Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2004/09/13CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Monday, September 13, 2004 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL: Linke, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Gunn 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. CITY BUDGET QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS: Citizens may speak to issues regarding the City Budget. Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the minutes. Also, please limit your comments to three minutes. 7. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 8. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 9. CONSENT AGENDA A. Licenses for Approval B. Set a Public Hearing for 7:05 PM, Monday October 11, 2004 to receive public input and pass upon a Special Assessment Levy for Delinquent Public Utility Accounts. C. Set a Public Hearing for 7:10 PM, Monday October 11, 2004 to receive public input and pass upon a Special Assessment Levy for Diseased Tree Removals. D. Resolution 6345 Renewal of Sham-o-Jets Kennel License. E. Resolution 6348 Authorization for the Police Department to Participate on the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Emergency Response Team. F. Resolution 6353 Authorizing Severance Payment for Timothy Brennan 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. 7:05 pm: Public Hearing for Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 743, Amending Chapter 5 of the City Charter. (Roll Call Vote) B. 7:10 pm: Public Hearing for Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 742, Amending Section 2.06 of the City Charter regarding Mayor’s Powers and Duties. (Roll Call Vote) C. 7:15 pm: Public Hearing for Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 748, Amending Section 4.05 of the City Charter regarding Vacancy of Municipal Elected Office. (Roll Call Vote) D. 7:20 pm: Public Hearing and Adoption of Ordinance 749, Amending Section 9.01, of the City Charter regarding Acquisition of Property. (Roll Call Vote) E. 7:25 pm: Public Hearing for a Conditional Use Permit for a Residential Kennel at 8009 Red Oak Drive F. 7:30 pm: Public Hearing, Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 752, an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Code Relating to Driveway Setbacks (Roll Call Vote) G. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 746, an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Xcel Energy Electric and Natural Gas Operations within the City of Mounds View for the Year 2005. (Roll Call Vote) H. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 747, an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Center Point Energy Natural Gas Operations within the City of Mounds View for the Year 2005. (Roll Call Vote) I. Resolution 6338 Authorizing Certification of the Proposed General Fund Budget and Property Tax Levy for Fiscal Year 2004. J. Resolution 6339 Establishing Public Hearing Dates for the Proposed General Fund Budget and Property Tax Levy for Fiscal Year 2005. K. Resolution 6340 Approving the Elimination of a Parcel from Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 within the Mounds View Economic Development Project, in the City of Mounds View. City Council Agenda September 13, 2004 Page 2 L. Resolution 6341 Approving the Elimination of Parcels from Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 within the Mounds View Economic Development Project, in the City of Mounds View. M. Resolution 6342 Approving the Appointment of Tom Kinney to Deputy Police Chief. N. Resolution 6346 Jodi Salmonson Step Increase. O. Resolution 6347, a Resolution Approving a Step Increase for Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator. P. Resolution 6343 Authorization to hire a replacement Police Officer for the vacancy created by the former Deputy Police Chief Resignation. Q. Resolution 6344 Authorizing Insurance Policies for the Year July 2004 through June 2005. R. Resolution 6350 Approving Change Order No. 1 for the Hidden Hollow Street and Utility Installation Project – Removal of the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community Second Access Project. S. Resolution 6351 Awarding a Construction Contract for the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community Second Access Project. T. Resolution 6352 Adding Section 3.45 to the Mounds View Personnel Policy Regarding Retirement Health Savings Plans. 11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. August 23, 2004 City Council Minutes. B. September 7, 2004 Executive Session Minutes 12. REPORTS A. Reports of Mayor and Council B. Reports of Staff C. Reports of City Attorney 13. Next Council Work Session: Monday, September 20, 2004 (Special) Next Council Meeting: Monday, September 27, 2004 Item No: 09A Meeting Date: September 13, 2004 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, 2004. 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 2003. Those companies renewing their license were licensed, at a minimum, in the year 2003. The type of license they are applying for follows the company name. Air Conditioning Associates – HVAC – New Asphalt Paving – Asphalt – New Robarge Excavating – Excavating – New Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Benesch Item No: 09D Meeting Date: September 13, 2004 Type of Business: CA City Administrator Review: ______ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Desaree Crane, Administrative Assistant Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6345 Renewal of Sham-O-Jets Kennel License In mid-May I mailed renewal letters to all City of Mounds View businesses indicating that their business licenses would expire on June 30, 2004. I asked that the appropriate applications, tax clearance forms. Worker’s compensation forms, fees and proof of insurance are submitted by June 11, 2004. Sham-O-Jets Kennel missed this deadline. I recently received the completed application from Sham-O-Jets Kennels. Applicant has paid the required fee and has no violations that warrant denying the requested kennel licenses. Recommendation: Approve Sham-O-Jets Kennel License. RESOLUTION NO. 6345 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING COMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSE FOR SHAM-O-JET KENNEL WHEREAS, Sham-O-Jet Kennel has submitted an application to renew their commercial kennel license; and WHEREAS, the appropriate paperwork and fees have been submitted to the City; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does grant a commercial kennel license to Sham-O-Jet Kennel; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the license will expire June 30, 2005. Adopted this 13th day of September, 2004. Jerry Linke, Mayor ATTEST: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (seal) Item 09E Meeting Date: September 13, 2004 Type of Business: CA City Administrator Review: _______ RESOLUTION NO. 6348 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AUTHORIZATION FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO PARTICIPATE ON THE RAMSEY COUNTY SHERIFF’S EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Emergency Response Team (S.E.R.T.) is seeking participation from police officers from suburban departments to serve on the team, and; WHEREAS, members who are selected to serve on the team receive invaluable training and opportunity that would otherwise not be afforded to them on individual suburban police departments, and; WHEREAS, service on the team requires a commitment of one day per month of training and subject to call outs throughout the county with an understanding that their first priority lies with their home department. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does hereby authorize one Mounds View Police Officer to participate on the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Emergency Response Team with the understanding that this service will be considered a temporary assignment. Adopted this 13th day of September 2004. ______________________________ Jerry Linke, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Kurt Ulrich City Clerk/Administrator (SEAL) Page 1 of 4 Item No: 10A Meeting Date: September 13, 2004 Type of Business: CB City Administrator Review: _____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Desaree M. Crane, Administrative Assistant Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance 743, Amending Chapter 5 of the Mounds View City Charter On August 23, 2004, the City Council approved the first reading and introduction of Ordinance 743, an Ordinance amending Chapter 5 of the Mounds View City Charter relating to “Initiative, Referendum, and Recall.” Discussion: The intent of the Charter Commission with this change is to clarify language in the charter relating to the Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. Staff and the Mounds View City Attorney have reviewed this amendment and support the adoption of Ordinance 743. Consistent with state law, the ordinance would go into effect 90 days after unanimously being adopted by the City Council. Recommendation: Hold the public hearing and consider the second reading and adoption of Ordinance 743, an ordinance amending Chapter 5 of the Mounds View City Charter. This requires a roll call vote. Respectfully submitted, _________________________ Desaree M. Crane Page 2 of 4 ORDINANCE NO. 743 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CHARTER BY AMENDING CHAPTER 5 OF THE CITY CHARTER THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Mounds View, pursuant to the recommendation of the City of Mounds View Charter Commission, has hereby determined that Chapter 5 of the Charter of the City of Mounds View relating to “Initiative, Referendum and Recall” be rewritten in its entirety as follows: INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM AND RECALL Section 5.01. General Voter Authority. The people of Mounds View have the right, in accordance with this Charter, to propose ordinances [initiative] and to require that any ordinance be referred to the voters [referendum], except those that appropriate money or levy taxes. The voters also have the right to remove elected public officials [recall]. The term voter(s), as used in Chapter 5, shall refer only to residents of the City of Mounds View who first register, or who have registered and are qualified to vote. Per Minnesota Statute 200.039 (as amended), eligibility to sign the petition is not restricted to only those who were eligible to or did cast ballots in the previous election. Section 5.02. Petitions. To circulate a petition provided for under this chapter, it must be sponsored by a committee of five or more voters of the City whose names and addresses appear on the petition. A petition consists of one or more pages with each separately circulated page containing at its head the information specified in sections 5.05, 5.07 or 5.08 which apply, respectively, to initiative, referendum and recall. The committee may obtain a sample petition from the city Clerk-Administrator. All petition circulators must be voters of the City. Each separate page of the petition must have appended to it a certificate by the circulator, verified by oath. The certificate shall affirm that each signature was made in the circulator’s presence and that the circulator believes them to be the genuine signature of the voter whose name it purports to be and that each signer was presented with the full petition. Each signer of a petition must be a voter of the City and must sign and print their name and give their street address. Any voter whose name appears on a petition may withdraw their name by filing a statement in writing with the Clerk-Administrator before the Clerk-Administrator advises the Council of the sufficiency of the petition. Section 5.03. Determination of Petition Sufficiency. The committee must file the completed petition in the office of the Clerk-Administrator. The Clerk-Administrator shall provide the number of total ballots cast for President in the most recent Presidential Page 3 of 4 election. For a petition to be sufficient, the required number of signatures shall be a percentage of that number. • Petitions for Initiative and Referendum require at least 15 percent. • Petitions for Recall, at least 25 percent. Within 10 working days of receipt of the petition, the Clerk-Administrator shall determine its sufficiency. Upon final determination of sufficiency, the Clerk-Administer shall report the date of the determination and its sufficiency to the Council at or before the next regularly scheduled meeting. Upon receipt of the report, the Council shall immediately declare the sufficiency of the petition by resolution including the reported date of determination of sufficiency. Section 5.04. Disposition of Insufficient or Irregular Petition. If the Clerk- Administrator determines that the sufficiency of a petition cannot be declared, it shall be determined to be insufficient or irregular. The Clerk-Administrator shall deliver a copy of the petition, together with a written statement of its defects, to the sponsoring committee. The committee shall have 30 calendar days in which to file additional signature papers and/or to correct the specified irregularity. Within five working days of receipt of the corrected petition, the Clerk-Administrator shall determine the sufficiency of the petition as corrected and proceed as directed in Section 5.03. If the petition is still insufficient or irregular, this shall be considered the Final Finding and the Clerk- Administrator shall file the petition as noted and immediately notify the sponsoring committee that no further action will be taken. The final finding that the petition is insufficient or irregular shall not prejudice the filing of a new petition for the same purpose. Except in the case of a petition for recall, it shall not prevent the Council from referring the subject matter of the petition to the voters at the next regular or special election. Section 5.05. Initiative. Any ordinance may be proposed by a petition. The exact text of the proposed ordinance must be stated at the head of each page of the petition. The Council must act upon the proposed ordinance within 60 calendar days after final determination of the petition’s sufficiency under the provisions of Section 5.03 of this chapter. The Council may amend the proposed ordinance and must provide such amendments to the petition committee. A majority of the sponsoring committee of the petition may disapprove the amended form by filing a statement with the Clerk- Administrator within 14 calendar days of the receipt of the amended ordinance. If the sponsoring committee does not file disapproval, the ordinance is not required to be submitted to the voters for enactment. Upon filing a statement of disapproval, the proposed ordinance, as stated on the original petition, must be placed on the ballot at the next election occurring in the City. If there is no regularly scheduled election within 120 calendar days of the determination of sufficiency or if the calendar date prohibits compliance with provisions in Chapter 4 of this Charter, at or before its next regularly scheduled meeting, the Council shall call a special election to take place within 90 calendar days of said meeting. If the ordinance receives a majority vote in its favor, it Page 4 of 4 shall become effective 90 calendar days after adoption unless the ordinance specifies a later effective date. Section 5.06. Initiative to Amend the Charter. