HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2003/07/14CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA (Revised)
Monday, July 14, 2003
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. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS
8. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Licenses for Approval
B. Consideration of Resolution 6044 Approving the renewal of the 2003-2004 School Resource
Officer Agreement Between the Cities of Mounds View and New Brighton and ISD #621
C. Consideration of Resolution 6045 Authorizing Purchase Police Rifles, Cases, Ammunition
and Mounting Equipment.
D. Consideration of Resolution 6054 Authorizing the 2003 Contract with the Festival in the Park
of Mounds View Organization
E. Set a Public Hearing for 7:05 PM, Monday, July 28, 2003 to Consider the Second Reading
and Adoption of Ordinance 717 Amending Mounds View Liquor License Provisions
F. Consideration of Resolution 6055 Approving Reinstatement of Forfeited Vacation Hours for
Jim Ericson, Interim City Administrator
G. Consideration of Resolution 6056 Proclaiming Support of County-Wide 800 MHz Digital
Trunked Communications System
H. Resolution 6048 Authorization to partner with Ramsey County Sheriff’s Department in
pursuing a grant under the Safe and Sober Program
I. Resolution No. 6043 Approving the Contract Award for the Annual Automatic Sprinkler
Systems within City Buildings
J. Resolution No. 6049 Approving the Execution of a Cost Participation Agreement with the City
of Spring Lake Park for Seal Coating Spring Lake Road
K. Resolution No. 6050 Authorizing the Execution of a Pathway Easement with Dale Siebrecht
(7310 Silver Lake Road) for the County Road H2 Pathway
L. Resolution No. 6051 Authorizing the Preparation of a Preliminary Feasibility Report for a
Sedimentation Pond in Silver View Park
M. Resolution No. 6052 Authorizing the firm of Ulteig Engineers Inc. to assist in the Preparation
of Plans and Cost Estimates for Noise Abatement Measures (Walls and Berms) along Trunk
Highway 10.
City Council Agenda
July 14, 2003
Page 2
8. CONSENT AGENDA (Continued)
N. Resolution 6057 Authorizing Step Increase for Michael Sommer, Chief of Police.
O. Resolution 6058 Authorizing Step Increase for Mary Burg, Golf Course Manager.
P. Resolution 6063 Approving an Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo for Festival in the Park
of Mounds View
9. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. Consideration of Resolution 6046 Authorizing Staff to Advertise for a Part Time Community
Service Officer (CSO) in the Police Department
B. Consideration of Resolution 6059 Authorizing Retainer Agreement with Kennedy & Graven
C. Consideration of Resolution 6042 Approving the Preliminary County Road H Sidewalk
Feasibility Report and Ordering the Improvement Project
D. First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 717 Amending the City Code Related to Closing
Time of Licensed On-Sale Liquor Establishments
E. Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Parking Lot Setback Variance for Stephen Farrell,
2402 County Road I and Consideration of an Amendment to Resolution 5527 Regarding
Outside Storage of Garbage Containers
F. Consideration of Resolution 6047 Authorizing Staff to Purchase a New Greens Mower for the
golf course
G. Resolution No. 6053 Authorizing a Contract Award to Repair the Gymnasium Floor at the
Community Center
H. Consideration of Resolution 6061 Authorizing Retainer Agreement with Hughes & Costello to
provide Mounds View with Prosecution Legal Services.
I. Consideration of Resolution 6062, a Resolution approving the hire of Kurt Ulrich to the
position of Mounds View City Clerk / Administrator
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. June 16, 2003 (Special Meeting)
B. June 23, 2003
11. REPORTS
A. Reports of Mayor and Council
B. Reports of Staff
C. Reports of City Attorney
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, August 4, 2003
Next Council Meeting: Monday, July 28, 2003
13. ADJOURNMENT
Item No.08A
Type of Business: CA
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Barb Benesch
Item Title/Subject: CONTRACTOR LICENSES FOR APPROVAL
Meeting Date: July 14, 2003
Please consider the following contractor licenses for approval. All contractor licenses will
expire on December 31, 2003. 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
2002. Those companies renewing their license were licensed, at a minimum, in the year 2002.
The type of license they are applying for follows the company name.
Advantage Air, Inc. – HVAC – Renewal
Augie’s Heating, Cooling & Service – HVAC – New
Earth Wizards, Inc. – Asphalt – Renewal
Home Energy Center – HVAC – New
Master Gas Fitters – HVAC – Renewal
Max Mechanical – HVAC – New
Neeck Construction, Inc. – Masonry/Cement – New
Northern Asphalt LLC – Asphalt – Renewal
R. Wetterlund & Sons – Masonry/Cement – New
Walker Roofing/Westway Exteriors, Inc. – General (Commercial) – New
Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested.
Item No: 08B
Type of Business: CA
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: Mike Sommer, Police Chief
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6044 Approving the Renewal of the 2003-2004
School Resource Officer Agreement Between the Cities of
Mounds View and New Brighton and ISD #621
Date of Report: July 14, 2003
RENEWAL OF 2003-2004 SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITIES OF MOUNDS VIEW AND NEW BRIGHTON AND ISD #621:
In 1994 a School Resource Officer position was implemented at Irondale High School. It
has been found that this position has had a positive impact for the school district and the Cities of
Mounds View and New Brighton. Because a substantial percentage of the students who attend
Irondale reside in Mounds View, the City of Mounds View has shared the cost of training and
assigning a New Brighton Police Officer to Irondale since the inception of this position. The
annual cost of the position is based upon total personnel expenses including benefits and other
peripheral expenses, such as vehicle costs, associated with the position. The expense formula for
this renewal period reflects the actual time the officer is assigned during the school year. It also
reflects that the current student population at Irondale is made up of 34% Mounds View residents,
51% New Brighton residents, and 15% from other communities. Total program costs are to be
shared as follows: 50% paid by the school district, 30% paid by the City of New Brighton, and
20% paid by the City of Mounds View. The cost to the City of Mounds View for this renewal
period is expected to be approximately $11,476.10.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council approve the renewal of the School
Resource Officer agreement between the City of Mounds View, the City of New Brighton, and ISD
#621.
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________
Mike Sommer
Police Chief
RESOLUTION 6044
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RENEWAL OF THE 2003-2004 SCHOOL RESOURCE
OFFICER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF MOUNDS VIEW AND NEW BRIGHTON
AND ISD #621
WHEREAS, a School Resource Officer position was implemented at Irondale High School
in 1994 and the creation of this position has had a positive impact for the Mounds View School
District #621, and the cities of New Brighton and Mounds View, and;
WHEREAS, a substantial percentage of the students in attendance at Irondale High
School reside in Mounds View; the current student population is as follows:
34% Mounds View residents
51% New Brighton residents
15% from other communities
WHEREAS, since the implementation of the School Resource Officer position at Irondale
HS, the City of Mounds View has shared the cost of training and assigning a New Brighton Police
Officer to Irondale High School as a School Resource Officer, and;
WHEREAS, the annual cost of this position is based on total personnel expenses,
including benefits and other peripheral expenses, such as vehicle expense, associated with the
position, and;
WHEREAS, the expense formula reflects the current student population percentage per
city, and the actual time the officer is assigned during the school year, and;
WHEREAS, the total program costs are to be shared as follows:
50% paid by the School District #621
30% paid by the City of New Brighton
20% paid by the City of Mounds View
WHEREAS, the cost to the City of Mounds View for this renewal period is expected to be
approximately $11,476.10.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council for the City of Mounds View
approves the renewal of the 2003-2004 School Resource officer agreement between the cities of
Mounds View and New Brighton and ISD#621.
Adopted this 14th day of July, 2003.
ATTEST:
Jerry Linke, Mayor
(seal) James Ericson, Acting City Administrator
Item No: 08C
Meeting Date: July 14, 2003
Type of Business: CA
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: Mike Sommer, Police Chief
Item Title/Subject: Authorization to Purchase six M16A1 rifles through the
1122 program, and purchase of the necessary mounting
hardware and ammunition.
Date of Report: July 14 2003
Background: Mounds View Police squad cars are currently equipped with Remington 870 -12-
gauge shotguns. Some of these shotguns are nearly thirty years old. These are the only long guns
available to officers of Mounds View Police Department. These weapons are loaded with 00 buckshot
which contain nine .32 caliber projectiles. When fired, this weapon distributes the nine .32 caliber
rounds in a random pattern with the pattern spreading over increasing distances proportionate to the
distance fired. The shotguns have an effective range of about 50 yards. In a fully developed suburban
setting, such as Mounds View, in the event it becomes necessary to fire a shotgun, projectiles will be
distributed in a wide pattern. This presents serious safety and liability issues. Numerous cities across
the country have experienced large monetary judgments against them as a result of the use of police
shotguns and the wide shot pattern associated with them. Additionally, numerous cases have
occurred where police have been unable to effectively handle armed encounters with suspects
possessing rifles, as the police lacked a weapon that would be on par with a rifle used by a criminal
suspect. Police rifles in many police agencies are replacing the police shotgun. In our area the
nearby Police Department's of New Brighton, Fridley, Spring Lake Park, Roseville, and Blaine all have
their squads equipped with police rifles. The rifle fires a single projectile, which can be aimed with
much greater accuracy and hit targets at further distances then a shotgun.
Discussion: The U.S. Army Tank, Automotive and Armament Command through the 1122
program allows state and local law enforcement agencies to purchase reconditioned (like new
condition) M16A1 .223 Rifles at a price greatly reduced from the retail price for such a weapon. The
cost per rifle under this program is $421.21(including tax and shipping) The cost for a similar rifle from
Streichers Police Equipment is $649, and $692 from Appleland sports police equipment. The Police
Department currently has a $1500 credit balance with Streichers Police Equipment from a previous
transfer of departmental weapons. The Police Department has budgeted for the expenditure of
forfeiture funds for the purchase of equipment such as police rifles. The total cost of the rifles is within
the amount budgeted from the forfeiture fund for equipment. Staff recommends utilizing $2527 of
forfeiture funds for the purchase of the rifles, and the $1500 credit balance from Streichers Police
Equipment for the ammunition and mounting brackets to mount the rifles in squad cars.
Recommendation: Staff recommends authorization be given for the purchase of police rifles to help
put our officers on par with the weapons used by the criminal elements in our jurisdiction and those
jurisdictions around us that we support or that have mutual aid compact with. Staff recommends
authorization to utilize the Streichers Police Equipment balance of $1500, plus forfeiture funds in the
amount of $2527 for the purchase of six M16A1 rifles through the 1122 program, and purchase of the
necessary mounting equipment, and ammunition, and cases to put the rifles into service.
_____________________
Respectfully submitted by
Mike Sommer, Police Chief
RESOLUTION 6045
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF SIX POLICE RIFLES, AND
REQUIRED MOUNTING EQUIPMENT, AMMUNITION, AND CASES
WHEREAS, the Police Department currently has shotguns mounted in squad cars
available to officers. Some of the shotguns are nearly 30 years old, and the Police Department
has no rifles available to its officers, and;
WHEREAS, the use of police shotguns in a setting such as the City of Mounds View has
been shown to present serious liability and safety issues. Additionally, the shotgun is not an
effective weapon against a suspect possessing a rifle, and;
WHEREAS, most police agencies have police rifles available to officers, and;
WHEREAS, The United States Army has a program that allows state and local law
enforcement agencies to purchase refurbished like new condition M16A1 rifles at a cost of
$421.21 including tax and shipping. Other bids for a similar rifle are $649, and $692 not
including tax or shipping.
WHEREAS, adequate funding is budgeted in the police forfeiture fund for the purchase
of the police rifles. The Police Department has a credit balance at Streichers Police Equipment
of $1500. The credit balance will be used to purchase the ammunition and necessary mounting
brackets for the rifles.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does
hereby authorize staff to purchase six M16 A1 rifles through the U.S. Army 1122 Program,
utilizing forfeiture funds in the amount of $2527, and the necessary mounting equipment, cases
and ammunition utilizing the $1500 credit balance from Streichers police equipment.
Adopted this 14h day of July 2003.
_______________________________
Jerry Linke, Mayor
ATTEST
_______________________________
James Ericson, Acting City Clerk /
Administrator
(SEAL)
1
Item No: 8D
Meeting Date: July 14, 2003
Type of Business: Consent
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Interim City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Festival in the Park Agreement Approval
Discussion:
The Council discussed the Festival Agreement on March 3, 2003 and again on July 7, 2003.
All issues originally raised for discussion have been reviewed and put forward to our attorney
and our insurance carrier, both of whom are accepting of the agreement as drafted. The
only change from the version reviewed on July 7th is the change to the name of the contract
holder—Festival in the Park of Mounds View—rather than Festival Incorporated.
Staff has been provided with a copy of the letter from the IRS confirming Festival in the Park
of Mounds View’s status as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.
Recommendation:
Approve Resolution 6054 authorizing the Mayor and Clerk Administrator to execute the
2003 Festival Agreement with Festival in the Park of Mounds View.
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Interim City Clerk/Administrator
Attachments:
1. Resolution 6054
2
RESOLUTION NO. 6054
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT WITH FESTIVAL
IN THE PARK OF MOUNDS VIEW FOR THE 2003 FESTIVAL IN THE PARK EVENT
WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View desires to co-sponsor an annual
community event entitled “Mounds View Festival in the Park” to be held on August 16
and August 17, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the 2003 Festival Agreement, attached as Exhibit A, has been
reviewed by the City Council, its attorney and its insurance carrier and has been
reviewed and approved for execution by the Festival in the Park of Mounds View, the
non-profit organization in charge of the Festival.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council
does hereby approve the attached Festival Agreement as set forth in Exhibit A and
authorizes its execution by the Mayor and City Clerk/Administrator.
