. 13
14
Council Member Flaherty noted that offer allows Mr. Beer to accrue his vacation at a rate of 15
three weeks annually and clarified that typically a new hire would receive two weeks of vacation 16
and that the reason Mr. Beer is being given this benefit is due to his background and experience 17
within the financial field. He also noted that Mr. Beer would be on vacation from September 8th 18
through September 18, 2005 and clarified that this would be non-pay. 19
20
Director Ericson confirmed stating that it is normal procedure to provide an incentive such as 21
additional vacation when a candidate has extensive experience. He confirmed that Mr. Beer 22
would be approved for a non-pay leave for a previously committed vacation planned for 23
September 8, 2005 through September 18, 2005, subject to his utilization of any applicable leave 24
time he has accumulated to that date. 25
26
MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Thomas To approve Resolution 6582, Appointing Mark Beer as 27
the Finance Director/Treasurer for the City of Mounds View, Minnesota. 28
29
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 30
31
G. Consider Resolution 6572, Approving Appointments to the Northwest Area 32
Library Access Task Force. 33
34
Director Ericson stated that this is a resolution to appoint of two members to the Northwest Area 35
Library Access Task Force. He explained that there are two open positions, one to be filled by a 36
City Council Member and the other to be filled by a Mounds View Citizen. He stated that Jane 37
Ahlstrom should be included on the Resident List as an additional candidate for the task force. 38
39
Council Member Flaherty suggested Dorie Lidinski noting that she has the experience working 40
with the North Chamber, Ramsey County and in a library. She stated that she has the most 41
experience out of all of the candidates working with libraries. 42
43
Mayor Marty stated that all of the candidates are good noting that based on the backgrounds 44
provided he would agree with Ms. Lidinski as a candidate. 45
Mounds View City Council July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 21
1
Council Member Thomas stated that she agrees with Ms. Lidinski due to her broad background. 2
3
Council Member Thomas volunteered to be the City Council representative for the Northwest 4
Area Library Access Task Force noting that she does so with some reservation and bias towards 5
Ramsey County. She stated that it is her feeling that Ramsey County has already made their 6
decisions and selections. 7
8
Council Member Flaherty stated that he would like to nominate Council Member Sherri Gunn as 9
the Council representative for the Northwest Area Library Access Task Force. He explained that 10
he would like a representative from the Council that goes in without reservations and an open 11
mind. 12
13
Council Member Gunn stated that she would have the time to devote to the Task Force and 14
suggested that Council Member Thomas be her backup. 15
16
Council Member Thomas and Mayor Marty thanked the residents for their timely response to the 17
call for volunteers on this task force. 18
19
MOTION/SECOND. Flaherty/Marty To approve Resolution 6572 Approving the Nomination 20
and Appointment of Council Member Sherri Gunn as the Mounds View City Council 21
Representative and Ms. Dorie Lidinski as the Mounds View Resident Representative to the 22
Northwest Area Library Access Task Force and waive the reading. 23
24
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 25
26
9. CONSENT AGENDA 27
28
Council Member Gunn asked to pull Item 9A for further clarification and discussion. 29
30
A. Moved for discussion. - Resolution 6586 Approving Plans and Specifications 31
for the Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) Installation Project. 32
B. Licenses for Approval. 33
34
MOTION/SECOND Thomas/Marty To Approve Item 9B on the Consent Agenda as presented. 35
36
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 37
38
Item 9A. Resolution 6586, Approving Plans and Specifications for the Emergency 39
Vehicle Pre-emption (EVP) Installation Project. 40
41
Police Chief Sommer explained that the plans and specifications for the Emergency Vehicle Pre-42
emption Installation project involves installing equipment at the traffic lights in the City. He 43
explained that it would allow emergency vehicles to activate the lights to green as they proceed 44
through the intersections. He stated that this makes emergency travel much safer as it allows 45
Mounds View City Council July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 22
them to change the light in advance and stops the opposing traffic so that there isn’t a difficult 1
situation where an emergency vehicle would have to manure its way through traffic. He stated 2
that this is very welcomed equipment noting that all of the emergency vehicle squad cars are 3
already equipped with the activation equipment it’s just that the intersections were not equipped 4
to respond. He stated that this would make things a lot safer and improve their response time. 5
6
Council Member Gunn asked when this would begin. 7
8
Police Chief Sommer stated that if approved the plans and specifications would go out for bid 9
through the typical bid and award process. 10
11
Council Member Thomas stated that she was under the impression that the City already had a 12
pre-emptive system installed at one of the City intersections. 13
14
Mayor Marty clarified that the discussion involved the additional poles noting that the 15
intersections are set up but they couldn’t be activated. He stated that the only intersection that 16
would require more equipment is County Road I and Quincy Street. 17
18
Director Ericson stated that all of the intersections are capable but none have been installed with 19
the EVP equipment except for Pleasant View Drive. He stated that with this proposal all 20
intersections would be equipped and consistent with what is already installed on Pleasant View 21
Drive. 22
23
Council Member Stigney asked what it would cost to get a camera installed to take pictures of 24
vehicles running red lights. 25
26
Police Chief Sommer stated that it would cost approximately $700,000 to install a camera 27