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as in any way affecting the right of the voters to propose amendments to this charter. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect ninety days after the date of its publication. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 23rd day of August, 2004. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 13th day of September, 2004 __________________________________ Jerry Linke, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk-Administrator (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________ Scott Riggs, City Attorney Item No: 10B Meeting Date: September 13, 2004 Type of Business: CB City Administrator Review: _____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Desaree M. Crane, Administrative Assistant Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance 742, Amending Section 2.06 of the City Charter Regarding Mayor’s Power and Duties On August 23, 2004, the City Council approved the first reading and introduction of Ordinance 742, an Ordinance amending Section 2.06 of the Mounds View City Charter relating to “The Mayor’s Power and Duties.” Discussion: The intent of the Charter Commission with this change is to clarify language in the charter relating to the Mayor’s Power and Duties. Staff and the Mounds View City Attorney have reviewed this amendment and support the adoption of Ordinance 742. Consistent with state law, the ordinance would go into effect 90 days after unanimously being adopted by the City Council. Recommendation: Hold the public hearing and consider the second reading and adoption of Ordinance 742, an ordinance amending Section 2.06 of the City Charter regarding Mayor’s Power and Duties. This requires a roll call vote. Respectfully submitted, _________________________ Desaree M. Crane ORDINANCE NO. 742 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CHARTER BY AMENDING SECTION 2.06, SUBDIVISION 1 OF THE CITY CHARTER THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Mounds View, pursuant to the recommendation of the City of Mounds View Charter Commission, has hereby determined that Section 2.06 subd. 1, of the City Charter be amended by the addition of the bold and double-underlined language and by the deletion of the bold and stricken language as follows: Section 2.06. The Mayor's Power and Duties. Subdivision 1. The Mayor shall preside at meetings of the Council and shall have a vote as a member. The Mayor shall be recognized as head of the City Government for all ceremonial purposes, by the courts for the purpose of serving civil process, and by the Governor for purposes of martial law. , but Other than for the purposes specifically stated in this paragraph, as an individual, the Mayor shall have no administrative duties authority. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect ninety days after the date of its publication. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 23rd day of August, 2004. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 13th day of September, 2004. __________________________________ Jerry Linke, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk-Administrator (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________ Scott Riggs, City Attorney Item No: 10C Meeting Date: September 13, 2004 Type of Business: CB City Administrator Review: _____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Desaree M. Crane, Administrative Assistant Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance 748, Amending Section 4.05 of the City Charter Regarding Vacancy of Municipal Elected Office On August 23, 2004, the City Council approved the first reading and introduction of Ordinance 748, an Ordinance amending Section 4.05 of the Mounds View City Charter relating to “Vacancy of Municipal Elected Office.” Discussion: The intent of the Charter Commission with this resolution is to clarify language in the charter relating to the Vacancy of Municipal Elected Office. Staff and the Mounds View City Attorney have reviewed this amendment and support the adoption of Ordinance 748. Consistent with state law, the ordinance would go into effect 90 days after unanimously being adopted by the City Council. Recommendation: Hold the Public Hearing and consider the second reading and adoption of Ordinance 748, an ordinance amending Section 4.05 of the City Charter regarding Vacancy of Municipal Elected Office. This requires a roll call vote. Respectfully submitted, _________________________ Desaree M. Crane ORDINANCE NO. 748 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CHARTER BY AMENDING SECTION 4.05, SUBDIVISION 5 OF THE CITY CHARTER THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Mounds View, pursuant to the recommendation of the City of Mounds View Charter Commission, has hereby determined that Section 4.05, subd. 5, of the City Charter be amended by the addition of the bold and double-underlined language and by the deletion of the bold and stricken language as follows: Section 4.05 Vacancy of Municipal Elected Office. Subdivision 5. When a vacancy in an elected municipal office occurs within 120 days prior to a regular municipal election date, the special election to fill the vacancy shall coincide with the regular election. If the vacancy occurs within sixty days prior to the regular election date, the notice of such vacancy shall be published as soon as is practicable. If within the 120 day period before a regular municipal election, the vacancy occurs in the office of the Mayor or in the office of either or both of the Councilmembers whose seats are to be decided in the election, said vacancy shall be considered not to exist for purposes of the election. However, if such vacancy occurs in the office of either of the other two Councilmembers, the seat shall be filled by the candidate for Councilmember with the third highest vote total, or, in the case of two vacancies, the third and fourth highest vote totals. Where two vacancies exist, the candidate with the third highest total shall fill the vacancy in the office having the longest unexpired term. Candidates filling a vacancy shall take office at or before the next regularly scheduled Council meeting following election certification. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect ninety days after the date of its publication. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 23rd day of August, 2004. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 13th day of September, 2004. __________________________________ Jerry Linke, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk-Administrator (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________ Scott Riggs, City Attorney Item No: 10D Meeting Date: September 13, 2004 Type of Business: CB City Administrator Review: _____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Desaree M. Crane, Administrative Assistant Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance 749, Amending Section 9.01 of the City Charter Regarding Acquisition of Property On August 23, 2004, the City Council approved the first reading and introduction of Ordinance 749, an Ordinance amending Section 9.01 of the Mounds View City Charter relating to “Acquisition of Property.” Discussion: The intent of the Charter Commission with this resolution is to clarify language in the charter relating to the Acquisition of Property. Staff and the Mounds View City Attorney have reviewed this amendment and support the adoption of Ordinance 749. Consistent with state law, the ordinance would go into effect 90 days after unanimously being adopted by the City Council. Recommendation: Hold the Public Hearing and consider the second reading and adoption of Ordinance 749, an ordinance amending Section 9.01 of the City Charter regarding Acquisition of Property. This requires a roll call vote. Respectfully submitted, _________________________ Desaree M. Crane ORDINANCE NO. 749 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CHARTER BY AMENDING SECTION 9.01 OF THE CITY CHARTER THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Mounds View, pursuant to the recommendation of the City of Mounds View Charter Commission, has hereby determined that Section 9.01, of the City Charter be amended by the addition of the bold and double-underlined language and by the deletion of the bold and stricken language as follows: Section 9.01. Acquisition of Property. The City may acquire by purchase, gift, condemnation, or otherwise, any real property, either within or without its boundaries, that may be needed by the City for any public purpose. In acquiring property by exercising the power of eminent domain, the City shall proceed according to Minnesota law, Chapter 117 as amended, or other applicable items. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect ninety days after the date of its publication. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 23rd day of August, 2004. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 13th day of September, 2004. __________________________________ Jerry Linke, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk-Administrator (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________ Scott Riggs, City Attorney Item No: 10E Meeting Date: September 13, 2004 Type of Business: Public Hearing Administrator Review : _____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View City Council From: Kristin Prososki, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Residential Dog Kennel at 8009 Red Oak Drive; Planning Case No. CU2004-004 Introduction: The applicant, Wayne Seehafer, is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for a residential kennel at 8009 Red Oak Drive, which is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. The applicant is proposing to have a small breeding program for Olde English Bulldogs. The applicant would keep three dogs on the property and may sometimes have a fourth dog. Discussion: Section 1106.04 of the Zoning Code conditionally allows residential dog kennels in Single Family Residential districts. The applicant is proposing to keep two female dogs and one male dog on the property. In addition, at times he may keep a puppy for an extended period of time. The Municipal Code requires that residents obtain a residential kennel license if they will be keeping more than two dogs that are more than six months old on the property. A residential kennel license will permit the resident to have up to four dogs. One of the conditions of the residential kennel license is that the applicant must submit a petition signed by at least 50% of the property owners within 500 feet of the applicant’s property stating that they agree with the establishment of the kennel. There are sixty properties within 500’ of applicant’s property. The applicant has obtained the signatures of 36 property owners, which is six more than the code requires (see attached petition). The applicant’s property is fully enclosed by fencing. Currently, there is one kennel in the rear yard. The applicant is proposing to construct two more kennels, so that the dogs could be separated (see attached site plan). The proposed kennels would be placed in the rear yard and located roughly 30 feet from the south (side) lot line, 48 feet from the north (side) lot line and at least 42 feet from the east (rear) property line. Section 1106.03 requires a five (5) foot setback, which the proposed kennels satisfy. Staff contacted the Mounds View Police Department and requested any complaints or reports filed regarding animals at the subject property. There are no complaints or reports on file in the Police Department for 8009 Red Oak Drive. Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report September 13, 2004 Page 2 CUP Considerations: Conditional Use Criteria In granting a conditional use permit, the City Council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the Planning Commission (see “Adverse Effects” on page 3), and the effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan and upon the health, safety and general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands. Among other things, the City Council shall make the following findings where applicable: (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. The proposed residential kennel would cause none of these identified problems. (2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. The applicant’s property is fenced in and having pets is a common situation in residential areas. The proposed use should not cause depreciation in value of the neighboring properties. (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The rear yard of the applicant’s property is entirely fenced in and the existing and proposed kennels are located within the fenced area. The property appears similar to all other residential properties and should not have an adverse effect upon the adjacent properties. (4) The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. Dog ownership is fairly common in residential neighborhoods. (5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. The Zoning Code conditionally allows for residential kennels in residential districts and this proposal is consistent with all zoning requirements and the purpose of the RI-1, Single- Family Residential District. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. There will be no added traffic or congestion resulting from the proposed residential kennel. Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report September 13, 2004 Page 3 (8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. All utilities and infrastructure have already been provided. No additional utilities are needed. Adverse Effects The Planning Commission reviewed and addressed any potential adverse effects which include, but are not limited to, relationship with the Comprehensive Plan, geographical area involved, potential depreciation, the character of the surrounding area and the demonstrated need for such a use. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal to keep three to four dogs on the property would not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Geographical Area Involved. The applicant’s property is located on Red Oak Drive. The area of the lot is nearly half an acre. The size of the property would accommodate the proposed kennel. In addition, the rear yard of the property is fully fenced, which will prevent the dogs from entering into neighboring properties. Depreciation. The applicant has not had any complaints made about the dogs on his property. The proposed kennel should not cause depreciation of the subject property or the surrounding properties. The Character of the Surrounding Area. This part of the City is strictly a single-family residential area. Keeping dogs as pets is a common practice. The proposal would not be out of character in this area. The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. The applicant has indicated that the need is because he would like to have more than two dogs on the property. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 18, 2004 and voted to recommend approval of the conditional use permit. Planning Commission Resolution 769-04 is attached for the Council’s review. Summary: The Zoning Code conditionally allows residential kennels in single-family residential districts. The applicant was able to obtain signatures from more than 50% of the property owners within 500 feet of his property and does not have any complaints regarding dogs on file with the Police Department. Based on the above analysis, Staff feels that the proposal adequately satisfies the conditional use criteria and would not adversely affect the surrounding area. Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report September 13, 2004 Page 4 Recommendations: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and affected neighbors, the Council can take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the conditional use permit. Resolution 6349, which approves the conditional use permit and license for a residential kennel, is attached if the Council selects this option. 2. Deny the conditional use permit. If the Council selects this option, Staff would need to be directed to draft a resolution of denial with appropriate findings of fact. If the Council chooses to act on this option, Staff will provide the resolution to the Council at the next meeting on September 27, 2004. 3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Council can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of 60-day requirements, the Council would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully submitted, Kristin Prososki Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Letter of Recommendation from MV Animal Hospital 5. Petition from Neighbors 6. Proposed Site Plan 7. Planning Commission Resolution 769-04 8. Resolution 6349 Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report September 13, 2004 Page 5 Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report September 13, 2004 Page 6 Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report September 13, 2004 Page 7 Zoning Map Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report September 13, 2004 Page 8 Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report September 13, 2004 Page 9 Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report September 13, 2004 Page 10 Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report September 13, 2004 Page 11 Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report September 13, 2004 Page 12 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 769-04 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RESIDENTIAL DOG KENNEL AT 8009 RED OAK DRIVE; PLANNING CASE NO. CU2004-004 WHEREAS, Wayne Seehafer has applied for a conditional use permit for a residential dog kennel; and, WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 8009 Red Oak Drive, is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Except North 82 5/10 feet of Lot 117 Spring Lake Park Hillview WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows residential dog kennels in Single Family Residential districts; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the signatures on the submitted petition are valid and meet the licensing requirement for residential dog kennels; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Location Map d. Letter of Recommendation from MV Animal Hospital e. Petition from Neighboring Properties f. Site Plan g. Staff Report WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing regarding the conditional use permit request on Wednesday, August 18, 2004. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact related to the conditional use permit request: Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report September 13, 2004 Page 13 1. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan. 2. The size of the subject property is able to accommodate three to four dogs and the associate kennels. The rear yard is fully fenced, which will prevent the dogs from entering neighboring properties. 3. There are no complaints regarding dogs at the subject property. The proposal to keep three to four dogs should not depreciate the surrounding area. 4. The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed residential kennel. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit for a residential dog kennel, with conditions as follows: 1. No more than four dogs over the age of six months shall be allowed on the property. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for paying an annual license fee upon approval of this permit and again every year thereafter. 3. The applicant shall maintain the yard and kennel area in a clean, quiet orderly and sanitary condition. 4. The City Council, at its discretion, may review this conditional use permit at any time in the future if the need to do so arises. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 18th day of August, 2004. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ____________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report September 13, 2004 Page 14 RESOLUTION NO. 6349 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND LICENSE FOR A RESIDENTIAL DOG KENNEL FOR WAYNE SEEHAFER, 8009 RED OAK DRIVE; PLANNING CASE NO. CU2004-004 WHEREAS, Wayne Seehafer has applied for a conditional use permit and license for a residential dog kennel at his property located at 8009 Red Oak Drive, property zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally described as followed: Except North 82 5/10 feet of Lot 117 Spring Lake Park Hillview, Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code allows, with a conditional use permit, three to four dogs at a single-family residence; and WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Location Map d. Letter of Recommendation from MV Animal Hospital e. Petition from Neighboring Properties f. Site Plan g. Staff Report h. Planning Commission Resolution 769-04 WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council finds that the signatures on the submitted petition are valid and meet the licensing requirement for residential dog kennels; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council held a duly noticed public hearing regarding the conditional use permit request on Monday, September 13, 2004; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code requires that the City Council consider the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and shall consider the relationship between the proposed conditional use and the Comprehensive plan and consider the impacts of the use supported by findings of relevant fact. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View City Council makes the following findings regarding the criteria for approval of a conditional use permit: (1) The proposed use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report September 13, 2004 Page 15 (2) The use is sufficiently compatible and is fenced from adjacent residential land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. (3) The property appears similar to all other residential properties and should not have an adverse effect upon the adjacent properties. (4) Dog ownership is fairly common in residential neighborhoods and is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. (5) This proposal is consistent with all zoning requirements and the purpose of the R-1, Single-Family Residential District. (6) The proposed conditional use does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. (7) There will be no added traffic or congestion resulting from the proposed residential kennel. (8) All utilities and infrastructure have already been provided. No additional utilities are needed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council approves the conditional use permit and license request of Wayne Seehafer, with the following stipulations: 1. No more than four dogs over the age of six months shall be allowed at the property. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for paying an annual license fee upon approval of this permit and again every year thereafter. 3. The applicant shall maintain the yard and kennel area in a clean, quiet orderly, and sanitary condition. 4. The City Council, at its discretion, may review this conditional use permit at any time in the future if the need to do so arises. Adopted this 13th day of September, 2004. _____________________________________ Jerry Linke, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk / Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 10F Meeting Date: August 23, 2004 Type of Business: PH & CB Administrator Review: ___________ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View City Council From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Public Reading, Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 752, an Ordinance Amending Chapters 1104 and 1125 of the Mounds View Zoning Code Pertaining to Driveway Setbacks in Residential Districts Introduction: Driveways in single-family and two-family residential zoning districts are permitted at five-foot setbacks to the side lot lines. Section 1104.01, Subd 4c(1)(a) provides for an exception for a one-foot setback as long as the adjoining property owner or owners consent by signing a statement to that effect. If the reduced setback would cause the driveway to be located in an easement, the property owner would need to first obtain an encroachment permit from the responsible authority, if such a permit is required. At the August 23 meeting, the Council approved the first reading of the attached Ordinance 752. No changes have been to the ordinance from the first reading. Discussion: The original intent of this provision was to allow for driveways closer to the property line in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts than what is ordinarily allowed if the neighbor agrees. While this allows some flexibility for the property owner, the issue at present is whether the neighbor should have that authority. Staff does not support the current language allowing the neighbor to control the outcome of a driveway location for a variety of reasons: • The neighbor may be pressured or coerced into signing the consent form • The neighbor may fear retaliation if they fail to consent • The neighbor may consent, then move the next month, and