Adopted this 14th day of July 2003.
Jerry Linke, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jim Ericson, Interim City Administrator
(SEAL)
3
FESTIVAL AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this 14th day of July, 2003, by and between the City of
Mounds View, a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota (the “City”) and Festival in the
Park of Mounds View, a Minnesota non-profit corporation (the “Corporation”).
WHEREAS, the City is owner of City Hall, City Hall Park, community center and the Bridges
Golf Course (collectively the “Park”) located within the City; and
WHEREAS, the Corporation desires to sponsor and coordinate an annual community
event entitled, “Mounds View Festival in the Park” (the “Festival”), to be held on August 16 –
17, 2003; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 471.15-.191 and other law, the City has
the authority to operate a program of public recreation and enter into agreements with the Corporation
pertaining to the conduct thereof; and
WHEREAS, the City desires that the Corporation sponsor and coordinate the Festival; and
WHEREAS, the City is willing to support the Festival, as set forth in this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Corporation is willing to undertake the Festival sponsorship and support of the
City in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. Scope of Festival. The Corporation will sponsor and coordinate all aspects of the
Festival.
2. Time and Performance. This Agreement will begin as of July 14, 2003 and will
terminate as of September 31, 2003 (the "Termination Date").
3. City Contribution. In support of the community-based Festival, the City will provide a
contribution of up to $4000.00, which includes the $140.00 dollar amount to be paid by the
Corporation to the City for the amusement license necessary for the Festival, with the amount of such
actual monetary contribution to be reduced by the cost to the City of providing City staff assistance
to the Festival. The City will provide the assistance of City staff to assist the Corporation as set forth
on Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein by reference. The up to $4000.00 City contribution shall
be reduced by the amount of the personnel costs paid by the City for the Festival as set forth in
Exhibit A. The City will provide the assistance of City equipment to assist the Corporation as set
forth on Exhibit B, which is incorporated herein by reference. The City will allow use of the Park
upon the Corporation requesting and obtaining the appropriate permits from the City for the Park.
The City agrees to waive the permit fee for the Park. The City will pay up to the above-referenced
amount, minus the appropriate reductions, to the Corporation after the City’s payroll period
following the Festival.
4
If the Agreement should be terminated for any reason prior to the Termination Date, the
Corporation will be compensated on a pro rata basis for the period of time that this Agreement was in
effect. The Corporation shall pay any and all taxes due to federal, state, and local governments, and the
City shall not withhold any amounts therefor. In addition, the Corporation shall be responsible for any
necessary workers compensation and unemployment insurance required for the individuals performing
services hereunder, and the City shall have no obligation whatsoever in this regard.
4. Independent Contractor. The Corporation and neither it nor any of its volunteers,
employees or agents performing services hereunder shall be an employee of the City. The Corporation
is an independent contractor and it shall retain control over the manner and means of the work set forth
above. The Corporation understands and acknowledges that the City shall not provide any benefits of
any type in connection with this Agreement, including but not limited to health or medical insurance,
workers compensation insurance, or unemployment insurance. The Corporation shall in no case have
the power to bind or obligate the City in any way to any third-party.
5. Insurance.
a. The Corporation shall provide comprehensive general liability insurance for
bodily injury and property damage with a combined single limit of $1,000,000 per
occurrence. Such comprehensive general liability insurance shall include, but not be limited
to, coverage for mechanically-operated amusement devices, alcohol sales, and fireworks
displays. The policies of insurance shall name the City of Mounds View as an additional
insured.
b. The Corporation shall provide evidence of automobile and mobile equipment
insurance coverage for all motorized vehicles used in connection with work under this
Agreement with a combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage of not less
than $1,000,000 per occurrence.
c. The Corporation shall provide Workers’ Compensation coverage in the
statutory amount required for all individuals performing services under this contract such as
contractors’ employees, subcontractors, independent contractors, etc.
d. The Corporation shall provide Employer’s Liability insurance coverage
(Part B. of the Workers’ Compensation Policy) in the amount of $100,000 bodily injury each
accident, bodily injury by disease $500,000 policy limit, $100,000 bodily injury by disease
each employee.
e. A Certificate of Insurance showing coverage as indicated above with a carrier
that is acceptable to the City of Mounds View as well as a copy of all policies of insurance
shall be submitted to the City Clerk-Administrator at least 30 days prior to the Festival. The
City reserves the right to reject the carrier if it is not an A+ carrier licensed to do business in
the State of Minnesota.
f. Nothing herein shall be construed as a waiver of any immunity or limitation
on liability to which the City is entitled under law.
5
6. Termination. If either party fails to perform its obligations under this Agreement, the
other party may terminate this Agreement by giving written notice of the intention to terminate to the
other party at least thirty (30) days prior to such termination, provided, however, that if the
Corporation’s failure to perform its obligations hereunder creates or constitutes, in the sole judgment of
the City, a threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, the City may immediately terminate this
Agreement.
7. General Terms and Conditions.
a. The Corporation will provide all equipment used by the Corporation, except the City
equipment as set forth in Exhibit B which is incorporated herein by reference.
b. Corporation will control its own schedule of work hours as necessary to sponsor and
coordinate the Festival.
c. Any and all reports, and other work products, whether completed or not, that are
prepared or developed by the Corporation as a part of this Agreement shall be jointly owned by
the City and the Corporation and shall be made available to the City promptly at the City's
request or at the termination of this Agreement. The Corporation shall provide annual financial
reports including all revenues and expenditures related to the Festival for the past three years
prior to execution of this Agreement and a financial report including all revenues and
expenditures related to the Festival for the present year within thirty days of the date of the
Festival.
d. Any titles of the several parts of the Agreement are inserted for convenience of
reference only and shall be disregarded in construing or interpreting any of its provisions.
e. A notice, demand, or other communication under this Agreement by either party to the
other shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is dispatched by registered or certified mail,
postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally to the following addresses:
City: 2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
ATTN: Clerk-Administrator
Corporation: 8120 Red Oak Court
Mounds View, MN 55112-5843
ATTN: Sherry Gunn
or at such other address with respect to either such party as that party may, from time to time,
designate in writing and forward to the other as provided in this Section.
f. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall
constitute one and the same instrument.
g. This Agreement is made and shall be governed in all respects by the laws of the state
of Minnesota. Any disputes, controversies, or claims arising out of this Agreement shall be
heard in the state or federal courts of Minnesota, and the parties to this Agreement waive any
objection to the jurisdiction of these courts, whether based on convenience or otherwise.
6
h. If any p rovision or application of this Agreement is held unlawful or unenforceable in
any respect, such illegality or unenforceability shall not affect other provisions or
applications that can be given effect, and this Agreement shall be construed as if the unlawful
or unenforceable provision or application had never been contained herein or prescribed
hereby.
i. This Agreement, together with its Exhibits, which is incorporated by reference,
constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of all mutual understandings between the
parties with respect to this Agreement, superseding all prior or contemporaneous proposals,
communications, and understandings, whether oral or written, concerning this Agreement.
This Agreement may not be amended nor any of its terms modified except by a writing
authorized and executed by both parties hereto.
8. The Corporation shall protect, indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City and its
governing body members, officers, agents, servants, and against and from any claim, demand, suit,
action, or other proceeding whatsoever by any person or entity whatsoever arising or purportedly
arising from this Agreement or the activities undertaken pursuant to it. The provisions of this
paragraph 8 shall survive termination of this Agreement.
9. The Corporation will provide the City with a comprehensive accounting and detailing
of the expenditure of funds contributed by the City to the Festival and the Corporation.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date
first written above.
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
By: __________________________________
Its: Mayor
By: __________________________________
Its: Clerk-Administrator
FESTIVAL IN THE PARK OF MOUNDS VIEW
By: __________________________________
Its: __________________________________
By: __________________________________
Its: __________________________________
SJR-199377v6
MU125-11
A-1
EXHIBIT A
CITY STAFF ASSISTANCE ESTIMATE
1. Maintenance workers:
2 workers x 20 hrs @ approx. $32/hr $1,280.00
3 seasonal workers x 12 hrs @ approx. $10/hr $ 360.00
2. Police:
2 officers x 8 hrs @ approx. $55/hr $ 880.00
$2,520.00
SJR-199377v6
MU125-11
A-1
EXHIBIT B
CITY EQUIPMENT
1. Public Works Equipment:
550 truck
409 truck
tandem trailer
front end loader
104 truck
Jacobsen
city Honda generator
469 truck
1 ton truck
post pounder
L8000 dump truck
hoses
extension cords
water shut off keys
2. Fire Dept:
fire truck
3. The Bridges:
4 golf carts
Item No: 8F
Meeting Date: July 14, 2003
Type of Business: Consent
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Interim City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Reinstatement of Vacation Hours Forfeited in 2002 to
Jim Ericson, Interim City Administrator
Introduction:
Mounds View Personnel Policy states that employees shall be able to carry over at the
end of a year the amount of vacation time accrued in that year plus two additional weeks.
At the June 23, 2003 meeting of the City Council, the issue was raised that I had forfeited
vacation time at the end of this last year and I was asked to bring forward a report to the
next regular meeting and a resolution to reinstate those hours.
Discussion:
At the end of 2002, I was unable to utilize some planned vacation due to an unexpected
resignation in the community development department and the impending resignations
and personal time off of the City Administrator and the assistant City Administrator. As a
result, I was unable to use a week of vacation and as such forfeited 31.93 hours on
January 1, 2003 pursuant to the Personnel Manual.
Exceptions have been made to this policy for similar situations where vacation time was
unable to be used due to mitigating factors such as scheduling conflicts and staffing
vacancies which may limit the ability to take a vacation.
Recommendation:
If the Council deems it appropriate, Resolution 6055 is attached for your approval.
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Interim City Clerk/Administrator
Attachments:
1. Resolution 6055
RESOLUTION NO. 6055
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING REINSTATEMENT OF 31.93 FORFEITED VACATION
HOURS TO JIM ERICSON, INTERIM CITY ADMINISTRATOR
WHEREAS, The Mounds View Personnel Manual states that employees may carry-over
at the end of each year the amount of vacation time accrued in that year plus an additional two
weeks of time; and
WHEREAS, at the end of 2002, Jim Ericson had accrued a balance of 231.93 vacation
hours, 31.93 hour more than what is allowed to be carried over into 2003; and,
WHEREAS, exceptions have been made to this policy under extenuating and mitigating
circumstances, such as scheduling conflicts and personnel vacancies which would leave the
department less able to meet its service obligations; and,
WHEREAS, vacation time which had been planned by Mr. Ericson was cancelled as a
result of an unplanned department resignation and the resignations of two of the City’s
management staff.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Mounds View City Council
does hereby approve the reinstatement of 31.93 hours of forfeited vacation time to Jim Ericson,
Interim City Administrator.
Adopted this 23rd day of June 2003.
______________________________
Jerry Linke, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
James Ericson, Interim City Clerk/Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No: 8G
Meeting Date: July 14, 2003
Type of Business: Consent
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Interim City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Resolution 6056 Proclaiming
Support of County-Wide 800 MHz Digital Trunked
Communications System
Introduction:
Paul Kirkwold, Ramsey County Manager, has asked Mounds View and all other Ramsey
County suburban municipalities to lend its support toward a County-wide 800 MHz digital
trunked communications system. The resolution in no way obligates the City to participating
with or financing such a system. The resolution however will be used to enhance the
County’s position as it applies for grants and other alternative funding sources to lessen the
cost of the system and the future cost to the City if it chooses to participate.
Discussion:
Staff provided the Council with some background information in the July 7, 2003 worksession
packet that explains the benefits of such a coordinated communications system. Chief
Sommer supports this type of communications system and believes that Mounds View will
want to participate in once the system becomes operational and the costs are known. The
County has indicated that they will be bonding for the cost of the system and municipalities
will have many options for repayment if they should choose to participate.
Again, the adoption of the attached resolution does not obligate the City to participate nor
does it obligate any financial outlay from the City. The intention of the resolution is solely to
show unified support as the County applies for grants and other funding opportunities.
Recommendation:
Resolution 6056 is attached for your approval.
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Interim City Clerk/Administrator
Attachments:
1. Resolution 6056
RESOLUTION NO. 6056
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A COUNTY-WIDE 800 MHz DIGITAL
TRUNKED COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
WHEREAS, The City OF Mounds View has been reviewing the needs of the radio
communication system that provides emergency services to police, fire, and emergency medical
agencies in its jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, The Metropolitan Radio Board, as a result of legislative changes, has the
authority and resources to provide financial assistance to local units of government in the
metropolitan area that plan to participate in the regional 800MHz digital trunked communication
system; and
WHEREAS, Special legislative authority has been given to Minnesota counties to issue
bonds for the purpose of deigning, constructing, and installing the infrastructure, facilities and
equipment necessary to participate in the regional system; and
WHEREAS, Federal funds have been appropriated and made available through the
Minnesota Department of Public Safety to supplement local and state funds for the purpose of
participating in the regional system, for which metropolitan area local governments are eligible;
and
WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Mounds View has determined that its
participation in the regional system would improve its interoperability among its various agencies
and with other jurisdictions for purposes of mutual aid and emergency medical services, thus
improving public safety, as well as the entire region’s ability to respond to weapons of mass
destruction incidents;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the City Council of the City of Mounds
View intends to proceed with planning for development of an upgraded radio communication
system with the intention of participating in the regional system and that the Metropolitan Radio
Board be notified of Mounds View’s intention and request any state or federal financial
incentives that my be offered to local jurisdictions.