system. He stated that he likes the idea adding that he would continue to monitor the costs and 28
keep the Council informed. 29
30
MOTION/SECOND Gunn/Thomas To Approve Resolution 6586 Approving Plans and 31
Specifications for the Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) Installation Project and waive the 32
reading. 33
34
Ayes–5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 35
36
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. 37
38
A. June 27, 2005 City Council Meeting 39
40
Council Member Thomas stated that she would like to point out that the last couple of sets of 41
minutes for the City Council have been stellar. 42
43
Mayor Marty had the following correction: 44
• Page 5, line 32, end of the sentence reads ‘extend the District ‘after the’ 25-years’; should 45
Mounds View City Council July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 23
read: ‘extend the District ‘to’ 25-years’ 1
2
MOTION/SECOND Flaherty/Gunn To Approve the June 27, 2005 City Council Meeting 3
Minutes as amended. 4
5
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 6
7
11. REPORTS 8
9
A. Reports of Mayor and Council 10
11
Council Member Gunn stated that the Festival of Parks Golf Tournament is scheduled for August 12
20, 2005 and the Festival of Parks is scheduled to take place on August 21, 2005. She that they 13
are planning a Battle of the Bands after the parade, in the park, noting that any teens with a local 14
band that are interested in competing should contact her or Jim Schwalbe. She stated that the 15
festival would also include a Flea Market and Fireworks. She stated that the parade is scheduled 16
to begin at 3:00 p.m. adding that the parade route would begin and end at the Business Park and 17
provided an overview of the route. 18
19
Council Member Thomas stated that this is a follow-up to the discussion Council had with 20
regards to some of the difficulties with the fireworks ordinance. She stated that she had some 21
conversations with the Legislative Author noting that even though he is firmly supportive that 22
fireworks should be purchasable year round, it was never his intent to prohibit Cities from being 23
able to restrict it to permit structures. She stated that they are under discussion and would be in 24
contact with Jim to determine what should be done legislatively to ensure that Cities have full 25
authority and flexibility to do what they need to at the legislative level. 26
27
Mayor Marty stated that he received a call from Dorothy Trinka who is a member of the 28
Supporters of De La Renaissance of Haiti. He explained that she wanted to set up a meeting with 29
him and the City Administrator. He stated that he and Director Ericson met with them today 30
adding that they have been invited to attend the Council Work Session on Monday, August 1, 31
2005 to discuss facts of Haiti with the Council. He stated that over half of the population is 32
unemployed and they are trying to solicit for assistance and donations. He stated that they are 33
also putting on a Haitian Buffet on Saturday, August 27th at the Fairview Park Recreation Center, 34
609 29th Avenue North, Minneapolis from Noon to 6:00 p.m. He stated that for five years and 35
under it would be free; 6-12 years would be $5.00 and 13 years and older would be $10.00. He 36
stated that the City does not have a budget for benevolent contributions noting that the City could 37
volunteer to help with the buffet. He indicated that the City could also help by donating items 38
such as typewriters, hospital equipment, soap, cleaning supplies, medicine, eye glasses, 39
mattresses, furniture, motorcycles, water pumps, computers, food and clothing. He stated that 40
they are having a yard sale, August 12-13, 2005 noting that he wanted to give the Council a 41
heads up that they would be present at the Work Session for a brief presentation. 42
43
Mounds View City Council July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 24
B. Staff 1
2
Director Ericson stated that it is his understanding that the Hartstad project would be on the July 3
27th Rice Creek Watershed agenda for their consideration. He stated that the meeting is held at 4
the Shoreview City Hall. He stated that Snyder’s now owns the property and Gas for Less has 5
closed. He stated that they have taken out the demolition permit noting that demolition could 6
occur as early as next week. He stated that they are planning an opening for December 2005. He 7
stated that Staff worked with the developer and was able to come up with a stormwater 8
management plan that beneficial to both Snyder’s and the City. He stated that they have received 9
15 applications for the Planning Associate vacancy and the close date is August 5, 2005. He 10
stated that Staff anticipates having something before Council at their last meeting in August with 11
a start date the first week of September. 12
13
C. Reports of City Attorney 14
15
None 16
17
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, August 1, 2005 at 7 p.m. 18
Next Council Meeting: Monday, August 8, 2005 at 7 p.m. 19
20
13. ADJOURNMENT 21
22
MOTION/SECOND. The Council agreed by consensus to adjourn the City Council Meeting of 23
July 25, 2005 at 9:55 p.m. 24
25
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 26
27
Transcribed and recorded by: 28
29
30
Bonnie Sullivan 31
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 32
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Executive Session
Date: 09/26/05
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
Time: 11:00 pm
1. 10:30pm EXECUTIVE SESSION IS CALLED TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL:
Mayor Marty, Council Members Gunn, Flaherty, and Thomas. City
Administrator Kurt Ulrich, City Finance Director Mark Beer, Community
Development Director Jim Ericson, City Attorney Scott Riggs
3. DISCUSS PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY
The City Council and City Staff discussed the purchase of real property
commonly known as Red Oak Estates. A variety of purchase options were
discussed. The City Council consensus was to not extend an offer for purchase of
the property.
4. 11:32pm MEETING ADJOURNED
Respectfully Submitted:
Kurt Ulrich
City Administrator