the new neighbor opposes the location so close to the property line • Granting the neighbor “veto rights” may infringe on the subject property owner’s rights to due process. • Maintaining a five foot setback would ensure easement areas remain unimproved • Eliminates driveways accidentally being installed on neighboring property • Stormwater run off directed to adjoining property The Planning Commission reviewed this item on July 21 and on August 4, 2004, adopted a resolution which supported the elimination of the one-foot setback. Resolution 784-04 is attached for the Council’s reference. Driveway Setback Report Sept 13, 2004 Page 2 The Commission had questioned what would become of the existing driveways that had been granted approval at the one-foot setback. There are three ordinances and two Code sections which relate to driveways, the most important being Section 902.02, which indicates that any permanent non-conforming driveway in existence as of October 11, 1999 (the date of adoption of Ordinance 620) would be allowed to remain, be maintained, rebuilt and reconstructed in the same manner as before. This would not include gravel or dirt driveways, nor would it include any driveways installed after 1999. The Commission feels that this language should be clarified and it will review the issue separately for future Council consideration. To address the driveways that become legal nonconforming as a result of the amendment, the Planning Commission recommends a further amendment which is incorporated into Ordinance 752 that would allow property owners to apply for an administrative variance in lieu of the standard variance. Recommendation: Ordinance 752 is attached and is ready for second reading and adoption Respectfully submitted, ________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director ORDINANCE 752 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1104.01, SUBD 4 AND 1125.02, SUBD 6 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO DRIVEWAY SETBACKS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 1104.01, Subd 4 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to driveways and parking areas is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions struck out to read as follows: b. Driveways: (1) Driveways shall have a minimum setback of five feet (5')( from any lot line, except as permitted in Section 1104.01, subdivision 4c(1)(a) and Section 1121.15, subdivision 2 of this Title. Driveways shall be permitted to cross a required setback area in order to establish access between the lot and a public street. Where a driveway would encroach into an easement, the property owner shall obtain an encroachment permit if required by the City prior to construction of the driveway. Drive aisles and driveways which are within the boundaries of a parking area shall conform to the setbacks required for parking areas. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96; Ord. 620, 7-27-98; Ord. 642, 1-10-00) c. Parking Areas: (1) R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-O: (a) residential uses: Parking lots and driveways shall be set back five feet (5'), except in the R-1 and R-2 districts, parking areas and driveways shall be permitted with a setback of one foot (1') provided the owner(s) of the abutting lot(s) indicates their permission on a form acceptable to the City. Where a parking area would encroach into an easement, the property owner shall obtain approval for an encroachment permit if required by the appropriate authority prior to construction of the driveway. (Ord. 524, 2-22-93; Ord. 590, 11-25-96; Ord. 620, 7-27-98; Ord. 642, 1-10-00) SECTION 2. Section 1125.02, Subd 6 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to administrative variances for driveway setbacks is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions struck out to read as follows: Subd. 6: Administrative Variances a. Types: Residents seeking relief from the Zoning Code may request an administrative variance, provided that: (1) The property is zoned R-1 or R-2; and (2) The request concerns setbacks; and (3) The variance amount is within twenty-five (25) percent of code requirements, except as provided in Subd. 6a(5) below; and (4) Approval of the variance does not result in a setback of less than five (5) feet, except as provided in Subd. 6a(5) below; and (5) The driveway was previously permitted at a setback up to one-foot from the property line. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of its publication in the official City newspaper. INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 23rd day of August, 2004. SECOND READING and ADOPTION by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 13th day of September, 2004. Jerry Linke, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk / Administrator Approved as to form: ______________________ Mounds View City Attorney (SEAL) Item No:10M Meeting Date: September 13, 2004 Type of Business:CB City Administrator Review: _____ WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Chief of Police, Mike Sommer Item Title/Subject: Approval to Promote Tom Kinney To The Position of Deputy Police Chief Background: On July 26, 2004 the Mounds View City Council granted authorization to replace the Deputy Police Chief position through the Mounds View Police Civil Service Commission process. This process was invoked, and the Mounds View Police Civil Service Commission developed the testing procedures for the position. Per this process, the position was posted for internal candidates. Four candidates applied for the position. Three steps were followed for the process of assessing the candidates. The steps were: 1. A review of the candidate’s resume and letter of interest. Conducted and scored by the Deputy Chief and Chief of Police. 2. Promotability index. A score based on an index of: past performance, commitment to departmental management philosophy, integrity, dedication and conscientiousness, computer skills, concern for fellow employees, communication skills, and effectiveness in dealing with the public. The Deputy Chief and Police Chief also completed this section. 3. Written and Oral Interview. Conducted by a panel of assessors/ interviewers. The panel consisted of the Mounds View Chief of Police, the Centennial Lakes Deputy Chief of Police and a Captain from the Anoka County Sheriff’s Office. The panel members scored the interview and the written portion of the exam. Based upon the scores of the applicants, the Commission certified the top three candidates for the position. Ranked as follows: 1. Tom Kinney 2. Darrell Meyer 3. Terry Broos The top candidate for the position is Tom Kinney. Chief Sommer has met with Mr. Kinney and recommends he be hired to the position. Recommendation: Staff seeks council approval to proceed with appointing Tom Kinney to position of Deputy Police Chief, effective immediately. Consistent with past practice Mr. Kinney will start at step 3 wages, (to allow for a pay increase from his current position as Investigator) He will progress to step 4 after six months, and progress to step 5 after 18 months from his appointment date, pending satisfactory performance. Respectfully submitted, Mike Sommer Chief of Police RESOLUTION NO. 6342 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA APPOINTING TOM KINNEY TO THE POSITION OF DEPUTY POLICE CHIEF WHEREAS, four applications were received for the position of Deputy Police Chief, and went through a scored promotion process approved by the Mounds View Police Civil Service Commission, and; WHEREAS, the Police Civil Service Commission certified the top three candidates, and the top candidate is Tom Kinney and; WHEREAS, the Chief of Police has met with Mr. Kinney and recommends he be appointed to the position of Deputy Police Chief. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does hereby appoint Tom Kinney to the position of Deputy Police Chief at the step 3 rate of pay as stipulated in the Mounds View Personnel rules for the position, with progression to step 4 after 6 months, and step 5 after 18 months from his appointment date of September 14, 2004. Adopted this 13th day of September 2004. ______________________________ Jerry Linke, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Kurt Ulrich City Clerk/Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 10N Meeting Date: September 13, 2004 Type of Business: CB Administrator Review: _____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Desaree Crane, Administrative Assistant Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6346 Step Increase for Jodi Salmonson Background: Jodi Salmonson is a current employee with the City of Mounds View. Jodi Salmonson’s supervisor has reviewed her performance as it relates to her responsibilities outlined in the job description. Discussion: It was determined that Jodi Salmonson has more than satisfactorily performed in the capacity of her position, and therefore, a step increase wage adjustment from Step 1 ($11.84/hr) to Step 2 ($12.58/hr) is consistent with the AFSCME Labor Agreement. Respectfully Submitted, Desaree Crane Administrative Assistant RESOLUTION 6346 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA APPROVING A STEP ADJUSTMENT WHEREAS, the following below is a regular full-time employee who is currently working for the City of Mounds View; and WHEREAS, her supervisor reviewed her performance as it relates to the responsibilities outlined in the job description; and WHEREAS, her supervisor determined that the following employee below has more than satisfactorily performed in the capacity of her position documented in her performance review on file. WHEREAS, a step increase wage adjustment is consistent with the AFSCME Labor Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does hereby approve a wage adjustment to the following indicated in the chart below. NAME CURRENT POSITION DATE OF EMPLOYMENT/CURRENT POSITION CURRENT STEP & WAGE STEP & WAGE ADJUSTMENT EFFECTIVE DATE OF ADJUSTMENT Jodi Salmonson Receptionist Date of Current Position: March 8, 2004 Step 1/$11.84 hr Step 2/$12.58 hr September 8, 2004 Adopted this 13th day of September, 2004. __________________________________ Jerry Linke, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (seal) Item No. 10O Type of Business: CA Meeting Date: September 14, 2004 WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City Administrator Review _______ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Desaree Crane, Administrative Assistant/Acting Human Recourses Representative Item Title/Subject: Resolution No. 6347 Resolution Approving a Step Increase for Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator Kurt Ulrich started employment with the City on July 21, 2003. According to Mr. Ulrich’s letter of hire dated June 14, 2003, and Resolution 6062, City Council authorized a starting salary under Step 2 with an increase to Step 3 after six months of employment, and an increase to Step 4 after one year of employment pending a satisfactory performance and City Council authorization. Mr. Ulrich’s have been employed with the City of Mounds View for one (1) year effective July 21, 2004. On September 7, 2004, an Executive Session was scheduled to discuss Mr. Ulrich’s job performance. It was the consensus of City Council that his performance satisfies the requirements of the position. Recommendation: To approve Kurt Ulrich’s step increase from STEP THREE ($39.99/hr) to STEP FOUR ($42.21), effective July 21, 2004. RESOLUTION 6347 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A STEP ADJUSTMENT FOR KURT ULRICH, CITY ADMINISTRATOR WHEREAS, Kurt Ulrich is a regular full-time employee who began working for the City of Mounds View on July 21, 2003; and WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed his performance as it relates to the responsibilities in the job description; and WHEREAS, City Council has determined that Mr. Ulrich has satisfactorily performed in the capacity of City Administrator which is documented in his performance review at the Executive Session dated September 7, 2004; and WHEREAS, City Council recommends the approval of a wage adjustment from STEP THREE to STEP FOUR, consistent with the employee’s letter of hire dated June 14, 2003. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View City Council does hereby approve a wage adjustment for Kurt Ulrich, as City Administrator, from STEP THREE ($39.99/hr) to STEP FOUR ($42.21/hr), effective July 21, 2004. Adopted this 13th day of September, 2004. _______________________________________ Jerry Linke, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (seal) Item No:10P Meeting Date: September 13, 2004 Type of Business:CB City Administrator Review: _____ WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Chief of Police, Mike Sommer Item Title/Subject: Approval to Hire a Replacement Police Officer for the Current Opening Background: The former Deputy Police Chief’s resignation resulted in a vacancy that was filled through promotion. This promotion resulted in a vacancy for a Police Officer Position. The purpose of this staff report is to seek council approval to hire a replacement police officer from the current active Mounds View Police Civil Service Commission eligibility list. The start date for the new officer is anticipated to be approximately late October 2004. The hiring process will involve interviewing the top candidates from the eligibility list, and having the Mounds View Police Civil Service Commission certify the top three candidates, which will then be presented to the Council for final approval. The candidate must be scheduled for and successfully pass a thorough background investigation, psychological testing, medical examination, and physical agility testing prior to their start date. Respectfully submitted, Mike Sommer Chief of Police RESOLUTION NO. 6343 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AUTHORIZATION TO HIRE A POLICE OFFICER WHEREAS, a vacancy currently exists for a police officer position on the Mounds view Police Department, and; WHEREAS, the Mounds View Police Civil Service Commission has a current active list of applicants who have conducted the written portion of the testing process for the position of Police Officer, and; WHEREAS, the existing list has over 100 candidates, and it is anticipated that a suitable candidate will be selected from this list, and submitted to the Council for final approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does hereby authorize staff to begin the hiring process for a replacement a Police Officer to fill the current vacancy with a start date anticipated to be in late October 2004. Adopted this 13th day of September 2004. ______________________________ Jerry Linke, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Kurt Ulrich City Clerk/Administrator (SEAL) Item No. 10R Meeting Date: September 13, 2004 Type of Business: CB WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City Administrator Review _______ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6350 Approving Change Order No. 1 for the Hidden Hollow Street and Utility Installation Project – Removal of the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community Second Access Project Background: On July 26, 2004, the City Council approved Resolution No. 6311 resetting the Bid Date to August 19, 2004 for the Hidden Hollow Street and Utility Installation Project and the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community Second Access Project. Bids for the Hidden Hollow Street and Utility Installation Project and the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community Second Access Project were received at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, August 19, 2004 at City Hall. A list of the bids received is attached for City Council’s review. Bid Review - A total of six (6) bids were received for this project. A complete bid summary is as follows: Bidder’s Name Base Bid Barbarossa & Sons Inc. $429,843.88 Northdale Construction $445,152.32 Northwest Asphalt Inc. $462,568.20 Penn Contracting $430,470.54 Redstone Construction $421,380.48 Three Rivers Construction $492,741.15 Engineer’s estimate $445,000.00 On August 23, 2004, the City Council approved Resolution No. 6335, awarding the construction contract for the Hidden Hollow Street and Utility Improvement Project and the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community Second Access Project. Discussion: The Mounds View Manufactured Home Community Second Access portion of this project was to be financed partially by a County issued Community Development Block Grant (CDBG Grant) in the amount of $30,000. It was discovered after the bids were received, that according to Ramsey County, to be eligible for the grant, the bid document should have included a reference that the contractor would have to pay prevailing wages consistent with the Davis Bacon guidelines. Therefore, this portion of the project will need to be removed and new bids or quotes received that specify that the contractor will be paying Davis Bacon prevailing wages. Staff recommends that the Council adopt the attached resolution approving Change Order No. 1, removing of the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community Second Access Project from the Hidden Hollow Street and Utility Installation Project. In an effort to receive new bids and complete the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community Second Access Project this year, Staff will be sending letters to the firms that submitted bids for the total Hidden Hollow / Mounds View Manufactured Home Community Second Access Project to solicit quotes for just the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community Second Access portion of the project. Getting quotes, as opposed to bids, is allowable by state statute because the estimated cost of the project is less than $50,000 (Engineer’s Estimate $46,000). Quotes for the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community Second Access portion of the project will be received by 12:00 P.M. Monday, September 13, 2004. The results of the quotes as well as an opportunity for the City Council to award a contract for the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community Second Access portion of this project will be presented at the September 13th City Council Meeting. Recommendation: It is recommended the Council adopt the attached resolution approving Change Order No. 1 for the Hidden Hollow Street and Utility Installation Project – Removal of the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community Second Access Project. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Lee, Director of Public Works RESOLUTION NO. 6350 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR THE HIDDEN HOLLOW STREET AND UTILITY INSTALLATION PROJECT – REMOVAL OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MANUFACTURED HOME COMMUNITY SECOND ACCESS PROJECT WHEREAS, bids for the Hidden Hollow Street and Utility Installation Project and the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community Second Access Project were received at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, August 19, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community Second Access portion of this project was to be financed partially by a County issued Community Development Block Grant (CDBG Grant); and WHEREAS, according to Ramsey County, to be eligible for the grant, the bid document should have included a reference that the contractor would have to pay prevailing wages consistent with the Davis Bacon guidelines; and WHEREAS, this portion of the project will need to be removed and new bids or quotes received that specify that the contractor will be paying Davis Bacon prevailing wages. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows: 1. That Change Order No. 1 for the Hidden Hollow Street and Utility Installation Project is hereby approved. 2. That said Change Order is for the removal of the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community Second Access Project. 3. That the City will seek quotes for the construction of the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community Second Access Project and will be awarded under a separate contract. Adopted this 13th day of September 2004. ____________________________________ Jerry Linke, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (seal) Item No. 10S Meeting Date: September 13, 2004 Type of Business: CB WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City Administrator Review _______ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6351 Awarding a Construction Contract for the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community Second Access Project Background: On July 26, 2004, the City Council approved Resolution No. 6311 resetting the Bid Date to August 19, 2004 for the Hidden Hollow Street and Utility Installation Project and the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community Second Access Project. Bids for the Hidden Hollow Street and Utility Installation Project and the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community Second Access Project were received at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, August 19, 2004 at City Hall. On August 23, 2004, the City Council approved Resolution No. 6335, awarding the construction contract for the Hidden Hollow Street and Utility Improvement Project and the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community Second Access Project. Discussion: The Mounds View Manufactured Home Community Second Access portion of this project was to be financed partially by a County issued Community Development Block Grant (CDBG Grant) in the amount of $30,000. It was discovered after the bids were received, that according to Ramsey County, to be eligible for the grant, the bid document should have included a reference that the contractor would have to pay prevailing wages consistent with the Davis Bacon guidelines. Therefore, this portion of the project will need to be removed and new bids or quotes received that specify that the contractor will be paying Davis Bacon prevailing wages. In an effort to receive new bids and complete the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community Second Access Project this year, Staff will be sending letters to the firms that submitted bids for the total Hidden Hollow / Mounds View Manufactured Home Community Second Access Project to solicit quotes for just the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community Second Access portion of the project. Some subcontractor’s of the original bidders, as well as other construction firms, were also contacted and requested to submit a quote Getting quotes, as opposed to bids, is allowable by state statute because the estimated cost of the project is less than $50,000 (Engineer’s Estimate $46,000). Sealed quotes for the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community Second Access portion of the project were received and opened at 12:00 P.M. Monday, September 13, 2004. The results of the quotes are as follows: Bid Review - A total of eight (8) solicitations for quotes were made for this project. As of the deadline set for 12:00 P.M. Monday, September 13, 2004, a total of four (4) quotes were received for this project. A complete quote summary is as follows: Contractor’s Name Total Quote Amount Hardrives Inc. $ 47,075.25 Northdale Construction $ 68,764.13 North Valley Construction $ 57,822.50 Three Rivers Construction $ 48,156.20 Engineer’s estimate $46,000.00 Previous Redstone Construction bid $41,721.70 Barbarossa & Sons Inc., Penn Contracting, Redstone Construction, Northwest Asphalt Inc. were not interested in providing a quote. The low quote was submitted by Hardrives Incorporated with a total amount of $47,075.25. This is $5,353.55 more than the low bid submitted by Redstone Construction before the stipulation of paying prevailing wages consistent with the Davis Bacon guidelines was added and the project was re-bid. With an estimated 27% added onto the construction portion of this project, the total estimated cost is: $47,075.25 Construction cost $12,710.00 (27% for engineering, fiscal, and administration fees) $59,785.25 Total Estimated Project Cost - $30,000.00 minus CDGB Grant $29,785.25 Remaining Amount to be funded by the City and MVMHC As per Resolution No. 6244 adopted on May 10, 2004, the amount to be assessed to the Mounds View Manufactured Home Park will be determined by taking the total project cost, multiplying it by 37.7 percent, then subtracting the grant amount multiplied by 37.7 percent. Assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of ten (10) years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 2005, and shall bear interest at the rate of 5.0 percent per annum from the date of the adoption of the assessment resolution. Therefore, estimated assessment for the Mounds View Manufactured Home Park is: ($59,785.25 Total Estimated Project Cost X 0.37) minus ($30,000.00 CDGB Grant X 0.37) = $22,120.54 - $11,100 = $11,020.54. The actual assessment will be based on the final project cost. Alterna tives Alternatives would be to 1.) Not award this contract and use the Redstone Construction bid $41,721.70 without utilizing the CDBG Grant 2.) OR not award the contract and cancel the project. Staff recommends that the City Council award a contract to Hardrives Incorporated for the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community Second Access Project. Recommendation: It is recommended the Council adopt the attached resolution awarding the construction contract to Hardrives Incorporated for the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community Second Access Project. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Lee, Director of Public Works RESOLUTION NO. 6351 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AWARDING THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE MOUNDS VIEW MANUFACTURED HOME COMMUNITY SECOND ACCESS PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 6311 bids for the Hidden Hollow Street and Utility Installation Project and the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community Second Access Project were received at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, August 19, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community Second Access portion of this project was to be financed partially by a County issued Community Development Block Grant (CDBG Grant); and WHEREAS, according to Ramsey County, to be eligible for the grant, the bid document should have included a reference that the contractor would have to pay prevailing wages consistent with the Davis Bacon guidelines; and WHEREAS, this portion of the project will need to be removed and new bids or quotes received that specify that the contractor will be paying Davis Bacon prevailing wages, and WHEREAS, a total of eight (8) solicitations for quotes were made for this project, and as of the deadline of set for 12:00 P.M. Monday, September 13, 2004, a total of four (4) quotes were received for this project. WHEREAS, the low responsive quote was received from Hardrives Incorporated with a total quote of $47,075.25 for the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community Second Access Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the total quote of Hardrives Incorporated in the amount of $47,075.25 for the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community Second Access Project is the lowest responsive quote. 