Adopted this 14th day of July, 2003.
______________________________
Jerry Linke, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
James Ericson, Interim City Clerk/Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No: 8H
Meeting Date: July 14, 2003
Type of Business: CA
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: Mike Sommer, Police Chief
Item Title/Subject: Authorization to partner with Ramsey County Sheriffs
Department in pursuing a grant for Safe and Sober
enforcement efforts
Date of Report: July 14, 2003
Background: The Department of Public Safety is seeking proposals from municipal and
county law enforcement agencies to conduct highly publicized, overtime enforcement
projects addressing traffic safety issues with an emphasis on impaired driving and
passenger protection use. A representative approached the Mounds View Police
Department from the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Department about partnering with them in
pursuing a grant under the safe and sober program. The majority of proposals approved
will be $25,000 or less. The size of the community and the number of officers eligible to
work the project are considerations in grant awards. The grant funds are available on a
cost reimbursement basis; costs are reimbursed after they are incurred and paid by the
grantee agencies. In multiple agency grants, the lead agency submits a single invoice for
all involved and makes reimbursements to its partners from the check received.
Because these are federal funds, the project year begins on October 1, 2003 and ends
on September 30, 2004.
Discussion: The Mounds View Police Department has pursued safe and sober grant
opportunities in the past, however, were unsuccessful in obtaining an award. By
partnering with a larger organization the likelihood of receiving an award is enhanced.
Enforcement efforts are usually focused around holiday weekends and other periods of
increased traffic volume. Officers interested in participating in these overtime
opportunities would do so during normally scheduled time off.
Recommendation: Staff recommends Council authorization to partner with the
Ramsey County Sheriff’s Department in pursuing a grand opportunity under the Safe and
Sober program.
_______________________
Respectfully submitted by
Mike Sommer, Police Chief
RESOLUTION 6048
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MOUNDS VIEW POLICE DEPARTMENT TO
PARTNER WITH THE RAMSEY COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT IN
PURSUING A GRANT UNDER THE SAFE AND SOBER PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Department of Public Safety is seeking proposals from law enforcement
agencies to conduct highly publicized, overtime enforcement projects addressing traffic safety
issues; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Police Department has been approached by the Ramsey
County Sheriff’s Department inviting us to participate with them in this grant proposal; and,
WHEREAS, if successful in receiving an award, Ramsey County will act as the lead
agency, and all personnel costs incurred through safe and sober enforcement efforts will be
reimbursed to the city of Mounds View; and,
WHEREAS, all allocated manpower resources will be on a volunteer basis, and will be
on an officers scheduled time off.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does
hereby authorize staff to partner with the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Department in applying for a
grant under the Safe and Sober grant program.
Adopted this 14th day of July, 2003
_______________________________
Jerry Linke, Mayor
ATTEST
_______________________________
James Ericson, Acting City Clerk /
Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No: 8I
Meeting Date: July 14, 2003
Type of Business: CA
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Tracy Juell, Public Works Administrative Assistant
Item Title/Subject: Contract for Annual Inspection of Sprinkler Systems
Introduction:
City buildings (City Hall, Public Works, Treatment Plant, Community Center) have annual
inspections of their combined seven (7) wet automatic sprinkler systems and one (1) kitchen
hood. Annual inspections occur in September.
Discussion:
Viking Automatic Sprinkler Co. has tested the City’s sprinkler systems for a number of years
and they submitted a contract renewal informing the City that 2003 costs have increased to
$660.00. (2002 costs were $600.00.) Staff contacted other companies for a quote for
inspection services; they are as follows:
Company Annual Amount*
Viking Automatic Sprinkler Co. $660.00/year
Summit Fire Protection $720.00/year
Response Fire $975.00/year
Merit Fire Did not submit quote
*It should be noted that these quotes are for inspection services only; any additional
maintenance, repairs, or alterations would be at the company’s prevailing rates.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve a two (2) year contract with Viking
Automatic Sprinkler Co. to provide inspections for seven (7) wet automatic sprinkler
systems and one (1) kitchen hood annually.
RESOLUTION NO. 6043
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING THE CONTRACT AWARD FOR THE ANNUAL AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER
SYSTEMS WITHIN THE CITY BUILDINGS
WHEREAS, the City must perform annual inspections of the seven (7) wet
automatic sprinkler systems and one (1) kitchen hood within the City buildings; and
WHEREAS, the City currently has a contract with Viking Automatic Sprinkler Co.
for these inspections; and
WHEREAS, two (2) additional bids were received and compared to the current
contract; and
WHEREAS, the low bidder was Viking Automatic Sprinkler Co. with an annual
bid of $660.00; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mounds View City Council
does hereby approve a contract with Viking Automatic Sprinkler Co. to perform the
annual sprinkler system inspections within the City buildings.
Adopted this 14th day of July, 2003.
Jerry Linke, Mayor
ATTEST:
James Ericson, Interim City Admistrator
(seal)
Item No. 8L
Type of Business: CA
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: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Resolution No. 6051 Authorizing the Preparation of a
Preliminary Feasibility Report and Consultant
Selection for the Construction of a Sedimentation
Pond in Silverview Park
Meeting Date: July 14, 2003
Background:
At the July 7, 2003 Work Session, Staff discussed the status of several aspects
of the County Road H2 Project, including the inability to install two infiltration
basins planned on the south side of County Road H2.
Based on discussions with the Rice Creek Watershed District Director, the City
should submit a proposal to install a sedimentation pond near the northwest area
of Silverview Pond. By doing so, the Watershed District may allow the elimination
of the two required basins on the south side of County Road H2.
Discussion:
The development of a feasibility report and sedimentation pond at the west end
of Silverview Pond is included in the City Local Water Management Plan at an
estimated cost of $33,000. This pond is also included in the City’s Capital
Improvement Program scheduled for the year 2004.
By constructing the pond, the City potentially will not be required to expend funds
to construct the two infiltration basins. The pond will also serve to enhance the
water quality for Silverview Pond by removing sediment and nutrients from the
currently untreated run-off of the parking lot and other sources from the west.
Preliminary Report - The first step in a public improvement process is the
preparation of a preliminary engineering report. It is recommended that the
preliminary report be ordered at this time to determine the need and feasibility,
both physical and economic, of providing the necessary public improvements.
Consultant Selection – There are several engineering consultants within the
City’s “consultant pool” from whom services could be obtained. The engineering
firm of Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. (SEH) has unsurpassed knowledge
pertaining to the City’s water management plan; SEH created the plan. Staff
recommends that the Council retain the services of the engineering firm of SEH
to assist in the preparation of the preliminary engineering report and other
aspects of this project, as directed by City Council.
Recommendation:
It is recommended the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the preparation
of a preliminary feasibility report and the selection of a consultant for the
Silverview Sedimentation Pond Project.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
RESOLUTION NO. 6051
AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF A PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY
REPORT AND CONSULTANT SELECTION FOR THE SILVER VIEW
SEDIMENTATION POND PROJECT
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, Based on discussions with the Rice Creek Watershed
District Director, the City should submit a proposal to install a sedimentation pond
near the northwest area of Silverview; and
WHEREAS, the development of a feasibility report and
sedimentation pond at the west end of Silverview Pond is included in the City’s
Local Water Management Plan at an estimated cost of $33,000; and
WHEREAS, this pond is also included in the City’s Capital
Improvement Program scheduled for the year; and
WHEREAS, there are several engineering consultants within the
City’s “consultant pool” from whom services could be obtained; and
WHEREAS, Staff recommends that the Council retain the services
the engineering firm of Short Elloitt Henderickson Inc. (SEH) to assist in the
preparation of the preliminary engineering report and other aspects of this
project, as directed by City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1. It is hereby authorized that the preliminary report for the Silverview
Pond Project be prepared. Said preliminary report shall include an
analysis as to whether the proposed improvements are necessary,
cost effective, and feasible.
2. The services of the engineering firm of Short Elloitt Henderickson
Inc. (SEH) shall be retained to assist in the preparation of the
preliminary engineering report and other aspects of this project, as
directed by City Council.
Adopted this 14th day of July 2003.
______________________________
Jerry Linke, Mayor
(ATTEST) _______________________________
James Ericson
Interim City Clerk/Administrator
(SEAL)
RESOLUTION NO. 6057
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A STEP INCREASE FOR MICHAEL SOMMER,
MOUNDS VIEW CHIEF OF POLICE
WHEREAS, Chief of Police Michael Sommer is a regular full-time
employee who began working for the City of Mounds View on January 12, 2003;
and,
WHEREAS, Mr. Sommer’s work performance has been rated satisfactory
and higher by his supervisor; and,
WHEREAS, Mr. Sommer’s supervisor recommends that the City Council
approve a wage adjustment from Step three to Step four, consistent with the
City’s personnel policies and with Resolution 5903, adopted December 9, 2002.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City
Council does hereby approve a step increase for Mike Sommer from Step three
($33.40/hr) to Step four ($35.25/hr) effective July 12, 2003.
Adopted this 14th Day of July, 2003.
____________________________________
Jerry Linke, Mayor
ATTEST
____________________________________
James Ericson, Interim City Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No: 8N
Meeting Date: July 14, 2003
Type of Business: Consent
RESOLUTION NO. 6058
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A STEP INCREASE FOR MARY BURG,
BRIDGES GOLF COURSE MANAGER
WHEREAS, Bridges Golf Course Manager Mary Burg is a regular full-time
employee who began working for the City of Mounds View on December 23,
2002; and,
WHEREAS, Ms. Burg’s work performance has been rated satisfactory and
higher by her supervisor; and,
WHEREAS, Ms. Burg’s supervisor recommends that the City Council
approve a wage adjustment from Step three to Step four, consistent with the
City’s personnel policies and with Resolution 5895, adopted December 9, 2002.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City
Council does hereby approve a step increase for Mary Burg from Step three
($29.41/hr) to Step four ($31.05/hr) effective June 23, 2003.
Adopted this 14th Day of July, 2003.
____________________________________
Jerry Linke, Mayor
ATTEST
____________________________________
James Ericson, Interim City Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No: 8O
Meeting Date: July 14, 2003
Type of Business: Consent
Item No: 9A
Type of Business: CB
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: Mike Sommer, Chief of Police
Item Title/Subject: Authorization to Advertise for the Community Service
Officer Vacancy in the Police Department
Background:
The position of Community Service Officer within the Police Department has been vacant
since May 12, 2003. At the March 17 work session a restructured Community Service
Officer (CSO) position was presented. The restructured CSO position would have no
benefits package associated with it, have a lower rate of pay, and be scheduled fewer
work hours then the previous Community Service Officer position. This would result in
significant savings from the funds already budgeted for the position in 2003, and the
savings would continue into the future as result of the lower pay rate for the position.
Reducing the rate of pay of the community service Officer to $10.41 an hour (with no
benefits) compared to the former community service Officer rate of $16.18 an hour, and
scheduling the community service Officer 3.5 hours per day instead of 4.0 hours will
result in a personnel savings of over $12,000 in pay and benefits per year due to
restructuring the position. A revised Community Service Officer job description was
submitted for review to the interim city administrator. The job description for the new
Senior Clerk Typist position was amended to include evidence technician duties
previously performed by the CSO. Duties of the restructured Community Service Officer
include:
• Pickup stray animals as required or as requested by citizen complaint.
• Assist officers with traffic control, traffic and radar surveys.
• Perform house-watch duties to help ensure the safety and security of property belonging
to residents out of the city for a period of time.
• Trap and relocate undomesticated animals.
• Assist in the maintenance of agency equipment and medical supplies.
• Transport equipment or personnel as requested.
• Answer administrative phones when needed.
• Recovery of stolen, lost or abandon property (i.e. bicycles)
On March 11, 2003 a meeting of the Mounds View Police Civil Service Commission was
held. At this meeting the police civil service commission unanimously passed a motion
authorizing Chief Sommer to seek council approval to advertise to hire the vacant CSO
position.
Discussion:
The former Community Service Officer was hired into the position of Senior Clerk typist.
Since that time, the Community Service Officer position has been vacant. Filling the
community service Officer vacancy would free sworn officers from having to perform the
service functions that were previously done by a Community Service Officer.
Recommendation:
Approve Resolution 6046 authorizing staff to advertise for the vacant Community Service
Officer position.
________________________
Respectfully submitted by
Mike Sommer, Police Chief
RESOLUTION NO. 6046
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR THE VACANT COMMUNITY SERVICE
OFFICER POSITION IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
WHEREAS, there is currently a vacant position in the Police Department, and
WHEREAS, The Mounds View Police Civil Service Commission has authorized
the Police Department to seek council approval to advertise to hire the vacant
Community Service Officer position; and
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the importance of the Community
Service Officer functions performed in the City and desires to fill the vacancy created by
the reassignment of the former Community Service Officer; and
WHEREAS, the job description for the position will be reviewed to establish an
appropriate salary range with such range requiring subsequent Council approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council
does hereby authorize the Police Department to advertise for the vacant Community
Service Officer position.
Adopted this 14th day of July 2003.
_______________________________
Jerry Linke, Mayor
ATTEST
________________________________
James Ericson, City Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No: 09B
Meeting Date: July 14, 2003
Type of Business: Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Acting City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Resolution 6059 Approving the
Legal Services Agreement with Kennedy & Graven
Introduction:
At the worksession on July 7, 2003, the Council met with Scott Riggs and Bob Vose to
discuss the proposed legal services agreement with Kennedy & Graven. Staff had
suggested that the agreement be modified to include training and regular communications as
well as requesting that the attorney clarify response time and what staff could expect in the
future. The agreement has been so modified and is attached for the Council’s review.
Discussion:
The City Council asked Mr. Riggs to suggest ways in which legal fees could be minimized.
One suggestion offered related to the number of meetings the City Attorney attends on a
monthly basis. If the City Attorney only attends one of the Council meetings instead of two,
substantial retainer savings could be realized over the course of a year. If the Council would
like to pursue this option, the legal services agreement would need to be modified and the
monthly retainer amount adjusted accordingly.
Mr. Riggs also suggested that the City review the agreement after three months and
continue to assess its satisfaction with the legal services received on a quarterly basis.
Last, while not explicitly stated in the agreement, there should be an agreement as to the
timeliness of response from the City Attorney. At the worksession, staff indicated a desire
for same-day responses for all inquiries, or next day responses if a question is posed in the
afternoon. Also important is to know the City Attorney’s schedule so staff may better
anticipate the City Attorney’s availability.
Recommendation:
Discuss the agreement for Legal services with the firm of Kennedy & Graven. If no changes
to the agreement are necessary, staff would recommend approval of Resolution 6059, a
resolution authorizing the execution of the legal services agreement with the firm of Kennedy
& Graven for a period of two years.
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Interim City Clerk/Administrator
RESOLUTION NO. 6059
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A TWO-YEAR LEGAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH KENNEDY & GRAVEN TO PROVIDE CITY ATTORNEY
SERVICES TO THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2003, the City Council of the City of Mounds View
adopted Resolution 5963 which authorized staff to distribute requests for proposals
(RFPs) for legal services; and
WHEREAS, upon closure of the period to submit a response, the City had
received proposals from thirteen firms, ten of which submitted proposals to provide the
City with civil representation services; and,
WHEREAS, on Thursday, June 12, 2003, six law firms were interviewed and
asked a series of questions in an effort to ascertain which form should be chosen to
represent the City’s civil affairs; and,
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2003, staff identified four firms that stood out from the
rest and from the four firms, the City Council selected to interview only one law firm—
Kennedy & Graven; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council met with representatives from Kennedy & Graven
on July 7, 2003 and directed that a retainer agreement be approved at the July 14th
meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Mounds View City Council
does hereby approve the retainer agreement from Kennedy & Graven to provide civil
legal services for a two year period beginning July 14, 2003.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, THAT the agreement and the
service provided shall be reviewed after three months to ENSURE City Council
satisfaction with the arrangements.
Adopted this 14th day of July 2003.
______________________________
Jerry Linke, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
James Ericson, Interim City Clerk/Administrator
(SEAL)
AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES
This Agreement, entered into between the CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW, a Minnesota
municipal corporation (City) and the law firm of KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED (City
Attorney) as of this 14th day of July, 2003, provides as follows:
SECTION 1. Background: Findings.
1.01. Authority. The appointment and removal of the City Attorney are made by the
City Council.
1.02. Council Determination. At a duly called regular meeting of the City Council held
on June 23, 2003, the City Council determined that the firm of Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
be engaged as City Attorney, with Scott J. Riggs and Robert J. V. Vose of that firm serving as
primary legal counsel for the City and instructed the City Clerk-Administrator to prepare an
agreement between the firm and the City setting forth the terms and conditions of the
engagement.
SECTION 2. Terms and Conditions.
2.01. Consideration. In consideration of the mutual promises and conditions
contained in this Agreement the City and the City Attorney agree to the terms and conditions
set forth herein.
2.02. City Attorney Appointment. The City appoints the firm of Kennedy & Graven,
Chartered as City Attorney, with Scott J. Riggs and Robert J. V. Vose acting as primary legal
counsel for the City.
2.03. Usual and Customary Legal Services. The City Attorney agrees to perform all
usual and customary legal services for the City in accordance with the terms of this
Agreement, including, but not limited to the following:
a. Attendance by the primary legal counsel from the firm, as requested, at
Council meetings;
b. Meetings with staff and public groups as requested by the Council or the City
Clerk-Administrator and public hearings before the Council;
c. Review and preparation of contracts, performance bonds, insurance and
other routine legal documents;
d. Ordinance code amendments and preparation of resolutions;
e. Formal and informal legal advice to Council, staff and committees;
f. Responses to inquiries from the public on matters not directly related to
criminal prosecution activities;
g. Regular training for staff including, but not limited to, human resource issues,
sexual harassment, city government procedures, employee discipline
procedures, workers compensation, OSHA issues;
h. Occasional attendance at staff meetings as directed by the City Clerk-
Administrator;
i. Legal updates, alerts and opinions to staff on issues affecting the City;
j. Proactive advice as to City Code and personnel policies;
k. All other routine legal services except those pertaining to:
i. land acquisitions and sales;
ii. litigation, administrative proceedings, eminent domain and special
assessment appeals;
iii. review of subdivision and land development contracts;
iv. approval of improvement bonds/proceedings and other authorized
bond issues;
v. telecommunication matters;
vi. employment matters and labor negotiations;
vii. Economic Development Authority matters involving the establishment
of tax increment financing districts and development contracts;
viii. Separate Commissions of the City including, but not limited to
Economic Development Authority, Police Civil Service Commission,
and Charter Commission.
As an aid to the interpretation of the services to be covered by the retainer
agreement, the following definitions would apply:
“Administrative proceedings” means services directly related and preparatory
to representing the City or its agencies before a federal, state or regional
administrative agency.
“Eminent domain” means services performed directly related and preparatory
to the commencement of an action of eminent domain by or against the City or its
agencies.
“Litigation” means services performed by the city attorney: (a) in response to
a claim filed against the City or an action commenced against the City, its agencies,
or their officers, agents or employees; (b) in response to administrative proceedings;
and (c) appearances on behalf of the City or its agencies before state or federal
courts, boards or commissions.
“Routine” means matters usual and customarily undertaken by a city attorney
in the discharge of office.
2.04. Compensation for Legal Services. For legal services, except as provided in
Section 2.08, the City agrees to compensate the City Attorney at the following hourly rates for
services indicated below:
a. For all attorneys in general municipal matters as set forth in Section 2.03
(except Section 2.03(k)) pursuant to a monthly retainer in the amount of
$3,000.00.
b. For all attorneys for matters set forth in Section 2.03(k) as follows:
i. For all attorneys in real estate matters, telecommunication matters,
employment and labor negotiation matters
$140/hr.
ii. For all attorneys in litigation and administrative proceedings
$150/hr.
iii. For all attorneys in matters in which costs are passed through
to developer
$160/hr.
iv. For all attorneys in development, redevelopment and tax
increment matters
$170/hr.
v. For all law clerks for work not covered by the retainer
set forth in Section 2.04(a)
$75/hr.
vi. For all paralegals for work not covered by the retainer
set forth in Section 2.04(a)
$95/hr.
vii. Bond counsel services as set forth in Section 2.08.
2.05. Compensation for Expenses. The City will compensate the City Attorney
for the following actual and necessary expenses incurred by the City Attorney on behalf
of the City:
The firm will bill its out-of-pocket costs for such things as postage, long distance
telephone calls, photocopying, filing fees and witness fees, and similar items.
Photocopying: $.20 per page
Facsimiles $.50 per page
Mileage: $.36 per mile
Westlaw or Lexis fees: Actual cost charged
Other charges such as: Actual cost charged
Messenger service
Express mail
Long distance telephone calls
Filing fees
Parking fees
Our monthly billing statements provide detail for all fees and costs.
2.06. Billing Statements. Billings by the City Attorney to the City for services will be
on a monthly basis, except as may otherwise be agreed upon by the parties. The billing
statement shall be of sufficient detail to adequately inform the City concerning the tasks
performed, the attorney or staff performing them, the time spent on each task and the nature
and extent of costs and disbursements. The statement shall also contain a summary that
shows the total time spent for each category and the total fees, charges and disbursements
for each category.
2.07. Term of Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall be for two years. The
hourly rates specified in this Agreement will remain in effect for the term of this Agreement.
2.08. Bond Counsel Services. The City Attorney will act as approving bond counsel
for the City if so requested by the City. These services are not part of this Agreement, but
may be made such by mutual agreement of the parties. In the event such services are
desired by the City, fees for these services will be those usual and customarily charged by
the firm of Kennedy & Graven, Chartered.
2.09. Primary Legal Counsel. It is the intention of the parties and it is hereby agreed
by the City Attorney, that the term "primary legal counsel" as used herein means and refers
to Scott J. Riggs and Robert J. V. Vose who will, except in the case of extraordinary
circumstances involving disability, unavoidable conflict or other good and substantial reasons,
perform, supervise and be responsible to the City for the legal services to be provided.
2.10. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, any attached exhibits and any addenda
or amendments signed by the parties shall constitute the entire agreement between the
City and the City Attorney, and supersedes any other written or oral agreements between
the City and the City Attorney. This Agreement can only be modified in writing signed by
the City and the City Attorney.
2.11. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by the City at any time or by
the City Attorney upon 30 days written notice.
2.12. Conflict of Interest. The City Attorney shall use best efforts to meet all
professional obligations to avoid conflicts of interest and appearances of impropriety in
representation of the City. In the event of a conflict, the City Attorney, with the consent of the
City, shall arrange for suitable alternative legal representation. It is the intent of the City
Attorney to refrain from handling legal matters for any other person or entity that may pose a
conflict of interest.
2.13. Agreement Not Assignable. Except as provided in Paragraph 2.12 of this
Agreement relating to conflicts of interest, the rights and obligations created by this
Agreement may not be assigned by either party.
2.14. Agreement Not Exclusive. The City retains the right to hire other legal
representation for specific legal matters.
2.15. Independent Contractor Status. All services provided by the City Attorney
pursuant to this Agreement shall be provided by the City Attorney as an independent
contractor and not as an employee of the City for any purpose, including but not limited to:
income tax withholding, workers' compensation, unemployment compensation, FICA
taxes, liability for torts and eligibility for employee benefits.
2.16. Work Products. All records, information, materials and other work products
prepared and developed in connection with the provision of services pursuant to this
Agreement shall become the property of the City.
2.17. Insurance. The City Attorney shall maintain professional liability (malpractice)
insurance in the minimum amount of $1,000,000.
2.18. Data Practices Act Compliance. Data provided to the City Attorney under this
Agreement shall be administered in accordance with the Minnesota Government Data
Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.
2.19. Choices of Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and
construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Minnesota. Any disputes,
controversies, or claims arising out of this Agreement shall be heard in the state or federal
courts of Minnesota, and all parties to this Agreement waive any objection to the
jurisdiction of these courts, whether based on convenience or otherwise.
2.20. Agreement Extensions. Subject to the rights of termination described in
Section 2.11, the provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed to be automatically extended
from year-to-year or extended with such modifications or adjustments as the City and City
Attorney may from time-to-time mutually agree.
[The remainder of this page is intentionally blank]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this agreement to be duly
executed by their proper officers and representatives as of the day and year first
above written.
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA By: ________________________________________
Jerry Linke
Its: Mayor
By: _______________________________________
Jim Ericson
Its: Interim City Clerk-Administrator
KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED
By: ________________________________________
Scott J. Riggs
City Attorney
By: ______________________________________
Robert J. V. Vose
City Attorney
Item No. 9C
Type of Business: CB
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: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: County Road H Sidewalk Improvement Project
Resolution No. 6042 Approving the Preliminary
Feasibility Report and Ordering the Project
Meeting Date: July 14, 2003
Background:
On January 27, 2003, the City Council approved Resolution No. 5936 authorizing
the preparation of a preliminary feasibility report and plans and specifications for
the County Road H sidewalk project – from Edgewood Drive to the West City
Limits.
A draft of the report was completed and was presented to the City Council on
May 5, 2003 at a Work Session. At that time, Staff asked the City Council for
direction on the following three issues:
1. Which scenario they preferred.
Scenario 1 – Five (5) foot concrete walkway
Scenario 2 – Six and one-half (6 ½) foot concrete walkway
Scenario 3 – Eight (8) foot bituminous pathway
The City Council indicated that they preferred Scenario 2, a Six and one-
half (6 ½) foot concrete walkway.
2. Where the pathway / sidewalk should terminate (Silver Lake Road or the
West City Limits).
The City Council did not express a preference on this issue.
3. What the funding source will be.
The City Council indicated that they preferred to utilize the Tax Increment
Fund as a revenue source for this project.
On June 23, 2003, a Public Improvement Hearing was held and Resolution No.
6042 was presented to the City Council to approve the Preliminary Feasibility
Report and Order the Project. At that meeting the City Council made a motion
and approved tabling further discussion until the Council Work Session on July 7,
2003. At the July 7th Work Session, the City Council directed Staff to place
Resolution No. 6042 on the July 14th Council agenda.