2. That a contract to perform said work is awarded to Hardrives Incorporated and that the Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with said bidder. Adopted this 13th day of September 2004. (ATTEST) ____________________________________ Jerry Linke, Mayor (SEAL) ____________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator ROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2 RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3 4 Regular Meeting 5 August 23, 2004 6 Mounds View City Hall 7 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 8 7:00 P.M. 9 10 11 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 12 13 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 14 15 3. ROLL CALL: Linke, Quick, Marty, Stigney, and Gunn 16 17 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 18 19 Monday, August 23, 2004 City Council Agenda. 20 21 Mayor Linke requested to pull item 9G from the agenda. 22 23 Councilmember Marty asked why it was being pulled, and Mayor Linke stated it was at the 24 request of the City Attorney. 25 26 MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Approve the Monday, August 23, 2004 Agenda as 27 revised. 28 29 Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 30 31 5. PUBLIC INPUT 32 33 William Werner, 2765 Sherwood Road, asked if the Council could have City 34 Clerk/Administrator Ulrich comment on what progress has been made on the study of what to do 35 with the golf course 36 37 Mayor Linke stated that that item is on the agenda as Item 12B, No. 2. 38 39 Cindy Sebesta, 2146 Hillview Road, stated her question is regarding a document from the June 40 28th meeting regarding TIF funding and how it was extended to residential homes outside of the 41 County Road 10 corridor. She stated it seemed to her that the homes would be replaced with 42 those that would have a higher tax value, and she had deep concerns about this because some 43 people may want it while others may not. 44 45 Mounds View City Council August 23, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 2 Mayor Linke stated that the homes were identified for the future if some day the city got the 1 opportunity to buy them, and that the City couldn’t do anything with them unless they were listed 2 on their documents. 3 4 Ms. Sebesta asked why people weren’t told about this; she stated it seemed like a dirty little 5 secret. Mayor Linke stated that this was discussed six or seven times during City Council 6 meetings and was not a dirty little secret. 7 8 Ms. Sebesta stated a lot of people didn’t know about it and it was upsetting to them. 9 10 Mayor Linke stated that this only provided the opportunity, and it doesn’t mean that it’s going to 11 happen. 12 13 Ms. Sebesta asked if that meant that no one would be forced to sell, and Mayor Linke stated that 14 that is exactly correct, and that was covered very well in all the meetings when they talked about 15 it. 16 17 Ms. Sebesta stated that that should be published, and Mayor Linke stated that it was several 18 times. Mayor Linke stated that Council Member Stigney had had a concern for the citizens being 19 informed regarding this item. 20 21 Director Ericson stated that the City has had a housing replacement program since 1995 whereby 22 property owners could sell their property to the City if they so chose. He stated that the State 23 Auditor requires that these properties have to be identified beforehand, so that is why the City 24 has put this list together. He stated there are no plans to force anyone from their homes and it is 25 a voluntary program. 26 27 Council Member Quick asked what the benefit was to the property owners that utilize this 28 program. 29 30 Director Ericson stated that it gives the option to the homeowner to sell it to the City if they can’t 31 find a buyer, and another option is that the City could provide demolition assistance to the 32 property owner if they wanted to rebuild on their lot. 33 34 Council Member Quick stated that property owners do not need to bring their homes up to code 35 when they sell it to the City. 36 37 Brad Johnson, 5556 St. Stevens St., stated he had brought his son to Festival in the Park, and he 38 complained about the length of time his son was allowed to bound in the inflatable, and he also 39 stated it should be told to them ahead of time that one ticket only allows one turn on the slide. 40 41 Tom Field, 8409 Knollwood Drive, stated he would not allow entry into his home based on the 42 Fourth Amendment for city employees to enter his home regarding the sump pump issue. He 43 stated he does not have a sump pump. 44 45 Mounds View City Council August 23, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 3 Mayor Linke stated that this issue is costing the City a lot of money every year. He stated that 1 this is the same Ordinance that Fridley has, and that this is not a Fourth Amendment type 2 situation. He stated there is a right of entry relationship with the homeowners for the purpose of 3 ascertaining whether the sump pumps are properly hooked up. 4 5 Mr. Field stated he doesn’t want anybody walking through his home looking for something that 6 doesn’t exist. 7 8 Mayor Linke stated he doesn’t have one either, but he let them inspect his home. 9 10 Council Member Gunn stated she doesn’t have one either, but she let them inspect her home. 11 12 Mr. Field stated they should get a search warrant if they want to inspect his home. 13 14 Council Member Quick asked the City Attorney what rights the City had in this situation. 15 16 City Attorney Riggs stated that when the City provides services to citizens, there is a contract 17 between the City and the citizens. Pursuant to that contract, the right has been established via the 18 ordinance to inspect and maintain those types of systems. He stated it is not a search and seizure 19 situation. 20 21 Mr. Field stated that that is not what his attorney told him, and Mayor Linke told him to call his 22 attorney and let him know what he has heard here tonight. 23 24 Council Member Marty asked the Public Works Director to explain what the City is authorized 25 to pay in connecting a corrected application. 26 27 Public Works Director Lee stated that in cases where the sump pump isn’t in compliance with the 28 ordinance, the City will pay 50 percent of the correction cost, up to $300. He stated the City has 29 inspected almost 500 homes, and there was a total of 352 homes that were found to not have 30 sump pumps. He stated of the 145 that did have sump pumps, 63 were not in compliance. 31 32 Mr. Field again stated he did not have a sump pump, so there is nothing to check. 33 34 Jim Huntsman, 2570 Mounds View Drive, stated he is the director of the Silver Lake Woods 35 Association, and he asked if the improvement project there was classified as major or minor. 36 37 Public Works Director Lee stated that they don’t have a classification system such as that, but 38 that he would consider it a major project since it’s almost a $2 million project. 39 40 Mr. Huntsman stated that at the last board meeting it was discussed that the City Attorney wanted 41 100 percent resident approval for the conveyance of the common element to the City, and he 42 wondered if there was a statutory basis for that. 43 44 Mounds View City Council August 23, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 4 City Attorney Riggs stated that the assessment would have to be approved by the Association and 1 not the unit owners, so the City had no ability to do an assessment project at this point in time. 2 he stated they would have to start over with public hearings and reaffirm the project. 3 4 Mr. Huntsman stated that 80 percent of the owners had approved it in August of 2001, so they 5 are satisfied by that. 6 7 Mayor Linke stated that when they did the project, all the ducks weren’t in a row at that time to 8 include that portion within this particular project, but hopefully it will get done with next year’s 9 project. He asked the Public Works Director if he could put something together so that everybody 10 knows what steps have to be followed. 11 12 Public Works Director Lee stated that he could do that. He stated that the homeowners 13 association had said they did not want the homeowners association assessed and they wanted to 14 assess each individual property owner, but that the City couldn’t do that because it was on private 15 property. He said the intent is to work with the homeowner association’s attorneys and get it 16 ready for next year’s project. 17 18 Mr. Huntsman asked if the two issues boil down to the mechanism for dedication and the 19 mechanism for assessment of the improvements. 20 21 City Attorneys Riggs stated that that was correct. 22 23 Nicole Humphrey, 5532 St. Michael St., stated that AXIS Corporation is opening a group home 24 across the street from her, and she felt that the City should have notified her. She stated that 25 there are going to be parking problems, among others. She stated that if they get their permit 26 pulled, then any other group home could move in there, and she is against that. 27 28 Council Member Quick asked if someone wants to put a group home in Mounds View whether 29 they have to come to the City to get a permit, and Director Ericson stated that they do not, and 30 that it’s a state licensed facility. 31 32 Mayor Linke stated he did not even know there was a group home going in there, and that legally 33 he did not have to know. 34 35 Ms. Humphrey stated that it would have been nice to have been contacted about it. 36 37 Dave Jahnke stated he didn’t see any problem with the City inspecting the houses for sump 38 pumps. 39 40 David Veenstra, 3000 County Road H2, spoke to the Council regarding the holding pond at the 41 Corner of County Road H2 and Spring Lake Park Road and the fact that there has been no 42 maintenance on the property at all and there has been no black dirt brought in, and that it is full 43 of weeds. 44 45 Mounds View City Council August 23, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 5 Public Works Director Lee stated that the area was never meant to be perfectly mowed grass, and 1 that the area is on the punch list for the County Road H2 project. He stated they will be doing a 2 second seeding and a cleaning. 3 4 Elaine Veenstra stated that black dirt needs to be brought in, and Public Works Director Lee 5 stated that he concurs with that. 6 7 Peggy Little, 5539 St. Michael St., stated she has concerns regarding the value of the homes in 8 her neighborhood due to the group home moving into the neighborhood. She stated she felt the 9 City Council should take a proactive approach to notifying residents when they become aware of 10 a group home moving into a neighborhood. 11 12 Mayor Linke stated the City Council had no reason to know about it, and as a City there was 13 nothing they can say no to. He stated that her point is well taken, and that this is not something 14 that they have run across before. 15 16 Lindsay Little, 5539 St. Michael St., stated his concern regarding the three large windows being 17 put into the group home that will be facing his home, and he stated he had asked Access 18 Minnesota if they would put a privacy fence in along the property line. He asked the City 19 Council if they would allow him to put a fence in if AXIS Minnesota would not put one in. 20 21 Dave Jahnke asked how many people are allowed in a residence. 22 23 Planning Associate Prososki stated that state statutes allow group homes to serve up to six people 24 within a residential district, and they don’t need a special permit to do that. 25 26 Council Member Quick stated he has asked the City Council to put a referendum on the next 27 ballot to see if residents want to hire a part-time code enforcement officer. 28 29 Jong Woo, 5527 St. Michael St., stated she is next door to the group home, and her house is 30 currently on the market. She asked the Council if she is legally required to inform prospective 31 purchasers of her home that a group home will be moving I next door. 32 33 Mayor Linke stated that a real estate person would be able to answer that question. 34 35 Ms. Woo stated that AXIS Minnesota had paid $200,000 for the property, which made no 36 common sense. 37 38 Rod Melbo, 5606 St. Michael St., stated he felt the Council should start putting restrictions on 39 what can go into a neighborhood. 40 41 Mayor Linke stated that legally they couldn’t, and that all they can do is make sure they meet the 42 building codes and zoning codes. 43 44 Mounds View City Council August 23, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 6 Mr. Melbo asked a question relating to the taxes on the home, and Mayor Linke stated that if 1 they’ve increased the value of the home, that taxes will be increased. 2 3 Mr. Melbo asked if restrictions can be placed on where they can park, and Planning Associate 4 Prososki stated that she had spoke with the project manager of the property, and she had stated 5 that the people living there will be under 18 and wheelchair bound, and that there will be 6 adequate parking in the driveway for the employees. 7 8 Ruth Nerlan, Mounds View Manufactured Home Park, asked if there was a discussion about 9 demolishing the homes in the park, and Mayor Linke stated that that was misinformation. 