Discussion:
Considerations if the Project Proceeds – Should the Council wish to proceed
with this project, the following previously posed questions will need to be
addressed formally. In addition, Staff should be given direction regarding the
issues.
What scenario is preferred?
Scenario 1 – Five (5) foot concrete walkway
Scenario 2 – Six and one-half (6 ½) foot concrete walkway
Scenario 3 – Eight (8) foot bituminous pathway
*Staff would like to note to the City Council that selection of a scenario might set
a precedent for the remaining approximately 12 ½ miles of pathways and
sidewalks yet to be constructed, as reflected in the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
In this particular case, the cost difference between a five (5) foot and a six and
one-half (6½) sidewalk is over $38,000. This amount could be applied toward the
purchase of a piece of equipment to plow and maintain a five (5) foot sidewalk
(approximate total cost of $70,000). As the City’s sidewalk and pathway system
grows, the City will need to consider the efficiency of maintaining this system.
Regardless of the width of the sidewalk, or if this proposal is approved, the
benefits and cost savings of maintaining all City sidewalks with a piece of
equipment that operates faster and is more maneuverable will need to be
considered. Another note on five (5) foot sidewalks is that they will have less
impact on adjacent properties.
Where should the sidewalk terminate? Silver Lake Road or the West City Limits
What will the funding source be?
Preliminary Report – As previously mentioned, a preliminary report has been
prepared, based on the Council's authorization: however, the report has not been
formally approved by City Council. Based upon this analysis, Staff feels the
project is physically and financially feasible.
Order the Project – Should the Council wish to proceed with this project, the
next step in the public improvement process is to order the project.
Authorize Plans and Specifications – The City Council ordered the preparation
of plans and specifications on January 27, 2003. Should the Council wish to
proceed with this project, the plans and specifications will be presented to the
City Council on July 28, 2003 for approval.
What’s Next – Should the Council wish to proceed with this project, the following
is a tentative schedule:
July 28, 2003 Approve plans and specifications
July 28, 2003 Set a bid date
August 6, 2003 First advertisement for bids
August 28, 2003 Receive bids
September 8, 2003 Award contract
September 15, 2003 Start project
Recommendation:
If the City Council wishes to proceed with the County Road H Sidewalk
Improvement Project, it is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution
No. 6042 approving the preliminary feasibility report and ordering the project.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
RESOLUTION NO. 6042
APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY REPORT AND ORDERING
THE COUNTY ROAD H SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2003, the City Council authorized the
preparation of a preliminary feasibility report for the installation of a sidewalk on
the north side of County Road H from Edgewood Drive to the West City Limits;
and
WHEREAS, a draft of the report was completed and was presented
to the City Council on May 5, 2003 at a Work Session; and
WHEREAS, Staff organized and conducted a Neighborhood
Meeting on June 10, 2003, to present and discuss the proposed sidewalk project;
and
WHEREAS, a Public Improvement Hearing was not required,
according to State Statute: however a hearing was held on June 23, 2003, to
provide interested parties an opportunity to learn more about the proposed
improvements and to comment on them; and
WHEREAS, the financing for this project will be derived entirely
from the City of Mounds View Tax Increment Fund and that assessments are not
a funding source; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1. The preliminary feasibility report for the County Road H Sidewalk
Improvement Project was submitted to the City by the engineering
firm of Short, Elliot, Hendrickson Inc. (SEH). The report finds the
improvements to be necessary, cost effective, and feasible and is
hereby approved.
2. Said improvements are hereby ordered and shall hereafter be
known and referred to as the County Road H Sidewalk
Improvement Project. Said ordering of the improvements shall be
valid for a period of eighteen (18) months from the date of adoption
of this resolution.
3. The entire cost of said improvements shall be funded through the
City of Mounds View Tax Increment Fund.
Adopted this 14th day of July 2003.
______________________________
Jerry Linke, Mayor
(ATTEST)
_______________________________
James Ericson
Interim City Clerk/Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No: 09D
Meeting Date: July 14, 2003
Type of Business: Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Interim City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 717, an
Ordinance Amending the City Code Relating to On-
Sale Liquor Establishments Hours of Operation
Introduction:
At the worksession on July 7, 2003, the Council directed staff to put draft Ordinance 717 on
the Council agenda for first reading on July 14th and second reading on July 28th. The
Council also asked that a public hearing be set and advertised to ensure the public had
sufficient notice of the proposed changes. The public hearing has been scheduled for July
28, 2003.
Discussion:
Ordinance 717 is attached which amends the City Code to allow on-sale liquor
establishments to serve alcohol until 2:00 am. Our Code does not simply reference
Minnesota statutes regarding hours of operation so an amendment to our Code is necessary
to allow the Mounds View on-sale establishments to stay open until 2:00 am.
In keeping with the Council’s desire to advertise the proposed changes, a notice will be
published in the July 16th edition of the Bulletin. In addition, the public hearing is being
scrolled on Cable Channel 16 and will be scrolled on the City’s electronic sign facing County
Road 10. Last, staff sent out an e-mail message to those residents for which we have an e0-
mail address, asking the simple question, “should Mounds View allow its on-sale liquor
licensed establishments to remain open until 2:00 am.” The pros and cons for the change
were not articulated to prevent the appearance of bias. As of Thursday evening, we had
received 36 responses—18 favoring the change and 15 opposing the change. Three
responses either took no position or indicated that their answer would depend on other
factors, such as if there were adequate police staff on hand. The responses (without names
or addresses) are attached as Exhibit 1. Also, staff received a letter from Jake’s Sports Café
which is attached to this report indicating their support for the change. Representatives from
The Mermaid and Roberts have vocalized their support of the change as well.
Staff has asked that Kennedy & Graven review the On-Sale Liquor License provisions found
in Chapters 502 and 503 to ensure internal consistency and compliance with MN Statutes.
Any revisions resulting from their review will be incorporated into the second reading.
Recommendation:
Introduce the first reading of Ordinance 717.
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Interim City Clerk/Administrator
ORDINANCE NO. 717
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 502 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL
CODE PERTAINING TO INTOXICATING AND 3.2 PERCENT LIQUOR
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1: Chapter 502 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
“Intoxicating Liquor” is hereby amended with new language underlined and language to be
deleted stricken to read as follows:
502.12: HOURS AND DAYS OF SALES:
Subd. 1. General Restrictions: No on-sale shall be made between the hours of one two
o'clock (1 2:00) A.M. and eight o'clock (8:00) A.M. on any weekday. No off-sale shall
be made before eight o'clock (8:00) A.M. or after eight o'clock (8:00) P.M. on any day
except Friday and Saturday, on which days off-sale may be made until ten o'clock
(10:00) P.M. No off-sale shall be made on Thanksgiving Day or Christmas Day,
December 25, but on the evenings preceding such days, if the sale of liquor is not
otherwise prohibited on such evenings, off-sale may be made until ten o'clock (10:00)
P.M.; except, that no off-sale shall be made on December 24 after eight o'clock (8:00)
P.M.
Subd. 2. Sunday Sales: Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision 1 of this Section,
on-sale establishments licensed to sell intoxicating liquor on Sunday may serve same
between the hours of twelve o'clock (12:00) noon and one two o'clock (1 2:00) A.M.
on Sundays in conjunction with serving of food. In addition, the City Council may
authorize, by license, a licensee to serve intoxicating liquors between the hours of ten
o'clock (10:00) A.M. and twelve o'clock (12:00) noon on Sunday in conjunction with
the serving of food only to persons seated at tables ordinarily used for dining.
Provided, however, that the licensed establishment is in conformance with the
Minnesota Clean Air Act.
SECTION 2: Chapter 503 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to “3.2
Percent Malt Liquor“ is hereby amended with new language underlined and language to be
deleted stricken to read as follows:
503.10: HOURS OF SALES: No sale of beer shall be made on any Sunday between the
hours of one two o'clock (1 2:00) A.M. and twelve o'clock (12:00) noon. No sale shall be
made between the hours of one two o'clock (1 2:00) A.M. and eight o'clock (8:00) A.M. on any
other day.
Ordinance 717
Page 2
SECTION 3. This Ordinance becomes effective thirty (30) days after its publication
in the official City newspaper.
First read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 14th day of July, 2003.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 28th day of July,
2003.
Jerry Linke, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
James Ericson, Interim Clerk Administrator
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
City Attorney
EXHIBIT 1.
Question: Should Mounds View Bars Be Allowed to Stay Open until 2:00 AM?
Responses:
1. Considering that the reason most often given for extending the bar hours until 2AM was
that Minneapolis and St. Paul were losing convention business, I can see no reason why bar
hours in areas not trying to attract convention business (Mounds View included) should be
extended. I am against an extension of bar times. (Against.)
2. I think if the surrounding communities such as New Brighton, Blaine, etc. are going to stay
open until 2:00, then Mounds View establishments should probably have that option so they
do not lose business to the other cities. (For.)
3. I have been a Mounds View resident since 1980. I do not think either of these issues
(2:00 AM closing and Pawn Shops) benefit the majority of Mounds View residents. Actually,
they really do not benefit anybody except the business owners. I and others I know would be
saddened (maddened?) to see either of these things happen. Mounds View does not need
them. What a horrible source of additional revenue. (Against.)
4. I think the bars should close at 1:00. The additional hour of drinking will only cause more
problems. (Against.)
5. Thank you for the update. I appreciate this type of forum, as attending council meetings
is not usually feasible for me.
Regarding bar closing times: I am against extending the hours and would even favor shorter
hours if it was proposed. The three licensed on-sale liquor establishments--Mermaid, Jakes
and Roberts--along with incidents of drunk driving, account for a majority of the police activity
for the city as reported weekly in the two community newspapers. I would consider
individuals who would take their business elsewhere in order to enjoy an extra hour of drinks
to be overly enthused by alcohol and therefore not particularly desirable in the community.
So if the argument is that they would spend their money elsewhere, then that would be fine
with me as they can then also perhaps do their damage elsewhere and the community would
probably come out ahead overall. (Against.)
6. In response to the bar closing times, I really don't think the time matters. People will
consume alcohol at the times they wish to whether the establishments are open or not. It is
a bigger issue or whether we must have more police on duty at the hour they close. I don't
know about that need, but perhaps the officers have strong opinions on the issue.
7. We are opposed to the change to 2:00 AM for closing time of establishments serving
liquor. The police already spend too much time patrolling these places with the current 1:00
AM closing time. (Against.)
8. The closing time for the bars decision for me would be based on how may more police
people we would be able to hire. If we are able to increase our security then I would go with
the time change if not I would not go with the change of time. (Depends)
9. My wife and I think 1:00 am is late enough. Don't change. (Against)
10. I personally do not have any opposition to having on-sale establishments serve liquor
until 2 a.m. For that matter, I'm fine with pawnshops staying open until 2 a.m. as well :)
Thanks for the community updates. I'm pleased to see this medium utilized more and more.
(For.)
11. We are not a party town, we are not a Hotel town, we will not lose business because we
close at a more reasonable time of 1PM. There is nothing in this town, except more drinking
which by definition and extension of that activity, means more chance of a drunk on the road
or going home to abuse a family. There is nothing to gain here. A BIG NO! (Against.)
12. Thank you for the update. My opinion is to not allow the 3 bars the extended hours of
operation. They are essentially located in residential areas and their neighbors do not the
added hours of disturbance! (Aga inst.)
13. I'm in favor of changing the bar closing times to 2 a.m., and I think the "overlay" concept
for zoning that could include a pawnshop is a reasonable approach. (For.)
14. My opinion is to allow the bars to stay open until 2:00 am. This change will hopefully
help three employers in our city. I can't see any down side to the change at all. (For.)
15. I am in favor of allowing bars to stay open until 2:00 AM (For.)
16. Any attempt by the Council to take the "moral high road" on this issue would serve only
to harm the businesses within our borders. It is unrealistic to think that 1:00 am closings
would insulate us from impaired drivers or any of the other trappings that come from having
restaurants/night clubs in our city. What it would do is impose undue hardships on
businesses that need to attract a steady stream of patrons to remain profitable. I would
imagine that the Mermaid, in particular, would suffer if it were not allowed to keep up with
competing facilities. Don't use this issue to take a stand against the evils of alcohol. Those
are well established. The decision needs to be pragmatic, focused on the reality that 2:00
am closings around the Metro are here to stay and our establishments should be allowed to
make the business decision to stay open that late if it makes fiscal sense. Also, the money
they pay in to do so will be used to fund additional law enforcement, which is really what is
needed if we wish to feel safer on our roads. (For.)
17. I support the 2 am bar opening in Mounds View. With the opening of a new hotel
(Mermaid) we need to offer guests and convention goers the opportunity to spend some of
their money in Mounds View. Thanks for the information, I appreciate the website you have
set up. (For.)
18. I wish the legislature would not have changed the law. Now that the law is changed
many bars will change. So Mounds View not allowing the bars to stay open an additional
hour won't have any affect. People will still consume alcohol and drive on our roads. I also
think it will put bars located in Mounds View at a disadvantage in comparison to their
competition. When I consider this issue as a whole - I believe we should allow a 2:00 am
closing. If someone is seriously against this new law they should take that up with their
legislator and fight the new law at that level. (For.)
19. As a 28-year resident of Mounds View, I have no objections to a 2 A.M. bar closing time
or the zoning that would allow a pawnshop in commercial or industrial areas. (For.)