10 11 Peggy Little asked for clarification of the third level sex offender that was living down at the end 12 of their block. 13 14 Chief Sommer stated that that was erroneous information, and there currently are no level three 15 sex offenders living in Mounds View. 16 17 Mayor Linke stated that someone had taken it upon themselves to disseminate this information, 18 which probably constitutes a crime. 19 20 Chief Sommer introduced Officer Kirk Leitch, who he stated is responsible for keeping tabs on 21 the offenders that are within the City of Mounds View. He stated he checks in with each 22 offender once a month 23 24 Officer Leitch stated that there are 25 registered offenders in Mounds View, and two are Level 2, 25 five are Level 1, and 18 are not assigned a level. He stated he keeps in touch with all of these 26 people, and some of them had the offenses when they were young, and have since married. He 27 stated they all have his phone number, and they can call him anytime. He also stated if anyone 28 has any questions, they can contact him at (763)717-4099, and he would be happy to answer any 29 questions. 30 31 Council Member Quick asked if the information that had been received by Ms. Little violated 32 this person’s rights, and Officer Leitch stated that had violated his constitutional rights, and that 33 he has a legal right of recourse against whoever had done it for harassment. 34 35 Council Member Quick stated that members of the public need to be careful about disseminating 36 this type of information. 37 38 6. CITY BUDGET QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS 39 40 Jackie Entsminger, 7954 Long Lake Road, her property value in 2003 was $137,000, and in 2004 41 it’s $154,000, and that in 2005 it will be $176,000. She asked if there is somebody in the City 42 who speaks to the legislature as far as this goes. 43 44 Mayor Linke stated that the League of Minnesota Cities are basically the City’s lobbyist for that. 45 Mounds View City Council August 23, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 7 Ms. Entsminger stated it’s difficult for people to get these kind of increases who are on a fixed 1 income and can’t work overtime. She thanked the Council for being very approachable and their 2 willingness to speak to people. 3 4 7. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 5 6 None. 7 8 8. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS. 9 10 MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Gunn. To approve Just and Correct Claims as presented. 11 12 Ayes-5 Nays -0 Motion carried 13 14 9. CONSENT AGENDA 15 16 A. Licenses for Approval 17 B. Set a Public Hearing for 7:25PM on Monday, September 13 to Consider a 18 Conditional Use Permit Request for a Residential Kennel for 8009 Red Oak 19 Drive. 20 C. Establish an Executive Session immediately following the EDA meeting to 21 discuss the City Administrator’s One Year Performance Review. 22 D. Set a Public Hearing for 7:30 PM, Monday, September 13 to Consider the 23 Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 752, an Ordinance Amending 24 the Zoning Code Relating to Driveway Setbacks. 25 E. Resolution 6336 Ratifying the Mounds View Election Judges for the 2004 26 Primary and General Election. 27 F. Resolution 6333 Authorizing the Publication of a Request for Proposal (RFP) 28 for Work Associated with the Preparation of a Site Plan, Construction Plans, 29 and Specifications for the Groveland Park Building Replacement Project. 30 G. Resolution 6334 Authorizing Straight Pay for Supervisors for the Sanitary 31 Sewer Illicit Connection Inspection Program. 32 33 Council Member Marty requested to pull Item F. 34 35 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Approve Consent Agenda Items A, B, C, E, and G. 36 37 Ayes-5 Nays -0 Motion carried 38 39 F. Resolution 6333 Authorizing the Publication of a Request for Proposal (RFP) 40 for Work Associated with the Preparation of a Site Plan, Construction Plans, 41 and Specifications for the Groveland Park Building Replacement Project. 42 43 Council Member Marty stated he is not in support of spending this amount of money for a park 44 building when there are much more needed places in the community to spend the money. 45 Mounds View City Council August 23, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 8 Council Member Quick asked where the money is coming from, and Public Works Director Lee 1 stated it is coming from the park dedication funds. 2 3 Council Member Quick asked if that fund was used for anything besides parks, and Public Works 4 Director Lee stated that parks is the only thing it is used for. 5 6 Council Member Marty asked what source of income they had for the park dedication funds. 7 8 Public Works Director Lee stated that with Mounds View being built out, there is not a whole lot 9 of income coming from it. 10 11 Council Member Marty asked once that’s exhausted, what options did they have. 12 13 Public Works Director Lee stated that they would then not have any other sources. 14 15 Mayor Linke stated that if they don’t keep the buildings up, there won’t be any buildings and no 16 place for the kids to go. 17 18 MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Quick. To approve Resolution 6333 Authorizing the Publication of 19 a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Work Associated with the Preparation of a Site Plan, 20 Construction Plans, and Specifications for the Groveland Park Building Replacement Project. 21 22 Council Member Stigney stated he has concerns about the amount of money to be expended on 23 this building as well. He stated that this is just an RFP, so they didn’t know what the final dollars 24 would be, and once they find out the dollars, if it is still Park and Recreation’s recommendation, 25 they can address it at that time. 26 27 Council Member Gunn stated that this is the result of the Council telling them that they aren’t 28 happy with spending that amount of money on the building that they have over at Hillview, and 29 that they needed to go back out and look at it. 30 31 Council Member Quick asked whether the one on Hillview was approved by the City Council, 32 and Council Member Gunn stated that it was. 33 34 Ayes-4 Nays-1(Marty) Motion carried. 35 36 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS 37 38 A. 7:15 p.m. Public Hearing, Introduction, and First Reading of Ordinance 746, 39 an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Xcel Energy and Natural 40 Gas Operations within the City of Mounds View for the Year 2005. 41 42 Mayor Linke opened the public meeting. 43 44 There was no public comment. 45 Mayor Linke closed the public hearing. 46 Mounds View City Council August 23, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 9 1 MOTION/SECOND. Quick/Marty. To waive the reading and approve the first reading of 2 Ordinance 746, an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Xcel Energy and Natural Gas 3 Operations within the City of Mounds View for the Year 2005. 4 5 Council Member Stigney stated this is to continue with the 4 percent franchise fee on Xcel 6 Energy for natural gas. 7 8 Council Member Gunn stated it had a sunset clause for next year. 9 10 Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 11 12 B. 7:20 p.m. Public Hearing, Introduction, and First Reading of Ordinance 747, 13 an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Center Point Energy Natural 14 Gas Operations within the City of Mounds View for the Year 2005. 15 16 Mayor Linke opened the public hearing. 17 18 Mayor Linke closed the public hearing. 19 20 MOTION/SECOND. Marty/Quick. To waive the reading and approve the first reading of 21 Ordinance 747, an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Center Point Energy Natural Gas 22 Operations within the City of Mounds View for the Year 2005. 23 24 Council Member Stigney stated this is a 4 percent franchise fee on Center Point Energy for gas 25 fees, and that there are just a few places in the city that actually have Center Point Energy, 26 formerly Minnegasco, and it’s the same as Xcel Energy as far as the sunset clause. 27 28 Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 29 30 C. 7:25 p.m. Public Hearing, Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 750, 31 Vacating Easements Relating to the Hidden Hollow Final Plat (roll call vote) 32 33 Mayor Linke opened the public hearing. 34 35 Mayor Linke closed the public hearing. 36 37 MOTION/SECOND. Marty/Gunn. To waive the reading and adopt Ordinance 750, Vacating 38 Easement Relating to the Hidden Hollow Final Plat (roll call vote) 39 40 Council Member Marty thanked Staff for the work they had been in on this. 41 42 ROLL CALL: Linke/Quick/Marty/Stigney/Gunn. 43 44 Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 45 Mounds View City Council August 23, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 10 1 D First Reading of Ordinance 742, Amending Section 2.06 of the City Charter 2 Regarding Mayor’s Powers and Duties. 3 4 MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To waive the reading and approve the first reading of 5 Ordinance 742, Amending Section 2.06 of the City Charter Regarding Mayor’s Powers and 6 Duties. 7 8 Council Member Marty thanked the Charter Commission for bringing this forward. 9 10 Ayes –5 Nays – 0 Motion carried 11 12 E. First Reading of Ordinance 743, Amending Chapter 5 of the City Charter. 13 14 MOTION/SECOND. Marty/Stigney. To waive the reading and approve the first reading of 15 Ordinance 743, Amending Chapter 5 of the City Charter. 16 17 Council Member Marty thanked the Charter Commission. 18 19 Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 20 21 F. First Reading of Ordinance 748 Amending Section 4.05 of the City Charter 22 regarding Vacancy of Municipal Elected Office. 23 24 MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To waive the reading and approve the first reading of 25 Ordinance 748 amending Section 4.05 of the City Charter regarding Vacancy of Municipal 26 Elected Office. 27 28 Council Member Marty thanked the Charter Commission. 29 30 Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 31 32 G. First Reading of Ordinance 749, Amending Section 9.01 of the City Charter 33 regarding Acquisition of Property. 34 35 Council Member Marty asked what Chapter 117 was. 36 37 Jonathan Thomas, Chair of the Charter Commission, stated that the only thing they were doing 38 was adding the words “as amended” to make sure that if the statute was changed, then the 39 meaning of the Charter would change with it, to keep it current. 40 41 MOTION/SECOND. Marty/Stigney. To waive the reading and approve the First Reading of 42 Ordinance 749, Amending Section 9.01 of the City Charter regarding Acquisition of Property. 43 44 Council Members Stigney and Marty thanked the Charter Commission for all of their efforts. 45 Mounds View City Council August 23, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 11 1 Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 2 3 H. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 751, Adopting the Long Range 4 Finance Plan for 2004 (roll call vote.) 5 6 Council Members Gunn and Marty thanked Finance Director Hansen and his staff for all their 7 work on this. 8 9 MOTION/SECOND. Marty/Quick. To waive the reading and adopt Ordinance 751, Adopting 10 the Long Range Finance Plan for 2004. 11 12 ROLL CALL: Linke/Quick/Marty/Stigney/Gunn. 13 14 Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 15 16 I. Resolution 6337 Step Increase for Sgt. Mike Kampa of the Mounds View 17 Police Department. 18 19 MOTION/SECOND. Marty/Stigney. To adopt Resolution 6337, Step Increase for Sgt. Mike 20 Kampa of the Mounds View Police Department. 21 22 The resolution was read aloud by Council Member Marty. 23 24 Ayes-5 – Nays –0 Motion carried. 25 26 J First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 752, an Ordinance Amending 27 the Zoning Code Relating to Driveway Setbacks. 28 29 Director Ericson stated that the City had asked Staff to look at the code requirements pertaining 30 to driveway setbacks in residential districts, and that the issue stems from the current language 31 which allows for a driveway to be set back up to one foot to the property line if the neighbor 32 agrees to that. He stated that normally the setback for driveways in an R-1/R-2 district would be 33 five feet. He stated the Council had had concerns that the neighbors would have too much 34 power in granting this right to have the driveway there. He stated that there had been problems 35 where the driveway was located too close to the property line, and that the driveway even went 36 over the property line. 37 38 Director Ericson stated the issue had been to the Planning Commission, and that the Planning 39 Commission had recommended that the language be struck from the City Code, and if somebody 40 has a hardship that would warrant having a setback of less than five feet, then they would need to 41 go through the administrative variance process. 42 43 Mounds View City Council August 23, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 12 MOTION/SECOND. Quick/Stigney. To waive the reading and approve the First Reading and 1 Introduction of Ordinance 752, an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Code Relating to Driveway 2 Setbacks. 3 Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 4 5 K. Resolution 6335 Awarding a Construction Contract for the Hidden Hollow 6 Street and Utility Installation Project and the Mounds View Manufactured 7 Home Community Second Access Project. 