20. I favor extending bar hours until 2:00 a.m., unless all 3 licensed establishments object.
Works fine in other places. (For.)
21. I put in my vote for 2:00 close. (For.)
22. I'm expecting that we will see more accidents, fights and DWI violations in our city
because of this law. I'm not too excited about that. However, Mounds View has a hard time
keeping and attracting sound businesses. If we don't allow these establishments to stay
open until 2:00 am, per state law, they may leave for other communities that will. We need to
allow the 2:00 am bar closing in Mounds View. (For.)
23. Thank you for this opportunity to respond to the issue of bars staying open until 2 a.m.
Unfortunately, my home is in very close proximity to two of the establishments; Jake's and
Roberts. At present, the patrons of these establishments will typically disturb my family
between 12:30-1:30 a.m. (normally on Friday and Saturday, and occasionally on other nights
of the week). H2 borders one side of our home and it faces the H2 County Road 10
intersection.
Noise heard from the intersection of H2 and 10 is often disturbing, however it is normally
very quick to dissipate. However, along H2 the noise generated by these patrons can be
very disturbing because of their proximity and volume level.
When patrons head home, many find it necessary to rev their vehicle's motor and accelerate
quickly through intersections and streets. Others will have their radios blaring. Several of
the larger vehicles, trucks in particular, do not have sufficient mufflers and are
overwhelmingly noisy, even more so when the weather is nicer and windows are open.
Typically, there are a number of vehicles driven so fast the driver does not realize there is a
stop sign at the intersection of H2 and Jackson and blow right through it, or realize it is there
is a stop sign and do not care. Some patrons returning home on foot and can be very noisy
when walking with others. A later bar closing time would only mean this same activity would
be happening later in the morning, as well it may increase the carelessness of the patrons
due to more alcohol intake time.
I encourage the council to weigh the financial benefits of having these establishments open
later (only benefit I can see) against the well being and safety of the community these
establishments are in. If a later closing is approved, please increase the law enforcement
present early on to deter and witness the results of the decision. (Against.)
24. Thank you for the update. Why not lets put Mounds View on the map, as a city who cares
for the safety of all in its borders, and close the liquor sales at TWELVE? All those who need
to pickle their brains should certainly be able to do this from 5 to Midnight. Give your
emergency personal some more time for unexpected crisis', and less time may be spent on
the planned/expected strain on our police officers, and rescue workers who are forced to deal
with the aftermath of pitiful drunks. I am a retired police officer, and have always said, "give me
a person with a gun, ANY TIME. He/she has rules, and I understand most of them, and I have
a chance of survival. The drunk? He/she'll sneak up on you and kill you and your family, with
their car, then stand there in a stupor, wondering what they had done.
Good luck with your problem. (Against.)
25. Yes, I think so. It would allow our businesses to compete with other cities who will make
the change. It will cut down on people moving about at 1:00 to get that last drink.
The less bar hopping the better. We are not going to prevent people from staying out if they
choose, only possibly prevent them from doing so in Mounds View. (For.)
26. I am for the new 2am timing. Just for the reason that Mounds View being such a small
city, these three businesses could easily move out-side the city limits and retain most of their
clientele, but Mounds View would loose a great deal of tax revenue. (For.)
27. I do not wish to have bars open until 2:00 am. (Against.)
28. At this time, I am for keeping the Bar's open until 2:00. (For.)
28. We believe that extending the bar closing time to 2am will further promote alcohol abuse,
which may directly affect residents of the city in a negative manner. (Against.)
30. Does the city collect fee for later closing times or is that only allocated to the state?
We probably wouldn't know the hardship (if any) it would be for the police till it's enacted. Do
we have enough squads to handle the extra work (if required)?
31. Yes. I think that would help draw more people, and therefore income. (For.)
32. Although I personally do not see a need for bars to be open until 2AM. I would not want
to see our established businesses in Mounds View held back from the 2AM closing. I think
by not allowing them the later closing you would be hurting there business which would draw
people away from our community and in the end possibly even there business. (For.)
33. The closing times for bars has been pretty uniform for as long as I can recall. There
must be some reason or justification for this choice. Therefore, I could support changing
the closing time to 2:00 a.m. However, because I do not frequent bars and night spots, I
am not the best resource for an opinion. (For.)
34. Our vote is NO the bars should not stay open until 2 am! (Against.)
35. Can our budget handle the increased law enforcement patrolling and prosecution costs
that would result from a later bar closing time? We are against a 2 am bar closing time.
(Against.)
36. Thanks for the opportunity to voice my opinion regarding the 2:00 bar closing time for the
bars in mounds view. I am against a 2:00 bar closing time, I believe we have enough alcohol
related incidents in the city as it is according the mounds view police reports I read every
week. There are more alcohol arrests in this city than for any other Crime. (Against.)
EXHIBIT 2.
Item No: 09E
Meeting Date: July 14, 2003
Type of Business: Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mounds View City Council
From: James Ericson, Interim City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of an Appeal of a Variance Requested
for a Reduced Front Yard Parking Lot Setback and
Modification to the Provisions of Resolution 5527 at
2402 County Road I; Planning Case VR03-004
Introduction:
The subject property is a small, commercial lot improved with a two-story office building at
the southwest corner of County Road I and Greenfield Avenue. The property is zoned B-3,
Highway Business Commercial and is designated as Neighborhood Commercial in the
Comprehensive Plan. The variance request would allow the property owner to expand the
parking lot by an additional two parking stalls toward Greenfield Avenue, reducing the
permitted setback from 10 feet to 2 feet.
Variance Discussion:
Soon after the building at 2402 County Road I was completed and occupied, staff began
receiving complaints from residents regarding tenants and clients from the office building
parking on Greenfield Avenue, overflowing from the parking lot. After a series of meetings on
the subject, the Planning Commission recommended and the City Council approved a
parking restriction on the east side of Greenfield Avenue, 350 feet back from the corner,
except the area directly across from the office building. The No Parking signs have been
installed and have been effective in eliminating parking in front of the single-family dwellings.
Mr. Steve Farrell, the owner of the office building, was not in favor of the parking restriction.
Variance Considerations:
For a variance to be approved, there needs to be demonstrated hardship or practical
difficulties associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly
burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing
body (the Planning Commission) review a set of specified criteria for each application and
make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section
1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists
when all of the criteria are met. The individual criteria are as follows:
a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape,
topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the
effective date hereof have had no control.
b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights
commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title.
Farrell Variance Report
July 2, 2003
Page 2
c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant.
d. That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege
that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district.
e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship.
Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship.
f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other
property in the same zone.
g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property
or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or
endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the
neighborhood.
Criteria Responses:
a. The exceptional or extraordinary circumstances associated with this lot, as identified in
previous variance resolutions, are that the development potential of the lot is restricted by
its size, the County’s taking of ten feet of right of way alongside County Road I and by the
City’s corner lot setback requirements.
b. While it can be argued that the literal interpretations of the Code do not deprive the
property owner of rights enjoyed by others, the posting of the No Parking signs has in fact
limited Mr. Farrell’s ability to utilize on-street parking.
c. While Mr. Farrell does ultimately control the number of vehicles parking on the lot and
while he was aware of the parking limitations when he purchased the property, Mr. Farrell
did not design the building or site plan and had anticipated utilizing on-street parking for
overflow purposes.
d. Granting the variance would not confer on the applicant any special privilege in that other
commercially-zoned properties have been awarded reduced parking setbacks in unique
situations.
e. Approving a variance from the approved 10-foot parking lot setback to a 2-foot setback is
the minimum variance to alleviate the hardship in that two additional parking stalls could
be added to the lot.
f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other
property in the same zone in that the variance would serve to minimize the amount of on-
street business parking associated with the businesses at 2402 County Road I.
g. The variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or
substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or
endanger the public safety or substantially diminish neighborhood property values.
Farrell Variance Report
July 2, 2003
Page 3
Planning Commission Action:
The Mounds View Planning Commission heard this request at their meeting on July 2, 2003.
After discussing the merits of the request, the Commission voted to deny the variance
requested on the grounds that there was no hardship not created by the property owner. In
other words, the property owner has caused the problems which necessitate the variance
request and thus the variance should not be approved. Mr. Farrell submitted a written
request for the Council to hear his appeal on July 8, 2003
Amendment Discussion:
The City Council adopted Resolution 5527 on February 26, 2001. This resolution (attached
for the Council’s reference) includes a stipulation that all garbage shall be kept inside the
building. This was required (and agreed upon by the previous owner) for two reasons. One,
there is little room on the lot to locate a dumpster and dumpster enclosure, and two, the
previous property owner—Tony Mezzenga—expressed that it was his desire to keep the
garbage inside the building. The new property owner—Steve Farrell—indicated that he had
been unaware of the requirement and that it would be undesirable to keep the garbage
inside. If the resolution is amended to allow outdoor storage, staff would recommend that no
dumpster be allowed and that garbage cans be secured and protected by a fence or small
enclosure. If an amendment is desired, staff will draft a resolution for action at your next
meeting. If an amendment is not supported, a motion to deny the request would be in order.
Recommendation:
Regarding the variance, please consider the hardship criteria and make a determination
concerning the appeal. While the Council is subject to the same standard of review as
the Planning Commission, the Council may overturn the Planning Commission’s decision
if it feels there is sufficient hardship to warrant variance approval. If that’s the case,
Resolution 6050 is available for your action. If the Council should agree with the
Planning Commission in that there is no hardship to warrant the approval, you will need
to direct staff to draft a resolution of denial.
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Interim City Clerk/Administrator
Zoning Map
RESOLUTION NO. 5527
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUEST FOR AN
OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED AT 7664 GREENFIELD AVENUE;
PLANNING CASE NO. DE00-002.
WHEREAS, Tony Mezzenga, representing property owner Earnest Gustafson, has applied
for a development review to construct a 2,006 square-foot office building at 7664 Greenfield
Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned B-3, Highway Business, is designated as a
“Neighborhood Commercial” use on the Comprehensive Plan and is legally described as follows:
Lot 30, Block 3, Greenfield Plat 2, Subject to Road Easement
Ramsey County, State of Minnesota
WHEREAS, according to Section 1006.06 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, any new
construction or expansion of existing facilities requires the approval of a development review; and,
WHEREAS, according to Section 1114.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code, commercial
offices are a permitted use with the B-3 zoning district; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding this
proposal:
a. Planning Application
b. Zoning Map
c. Site Plans, date-stamped 2/2/01
d. Variance Resolution 633-00, approved 9/13/00
e. Planning Commission Resolution 646-01, approved 1/13/01
f. Staff Report
WHEREAS, the proposed development satisfies the requirements of Zoning Code as
well as the variance approved on September 13, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, the site plans date-stamped 2/2/01 indicate that the proposed office building
will be 34 feet by 59 with a footprint of 2,006 square feet; and,
WHEREAS, the number of parking stalls provided (14 regular, 1 handicapped, 15 total)
satisfies the requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act and the requirements in the
variance approved September 13, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, on January 17, 2001, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 646-01,
recommending approval of this development review request.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council, finding
that all requirements have been met, does hereby approve the development review request for the
construction of a 2,006 square foot, two-level office building with a maximum 3,000 square feet
of leaseable office space at 7664 Greenfield Avenue, subject to the following stipulations:
1. Barrier curbing (B 6-12) shall be installed around the perimeter of the parking lot and
access drive. At points where stormwater will collect, cuts shall be made to allow water
to pass through into pervious areas.
2. All utilities to the building shall be installed underground.
3. One monument sign shall be allowed not to exceed eight (8) feet in height or one hundred
(100) square feet in area. The base of such sign shall be constructed of masonry or stone
materials to match the building. A pole or pylon type sign is prohibited. No more than
60 square feet of combined building mounted signage shall be allowed.
4. The masonry or stone building siding and any other architectural design characteristics
shall be consistent along the north and east building elevations.
5. There shall be no outside garbage storage or dumpster allowed on this site, all garbage
and refuse shall be stored within the building.
6. There shall be no parking lot lighting other than supplemental flood lights mounted upon
the building. Such lights shall be down cast and shielded or hooded to eliminate glare or
light spillage onto adjoining properties in accordance with Chapter 1103 of the Mounds
View Zoning Code.
7. The applicant shall revise the site plan to show fencing and landscaping plantings as
indicated on Exhibit A. No building permits shall be issued until such revised site plan
has been received and approved by the Director of Community Development.
8. If construction has not begun on this project within one year, this approval shall be
considered null and void.
Adopted this 26th day of February, 2001.