8 9 Council Member Stigney asked if the developer would pay this fee back to the city. 10 11 Public Works Director Lee stated that the city would be assessing the developer for these fees. 12 13 MOTION/SECOND. Marty/Gunn. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6335 Awarding a 14 Construction Contract for the Hidden Hollow Street and Utility Installation Project and the 15 Mounds View Manufactured Home Community Second Access Project. 16 17 Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 18 19 L. Resolution 6331 Approving a Contract Award to Manage the Mounds View 20 Banquet Center beginning January 1, 2005. 21 22 Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that background checks had been 23 completed, and that there were no discrepancies or areas of concern. He stated that staff 24 recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution 6331, approving the selection of Canyon 25 Grill as manager of the Mounds View Banquet Center beginning January 1, 2005, and to 26 authorize staff to finalize a management, catering, and food services agreement with the Canyon 27 Grill. 28 29 Dave Jahnke, 8420 Eastwood Road, stated he has a problem with why the City is not receiving 30 the money from the Chamber of Commerce separately. 31 32 Mayor Linke stated that the Mermaid had gotten that lessee in there, and it helped to defray the 33 costs to the city. He stated that the Mermaid had put in $10,000 of improvements. 34 35 City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated that with the new contract, the lease would be directly to 36 the city, and so the revenue coming from the Chamber would go directly to the City. 37 38 Council Member Marty stated that he hadn’t been able to check references, but he had done some 39 checking, and he didn’t find anything out of order. He stated that he had spoke with Greg Waste, 40 who had missed the cutoff for the bids, and asked the Council if they would consider the 41 possibility of getting re-bids for this project. 42 43 Mayor Linke stated he knew of one other person who would be interested in bidding also. 44 45 Mounds View City Council August 23, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 13 Council Member Gunn asked if that would be fair after everyone had already seen the bids. 1 2 City Attorney Riggs stated that they had not done competitive bids; it had been a request for 3 proposals, so they had the full ability to negotiate with anybody at this point. 4 Council Member Stigney asked why the Wastes had not responded during the required time 5 period. 6 7 Mr. Waste stated that he had been out of time at that time. 8 9 Council Member Stigney asked why he hadn’t asked for additional time to submit his RFP, and 10 Mr. Waste stated that he didn’t know that that was an option. 11 12 Council Member Marty stated he was making this request, not Mr. Waste. 13 14 Council Member Stigney stated that staff had spent a lot of time making their recommendations, 15 and he concurred with Staff’s recommendation. He stated he was sorry other people didn’t get 16 their proposals in, but he thought they should move forward on this. 17 18 Council Member Gunn stated that she didn’t want to see a bidding war take place. 19 20 MOTION/SECOND. Quick/Stigney. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6331 21 Approving a Contract Award to Manage the Mounds View Banquet Center beginning January 1, 22 2005. 23 24 Council Member Stigney stated that he would like the agreement to include a provision that there 25 would be no subleasing without any City Council approval, and that he would like it thoroughly 26 addressed in the agreement what happens to existing and future bookings if there is a termination 27 of the lease by either party. 28 29 Council Member Marty stated he would like to recommend that the caterer be included in the 30 monthly meetings with the YMCA. 31 32 Mayor Linke stated he would be abstaining from the vote due to any perceived conflicts. 33 34 Council Member Marty stated he had nothing against he Canyon Grill, but he simply wanted to 35 see a re-bid of this item. 36 37 Ayes-3 Nays-1(Marty) Motion carried. 38 39 (Mayor Linke abstained) 40 41 11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 42 43 A. Executive Session August 9, 2004. 44 45 Mounds View City Council August 23, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 14 MOTION/SECOND. Marty/Gunn. To approve the August 9, 2004 Executive Session Minutes. 1 2 Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 3 4 B. City Council Minutes August 9, 2004 5 6 Council Member Marty requested the minutes be amended at page 11, line 36, after “offered by 7 the Mermaid,” to start a new paragraph with, “He asked a question.” Also, at line 39, to have “of 8 Lancers” added after, “percent surcharge added to the final invoices.” He also requested at page 9 14, line 25, to add the words “the old” before “Andy Griffith Show.” 10 11 MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To approve the City Council Minutes of August 9, 2004 12 as amended. 13 14 Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 15 16 12. REPORTS 17 18 A. Reports of Mayor and Council. 19 20 Council Member Gunn thanked everyone for attending the Festival in the Park yesterday and 21 stated that the fireworks had been great. Council Member Stigney concurred that the fireworks 22 were great. 23 24 Council Member Marty thanked the volunteers who had helped with the golf tournament and the 25 Festival in the Park. 26 27 Mayor Linke stated he had attended the awards ceremony for the Safety Camp and that there had 28 been a moving speed from one of the police officers regarding wearing seat belts. 29 30 Dave Jahnke stated that he would call Council Member Gunn with the number to call with 31 complaints regarding the planes coming to the airport, and Council Member Gunn stated if 32 anybody would like that number, to call her. 33 34 . B. Staff 35 36 1. Mailbox Ordinance. 37 38 Public Works Director Lee explained the new mailbox ordinance and stated that he had been 39 contacted by citizens who wanted this issue brought before the City Council to express their 40 views. 41 42 Chris Franke, 7635 Groveland Road, stated she was of the understanding from the notice she had 43 received that when the project was completed that they would have the same configuration of 44 mailboxes. She stated that having ganged mailboxes will not improve their neighborhood, and 45 Mounds View City Council August 23, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 15 she cited safety concerns for the mail. She stated that it was never communicated that there 1 would be five mailboxes ganged together. 2 3 Public Works Director Lee stated that the plan is to have either two, three, or four per post, and 4 that there is one on Gloria Circle that does have more than that. He stated this was worked out 5 with the Postmaster General. He stated that there was no more they could have done as far as 6 notification to residents. There had been notices sent out and neighborhood meetings. 7 8 Ms. Franke stated that she had been told there would be five mailboxes in front of her yard, and 9 Public Works Director Lee stated that that was correct. 10 11 Council Member Stigney asked how far away from the individual homes the mailboxes would 12 be. 13 14 Public Works Director Lee stated that would be 100 to 120 feet at most. 15 16 Council Member Stigney asked Ms. Franke what she was asking of the Council. 17 18 Ms. Franke stated she wanted the mailboxes to remain the way they are. 19 20 Council Member Quick asked if there were any other streets that had ganged mailboxes. 21 22 Public Works Director Lee stated that since the ordinance was put in place in 2000, Bronson 23 Road and Spring Lake Park Road had received ganged mailboxes. 24 25 Council Member Stigney stated he had no problem with letting the residents choose what they 26 wanted, and he would like to see what the majority wanted. 27 28 Public Works Director Lee stated that Staff was simply following the ordinance. 29 30 Mayor Linke stated that the ordinance would need to be changed in order to do what Council 31 Member Stigney suggested, and Council Member Stigney stated that sometimes you have to do 32 that. 33 34 Jonathan Thomas stated that he lived north of Groveland and their mailboxes were ganged, and 35 he had noted that newspapers tended to collect in the street below the mailboxes. 36 37 William Moore, 2565 Shorewood Road, asked the Council to change the ordinance so the people 38 could choose, and suggested that the City could require uniformity in the mailboxes. 39 40 City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated that the mailboxes are scheduled to be installed on 41 Wednesday, and this matter was brought before the City Council because of citizen complaints. 42 43 Council Member Quick stated he thought they should direct Staff to prepare an amendment to the 44 ordinance. 45 Mounds View City Council August 23, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 16 1 MOTION/SECOND. Quick/Stigney. To direct Staff to revisit the ordinance and postpone the 2 installation of the mailboxes. 3 Council Member Stigney questioned what the process would be to see what the residents want. 4 5 Mayor Linke stated that they have a public hearing process. 6 7 Barbara Thomas, 5444 Landmark Circle, stated that the wording in the ordinance does not 8 specify any number of mailboxes, and that nothing needed to be changed in the wording of the 9 ordinance. 10 11 Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 12 13 Public Works Director Lee asked for clarification and asked what additional information the 14 Council wanted Staff to compile. 15 16 Mayor Linke asked to have the background information on the ordinance. 17 18 Council Member Stigney stated he wanted to know what the majority of the people affected 19 wanted. 20 21 Public Works Director Lee stated they could send a survey out. 22 23 Council Member Marty asked if there would be a cost increase if everybody wanted their own 24 posts, and Public Works Director Lee stated that there would. 25 26 2. Golf Course Study Update 27 28 Mayor Linke read aloud the update provided to the City Council on the Bridges of Mounds View 29 Golf Course. 30 31 Council Member Marty asked how the title search was going. 32 33 Economic Development Director Backman stated that he expected a completed report to be 34 submitted by the end of the month. He stated the undisclosed end user is interested in this site. 35 36 City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated that there is a request to update the wetlands delineation 37 for the property on the EDA agenda later in the evening. 38 39 C. City Attorney 40 1. Innovative Images 41 42 Mayor Linke turned the meeting over to Council Member Marty and Mayor Linke left Chambers 43 . 44 45 Mounds View City Council August 23, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 17 City Attorney Riggs passed out a memo that summarized the Attorney General’s opinion and 1 some correspondence to the Council members. He stated that nothing has changed the City’s 2 perspective as to how these numbers have been evaluated by independent auditors, as well as two 3 different Finance Directors of the City. 4 Council Member Stigney asked whether anything had changed other than they haven’t accepted 5 the offer. He asked what the City Attorney’s recommendation would be. 6 7 City Attorney Riggs stated that none of the numbers had changed, and there was nothing 8 different brought before the Council. 9 10 Council Member Stigney asked if he was suggesting that the Council should direct the 11 Administrator to go forward with the original offer to resolve the matter. 12 13 City Attorney Riggs stated that that was a valid response at this time. 14 15 MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Gunn. To move forward with the offer that was extended in 16 November of 2002. 17 18 Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. 19 20 Mayor Linke returned to the meeting. 21 22 Mayor Linke stated that there had been a request to postpone the Executive Session until 23 September 7th. 24 25 MOTION/SECOND. Linke/Marty. To postpone the Executive Session that had been scheduled 26 to follow the EDA meeting until after the work session on September 7th. 27 28 Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 29 30 13. Next Council Work Session: Monday, September 7, 2004 31 Next Council Meeting: Monday, September 13, 2004 32 33 14. ADJOURNMENT 34 35 Mayor Linke adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m. 36 37 Transcribed and recorded by: 38 39 40 Sheree Theobald 41 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 42 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2 RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3 4 Executive Session 5 Date: 09/07/04 6 Mounds View City Hall 7 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 8 Conference Room C 9 Time: 9:35 pm 10 11 12 1. 9:35 pm EXECUTIVE SESSION IS CALLED TO ORDER 13 14 2. ROLL CALL: Linke, Marty, Stigney, and Gunn 15 16 3. City Administrator’s Annual Performance Review 17 The City Council and City Administrator Ulrich discussed the City 18 Administrator’s one-year performance review for the period ending July 19 21, 2004. It was the consensus of the City Council that his performance 20 satisfies the requirements of the position and to place approval of the 21 appropriate step increase on the Council agenda for consideration at the 22 September 13, 2004 regular meeting. 23 24 4. 10:45 pm MEETING ADJOURNED 25 26 27 28 Respectfully Submitted: 29 30 31 Kurt Ulrich 32 City Administrator 33 34 35