_________________________________
Richard Sonterre, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Kathleen F. Miller, City Administrator
(SEAL)
\\NTSERVER\MASTERFILES\2003\CITY COUNCIL\COUNCIL PACKETS\07-14-03\ITEM 09E FARRELL APPEAL.DOC
RESOLUTION NO. 6060
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR A REDUCED FRONT-YARD
PARKING LOT SETBACK OF 2-FEET AT 2402 COUNTY ROAD I, REQUESTED BY
PROPERTY OWNER STEVE FARRELL; PLANNING CASE VR03-004
WHEREAS, property owner Stephen Farrell has applied for a variance from the
front yard parking lot setback requirements to allow for a parking lot expansion to within
two (2) feet of Greenfield Avenue right of way at 2402 County Road I; and,
WHEREAS, 2402 County Road I is zoned B-3, Highway Business Commercial,
and is legally described as follows:
Lot 30, Block 3, Greenfield Plat 2, Except the North 10 Feet thereof;
County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following
documents regarding this proposal:
1. Planning Application
2. Zoning Map
3. Location Map
4. Site Plan
5. Staff Report
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on
Wednesday, July 2, 2003, regarding this variance request; and,
WHEREAS, the approved front yard parking lot setback for this lot is ten (10)
feet and the parking lot is actually eleven (11) feet from the Greenfield Avenue right of
way; and,
WHEREAS, Mr. Farrell would like to add two additional parking stalls to his lot to
alleviate parking difficulties and to limit the amount of on-street parking occurring on
Greenfield Avenue, however such an expansion would require a reduction in the
approved setback to two (2) feet; and,
WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give
relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements
imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical
difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property
that are beyond the property owner’s control; and,
Resolution 6050
Page 2
WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View
Municipal Code, the City is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be
satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View City Council hereby
makes the following findings of fact related to this request:
1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances DO apply to this property in that the
development potential of the lot is restricted by its size, the County’s taking of ten
feet of right of way alongside County Road I and the City’s corner lot setback
requirements.
2. The literal interpretations of the Code deprive the property owner of rights enjoyed
by others in that the posting of No Parking signs has limited Mr. Farrell’s ability to
utilize on-street parking to serve his business’ needs.
3. While the applicant is wholly responsible for the volume of parking on his lot, Mr.
Farrell did not design the building or site plan and anticipated utilizing on-street
parking for overflow purposes.
4. Granting the variance would not confer on the applicant any special privilege in that
other commercially-zoned properties have been awarded reduced parking setbacks
in unique situations
5. Approving a variance from the approved 10-foot parking lot setback to a 2-foot
setback along Greenfield Avenue is the minimum variance to alleviate the hardship
in that two additional parking stalls could be added to the lot
6. The variance would NOT be materially detrimental to the purposes of the Zoning
Code or to any property in the Business Commercial zoning district in that the
variance would serve to minimize the amount of on-street business parking
associated with the businesses at 2402 County Road I.
7. The reduced setback would NOT impair a supply of light or increase congestion, nor
would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish
property values.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View City Council,
based upon its review of the documentation and testimony presented at the meeting and
the identified findings of fact, does hereby overturn the decision of the Planning
Commission regarding the request for a variance to allow a two-foot front yard parking lot
setback along Greenfield Avenue. Approval shall be subject to submitting three copies of a
detailed site plan showing the proposed parking lot expansion at the time the building permit
is requested.
Adopted this 14th day of July, 2003.
_____________________________________
Jerry Linke, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
James Ericson, Interim City Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No: 09H
Meeting Date: July 14, 2003
Type of Business: Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Acting City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Resolution 6061 Approving an
Agreement with the firm Hughes and Costello for
Municipal Prosecution Services.
Introduction:
On March 10, 2003, the City Council adopted Resolution 5963 which authorized staff to
distribute requests for proposals (RFPs) for legal services. Thirteen firms responded, four of
which offered to provide prosecution services to the City.
Discussion:
The following firms submitted proposals to provide the City with prosecution services:
Hughes & Costello
Campbell Knutson
Knaak & Kantrude
Barna Guzy & Steffen
Based on the limited number of replies regarding the prosecution side of the legal services
request for proposals, staff reviewed the firms based on cost, experience and reputation.
Only Hughes & Costello had any significant experience handling prosecution cases in
Ramsey County, which was considered to be an important factor in the consideration. No
firm was able to provide as good an agreement as proposed by Hughes & Costello, both in
terms of retainer amount and experience. With the support of the Police Department, staff
recommended retaining Hughes & Costello for prosecution representation through the end of
2005. Chief Sommer and the Mounds View Police Department support the continuing
association with Hughes and Costello.
The proposed fee structure is to maintain the current 2003 retainer of $3,875 through the
end of 2004 with a slight adjustment to $4,000 through the end of 2005. Mr. Hughes
indicated that if the volume of cases he argues decrease as a result of increasing numbers
of administrative offenses issued, he would be willing to decrease the retainer amount.
Recommendation:
Approve Resolution 6061, a resolution authorizing the execution of a prosecution service
retainer agreement with the firm Hughes and Costello through the end of 2005.
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Interim City Clerk/Administrator
RESOLUTION NO. 6061
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A PROSECUTION SERVICES
RETAINER AGREEMENT WITH THE FIRM HUGHES AND COSTELLO
THROUGH THE END OF 2005
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2003, the City Council of the City of Mounds View
adopted Resolution 5963 which authorized staff to distribute requests for proposals
(RFPs) for legal services; and
WHEREAS, upon closure of the period to submit a response, the City had
received proposals from thirteen firms, four of which submitted proposals to provide the
City with prosecution services; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the four responses, the City of Mounds View
determined that the response from Hughes & Costello, the firm currently providing
prosecuting services to the City, best matched its needs; and,
WHEREAS, the firm of Hughes & Costello proposes to provide the City with
prosecution services through the end of 2005; and,
WHEREAS, the current retainer amount of $3,875 would be maintained through
the end of 2004 with an increase to $4,000 for the year 2005.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Mounds View City Council
does hereby approve the retainer agreement extension with the firm Hughes & Costello
to provide prosecution representation services through the end of 2005 and authorizes
the execution of said agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, THAT the agreement and
monthly retainer fees shall be subject to annual review and reconsideration to ensure
City Council satisfaction with the arrangements.
Adopted this 14th day of July 2003.
______________________________
Jerry Linke, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
James Ericson, Interim City Clerk/Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No: 09I
Meeting Date: July 14, 2003
Type of Business: Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Acting City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Resolution 6062 Approving the Hire
of Kurt Ulrich to the Position of City Clerk /
Administrator
Introduction:
The city clerk / administrator position has been vacant since January 1, 2003. The City
Council sought proposals from professional search firms and recruitment professionals
before deciding to accept the assistance of the City of New Brighton staff to advertise and
review applications. Thirty-four applications were received.
Discussion:
On May 19, 2003, the Council held a special meeting to review the top ten candidates and to
identify the finalists to interview. The five identified candidates were interviewed by the City
Council on June 14, 2003 and a special meeting was set for June 14 to discuss the
candidates and to determine the top finalist. Mr. Ulrich was chosen as the top candidate and
negotiations with Mr. Ulrich were initiated to establish Mr. Ulrich’s compensation package.
On July 10, 2003, Mr. Ulrich accepted the position and the terms of his employment as
articulated in the letter to Mr. Ulrich dated June 30, 2003.
Recommendation:
Approve Resolution 6062, a resolution approving the hiring of Mr. Kurt Ulrich to fill the
position of City Clerk / Administrator with employment to begin July 17, 2003.
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Interim City Clerk/Administrator
RESOLUTION NO. 6062
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPOINTING KURT ULRICH TO THE POSITION OF
MOUNDS VIEW CITY CLERK/ADMINISTRATOR
WHEREAS, upon direction from the Mounds View City Council, the City Clerk /
Administrator Manager position was advertised; and,
WHEREAS, 34 applications were received for the position and the City Council
interviewed five candidates on June 14, 2003; and,
WHEREAS, Kurt Ulrich’s skills and experience most closely matched the identified
needs of the City and after a special meeting of the Council on June 16, 2003, the position
was offered to Mr. Ulrich and negotiations regarding the compensation package were
initiated; and,
WHEREAS, Mr. Ulrich consented to a drivers license and criminal background
check which were performed, the results of which revealed nothing of note; and,
WHEREAS, on July 10, 2003, Mr. Ulrich accepted the position under the terms and
conditions of employment articulated in a letter dated June 30, 2003.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council
appoints Kurt Ulrich as the City of Mounds View City Clerk / Administrator to begin
employment on July 21, 2003.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes a starting salary of
Step 2 ($77,013) with an increase to Step 3 ($81,543) after six months of employment and
an increase to Step 4 ($86,073) after one year of employment and an increase to Step 5
($90,604) after two years of employment; all increases subject to satisfactory performance
and City Council authorization.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Mr. Ulrich will receive 10 days of banked vacation
and 20 days of banked sick leave at the start of employment. Mr. Ulrich will accrue 15
days of vacation in year one, 16 days of vacation in year two, 17 days in year three, 18
days in year four, 19 days in year five and will accrue 20 days of vacation (the maximum)
beginning in year six.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that Mr. Ulrich shall serve at the will of the Council and
may be terminated with or without cause at any time. Severance and separation
compensation shall be consistent with the Letter of Hire and the City’s personnel policies.
All other personnel policies will apply as they would for any other management employee.
Resolution 6062
Page 2
Adopted this 14th day of July, 2003.
Jerry Linke, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jim Ericson, Interim City Administrator
(SEAL)
July 14, 2003
Kurt Ulrich
11639 Oakview Court
Champlin, MN 55316
RE: Letter of Hire, Mounds View City Clerk/Administrator
Dear Mr. Ulrich,
I am happy to have received your acceptance of the position of the Mounds View City
Clerk/Administrator and look forward to your start date of July 21, 2003. This letter shall
serve as our confirmation of your acceptance and as an agreement regarding your
employment with the City.
Please review the terms and conditions articulated herein which address issues relating to
your compensation package:
• Salary Progression: Your starting annual salary shall be $77,013 (Step 2) with an
increase to Step 3 of the salary range (currently $81,543) after six months of
employment, Step 4 (currently $86,073) after one year and Step 5 (currently
$90,604) after two years of employment. All increases are subject to satisfactory
performance evaluation and Council authorization. Salary shall be adjusted
annually in the same manner as other management employees.
• Retirement: You will be enrolled in PERA and will have access to any and all other
deferred compensation programs in the same manner as any other management
employee.
• Vacation: Upon employment, you will immediately receive ten (10) of your fifteen
(15) days of first year vacation accruals, however you will be limited to using only
one week (five days) of vacation time during your first six months of employment,
unless otherwise authorized by the City Council. You will accrue 16 days of
vacation in year two, 17 days in year three, 18 days in year four, 19 days in year five
and you will accrue 20 days of vacation (the maximum) beginning in year six.
• Sick Leave: Upon employment you will receive a twenty (20) day bank of sick
leave. You will accrue sick leave at the same rate as other management employees
to pay back the sick leave bank, then you will continue to accrue sick leave time in
accordance with City policy.
Ulrich Letter of Hire
July 14, 2003
Page 2
• Holidays: You will receive the same paid holidays as received by other
management employees.
• Insurance: The City will contribute reimbursement for insurance premiums in the
same manner and at the same rate it does for other management employees. You
will have an opportunity to participate in the voluntary short- and long-term disability
programs or any other voluntary insurance program available through the City.
• Dues and Subscriptions: Professional dues and subscriptions shall be authorized
by the City Council through the annual budgeting process and in accordance with
the established purchasing and personnel policies of the City.
• Professional Development: Opportunities for professional development and
participation in local, regional, state and national organizations shall be authorized
by the City Council through the annual budgeting process and in accordance with
the established purchasing and personnel policies of the City.
• Civic Club Membership: While the City recognizes the desirability and benefit of
City Clerk/Administrator representation at local civic organizations, such
participation and membership shall be subject to City Council authorization through
the annual budgeting process and in accordance with the established Purchasing
Policy of the City.
• General Expenses: Expenses incurred on behalf of the City shall be reimbursed
subject to and in accordance with the City’s Purchasing Policy provided funding for
said expense is available in the adopted budget. The City is under no obligation to
provide reimbursement for any expense that violates the provisions of the
Purchasing Policy.
• Automobile: Consistent with the City’s Purchasing Policy, you will be reimbursed on
a “per mile” basis in accordance with IRS guidelines for any work-related traveling
done with your own personal vehicle.
• Hours of Work: As City Administrator, it is understood that you will be required to
attend all City Council meetings and other periodic evening or weekend meetings.
While additional compensation will not be provided for hours worked in excess of
the standard eight-hour day, the current personnel policy allows management
employees to accrue “flex time” on a one-hour to one-hour basis. Flex time may be
used as scheduled time-off at the department head’s discretion. The maximum
amount of flex time that can be used in a pay period is 16 hours.
Ulrich Letter of Hire
July 14, 2003
Page 3
• Termination and Severance: You will serve at the will of the Council and may be
terminated with or without cause at any time. Should the Council terminate your
employment without cause during the first two years of employment, you will receive
six (6) months notice or severance. Should the Council terminate your employment
without cause during the third year of employment, you will receive five (5) months
notice or severance. Should the Council terminate your employment without cause
during the fourth year of employment, you will receive four (4) months notice or
severance. The Council shall retain discretion as to whether to provide advance
notice or to provide severance pay. The obligation to pay severance shall terminate
when you have successfully obtained a position of comparable responsibility and
compensation.
• Voluntary Separation. Should you decide to terminate your employment with the
City, you will be required to provide a minimum of thirty (30) days notice of your
intent to terminate. Separation compensation shall be authorized by the City
Council consistent with the Personnel Policies of the City.
The City’s personnel policies shall prevail over any compensation or personnel provisions
not specifically addressed in this letter of hire. Please sign and return this letter to the
personnel office. By signing, you are agreeing with the terms and conditions as identified
herein.
In closing, on behalf of the City Council, staff and residents, I would like to welcome you to
the City of Mounds View. We hope you will find your employment here to be a rewarding
and enjoyable experience.
Sincerely,
Jerry Linke, Mayor
Kurt Ulrich Date
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Special Meeting
June 16, 2003
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
8:10 P.M.
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Linke, Quick, Marty, Stigney, and Gunn
3. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. Discussion and Consideration of Candidates for the City
Administrator Position.
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Marty. To Extend a Conditional Offer of Employment to
Mr. Kurt Ulrich Pending Satisfactory Background Checks and Successful Contract
Negotiation.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
The Council directed that the Police Department coordinate the criminal background
check and then asked Mr. Fulton to speak with Mr. Ulrich to ascertain his expectations
concerning compensation and benefits. The results of Mr. Fulton’s inquiry would be
forwarded to the Mayor for Council consideration.
4. Next Council Work Session: Monday, July 7, 2003
Next Council Meeting: Monday, June 23, 2003
5. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Council, Mayor Linke adjourned the meeting
at 8:12 p.m.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3
4
Regular Meeting 5
June 23, 2003 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 (arrived at 7:07 p.m.), Stigney, and Gunn 16
17
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 18
19
A. Monday, June 23, 2003 City Council Agenda. 20
21
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Quick. To Approve the Monday, June 23, 2003 Agenda as 22
Presented. 23
24
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 25
26
5. PUBLIC INPUT 27
28
David Jahnke of 8428 Eastwood Road commented that he did not feel that the Staff report should 29
refer to this City’s businessmen as outspoken. 30
31
Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated the phrase was not meant to be disparaging but to 32
characterize Mr. Hall as a busy and prominent member of the business community. 33
34
Mr. Jahnke indicated he took it differently. He then said that what really concerns him is the 35
glowing report of Kathy’s work and asked if when someone does something wrong it goes on 36
their record for consideration at review time. He further commented that there have been some 37
serious errors and he is concerned that those errors are not reflected at review time. 38
39
Mayor Linke indicated that the errors are either on permanent record or filed in Council 40
Member’s memory. 41
42
Mr. Jahnke indicated that the report was glowing and did not mention any of the mistakes that 43
were made. He then asked for clarification on what budget year the Mayor was referring to. 44
45
Mounds View City Council June 23, 2003
Regular Meeting Page 2
Mayor Linke indicated he meant both this one and the next and noted the Council had already cut 1
$30,000 to $40,000. He further commented that once the new administrator is in place the 2
budget discussions would commence. 3
4
Mr. Jahnke asked whether the candidate accepted the position. 5
6
Mayor Linke indicated that Kurt Ulrich had tentatively accepted the position and Council needs 7
to negotiate the salary and benefits. He then indicated that Mr. Ulrich had been the City 8
Administrator in Champlin but currently is working for the DNR. 9
10
David Vinkstra of 3000 County Road H2 asked if there was a plan by the Planning Commission 11
to put in a bunch of housing. 12
13
Mayor Linke indicated there is land at the intersection of H2 and Spring Lake Road that is owned 14
by the City and a resident that is being considered for a residential development. 15
16
Mr. Vinkstra indicated that he is not sure how the plan he heard of that goes over the pond would 17
work and noted that the area is very soft and wet and he cannot believe that basements would 18
work there. 19
20
Council Member Marty arrived at 7:07 p.m. 21
22
Mayor Linke indicated that soil borings were being done to determine the condition of the soil. 23
24
Mr. Vinkstra asked if an environmental impact study had been done. 25
26
Mayor Linke indicated that there had not been an environmental impact study. 27
28
Mr. Vinkstra indicated that there is abundant wildlife in the area that he and his neighbors enjoy. 29
He then suggested putting in a walking path so the rest of the community could enjoy the 30
wildlife. 31
32
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 33
34
7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 35
36
A. Just and Correct Claims 37
38
Council Member Stigney asked for clarification of the two charges for a reception at the 39
Community Center. 40
41
Finance Director Hansen explained that the charges are for one reception but the two entries are 42
necessary for accounting purposes. 43
44
Council Member Stigney asked what the advertising in the Qwest Dex was for. 45
Mounds View City Council June 23, 2003
Regular Meeting Page 3
1
Finance Director Hansen indicated that is advertising for the Community Center. 2
3
Council Member Stigney asked for clarification of the charge from Kennedy and Graven for the 4
Hammerschmidt appeal as he thought that case was assumed by the League of Minnesota Cities. 5
6
City Attorney Riggs indicated that it was the appeal for the unemployment compensation issue 7
which is a different matter. 8
9
Council Member Marty asked for clarification of the charges from Kennedy and Graven for the 10
Police Civil Service Commission for $1,255.00. 11
12
Finance Director Hansen indicated that occasionally there are amounts attributable to the Police 13
Department and that account is used. 14
15
Council Member Stigney asked what construction was being done to warrant the charge for 16
concrete mix and lumber. 17
18
Public Works Director Lee indicated he would look into it and provide a report. 19
20
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Approve Just and Correct Claims as Presented. 21
22
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 23
24
8. CONSENT AGENDA 25
26
A. Licenses for Approval 27
B. Resolution No. 6034 Approving 2003 Business Licenses 28
C. Resolution No. 6040 Approving a Contract Award for the Annual Sanitary Sewer 29
Root Abatement Project 30
31
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Approve the Consent Agenda as Presented. 32
33
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 34
35
9. COUNCIL BUSINESS 36
37
A. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit Request by 38
Dale Goettsch for an Oversized Garage at 5220 Edgewood Drive 39
40
Mayor Linke opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. 41
42
Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated that this is a request for a Conditional Use Permit 43
for an oversized garage at 5220 Edgewood Drive. He then explained that the property owners are 44
Mounds View City Council June 23, 2003
Regular Meeting Page 4
looking to replace their existing garage to allow for storage of an RV. He further indicated that 1
the new garage would be 1,148 square feet. 2
3
Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated that the Planning Commission reviewed the 4
application and it meets all requirements including the 20% threshold for rear yards and noted 5
that the existing shed would be removed and no other accessory buildings would be allowed on 6
the property. 7
8
Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated that one additional stipulation had been added to 9
this Resolution to require that the property owner ensure that overhead power lines maintain the 10
proper clearance from the roof of the garage and the property owner has indicated he has no issue 11
with the requirements. 12
13
Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated that Staff and the Planning Commission 14
recommend approval of this request. 15
16
Mayor Linke closed the public hearing at 7:19 p.m. 17
18
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 6039, a 19
Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage at 5220 Edgewood 20
Drive. 21
22
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 23
24
B. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution No. 6042 Approving the 25
Preliminary Feasibility Report and Ordering the County Road H Sidewalk 26
Improvement 27
28
Mayor Linke opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. 29
30
Public Works Director Lee reviewed the schedule for this project, summarized the comments 31
from the forms that were sent out as well as comments from the public meeting and asked that, 32
after taking public testimony, Council provide direction to Staff on how to proceed with the 33
project. 34
35
Public Works Director Lee reviewed the schedule for the project should it be approved. 36
37
Mayor Linke asked residents to be concise with their comments to avoid unnecessary duplication 38
and save time. 39
40
Angela Olson of 5046 Longview Drive addressed Council and indicated she was speaking in 41
opposition to the sidewalk because she would lose her hedges that have been there for more than 42
40 years. She further commented that with the current budget issues the City does not need to 43
increase the budget for snow removal and upkeep of another sidewalk. 44
45
Mounds View City Council June 23, 2003
Regular Meeting Page 5
Ms. Olson indicated that taking down the hedges decreases her privacy and she would need a 1
fence in the amount of $1,700 or she could replant the hedge at a cost of $800.00 but that hedge 2
would take 6 to 12 years to reach its current height. She then commented that she feels there are 3
other ways to address the safety of children in the area than adding a sidewalk. 4
5
Ms. Olson indicated that street lights would help with crossing the road. She then said that there 6
is a sidewalk on the other side of the street and it is not necessary to put one on their side. 7
8
Steve Borden of 3009 County Road H indicated that he lives on the west side of town and Spring 9
Creek flows through his yard and there would be a lot of fill, retaining walls and culverts to bring 10
the sidewalk past his house. He then commented that he does not want to look at all that 11
concrete and metal. 12
13
Mr. Borden indicated that he does not feel the sidewalk would increase the safety for the 14
children. He then suggested streetlights might help and commented that he does not feel that it is 15
cost effective to spend $363,000 on a sidewalk that he does not feel the kids will use. He further 16
commented that for $363,000 the City could buy the kids a bus to get to school. 17
18
Mr. Borden commented that this plan is expensive and not cost effective for the City and asked 19
Council not to approve it. 20
21
Michael Marrone of 5045 Brighton Lane addressed Council and indicated that he has lived at his 22
residence for 13 years and had four kids go through the school system. He then said he opposes 23
the project for several reasons including the fact that the black oak on his property would die and 24
it is 40 years old and very unique. He further commented that the loss of that tree would devalue 25
his property a great deal. 26
27
Mr. Marrone suggested moving the sidewalk down a block and routing kids down those streets. 28
He further commented that this amount of money could go a long way on some other project. He 29
also commented that the City could buy a bus or subsidize bussing for those that cannot afford it 30
for that much money. He then asked Council to consider the impact to the existing neighborhood 31
and what would be lost for little gain and a lot of taxpayer money. 32
33
Deb Ward of 5046 Long Lake Road indicated she is opposed to the sidewalk because it comes 34
within three to four feet of a sidewalk that she uses for her clients. She further indicated that the 35
sidewalk would come very close to her house and she would have no privacy. She also indicated 36
that she feels there are other alternatives that are cheaper. 37
38
Ms. Ward indicated that snow removal would be an issue, as the City would clear the new 39
sidewalk onto hers that she would have to shovel not to mention the fact that her driveway would 40
be shortened considerably. 41
42
Elizabeth Chelberg of 5045 Rainbow Lane indicated that she lives right across from Sunnyside 43
School and there is a sidewalk for the kids to walk on and the kids cross right in front of her 44
Mounds View City Council June 23, 2003
Regular Meeting Page 6
house with a crossing patrol. She then commented that the issue is there is not enough security 1
as there are people that race by or do not stop. 2
3
Ms. Chelberg suggested that getting traffic to slow down is what is needed before a child is killed 4
not a sidewalk. She further commented that adding the sidewalk shortens driveways and makes 5
it more dangerous for children because all those vehicles have to back across the sidewalk. 6
7
Faye Galligher representing the School District indicated she wanted to remind Council that the 8
reason the School District proposed a sidewalk on the north side is because the crossing guards 9
have to remain within a certain distance of the school and they would like to educate children to 10
stay on the north side because children cannot judge the speed of oncoming vehicles. She further 11
commented that she feels it would be much safer to have the children cross with the patrols near 12
the school and stay on the north side. 13
14
Ms. Galligher commented that the recommendation for the sidewalk had come out of numerous 15
meetings with the safety task force. 16
17
Mayor Linke asked what the distance is that the guards have to stay within. 18
19
Ms. Galligher indicated that the patrol guards are through the Ramsey County Safety Foundation 20
and need to have a supervisor in view of them so they need to remain on school property. 21
22
Council Member Gunn asked whether the school has attempted to get parents to volunteer to 23
assist with crossing. 24
25
Ms. Galligher indicated that they have not been able to hire adult crossing guards and in today’s 26
society there are not parent volunteers consistently available to help with crossing. 27
28
Council Member Marty asked that anyone intending to speak at the meeting sign their name and 29
address in the public book. 30
31
Ms. Chelberg indicated that the parents that cannot afford to bus their children walk them to 32
school in the morning and back in the afternoon. She then commented that she lives right there 33
and could watch them. 34
35
Bill Ivory of 5115 Eastwood Road indicated his concern is that he sees the kids going to 36
Edgewood and coming down Woodcrest and he cannot imagine anyone living on the north side 37
walking up to get on the sidewalk and then walking back down to get to school. He then said he 38
speaks against the sidewalk because it does not make sense to do it and it is a waste of money if 39
it will not be used. He further commented that he would rather see the money spent on an extra 40
officer to sit there and hand out tickets like ice cream to get the kids racing out of Irondale to 41
slow down. 42
43
Kent Reed of 2833 County Road H indicated he was speaking on behalf of himself and his wife. 44
He then reviewed the points he had made in his letter of June 2, 2003. 45
Mounds View City Council June 23, 2003
Regular Meeting Page 7
1
Mr. Reed indicated that he opposes the plan because he does not believe that this stems from a 2
comprehensive look at safety for pedestrians in the district. He then commented that this seems 3
to be a fairly narrow plan and he does not believe that the work was done to determine the best 4
routes for a sidewalk. He further commented that putting a sidewalk along there duplicates 5
access and putting a sidewalk in another location would increase access whereas this plan has 6
one corridor to be used by a limited number of students. 7
8
Mr. Reed indicated that he has two children in the district and his youngest, even as a fifth 9
grader, was not allowed to cross alone on her bike. He would meet her and cross with his truck 10
as she crossed on her bike because it is just too dangerous. 11
12
Mr. Reed indicated that his daughter needed to collect data for a science project so he sent her to 13
the four way stop at Silver Lake Road and County Road H to record the vehicles that did not 14
stop. He then indicated that she went there on Wednesday at 3:30 and 5:00, Friday at 3:30 and 15
5:00 and Saturday at 3:30 and 5:00 and recorded over 2,400 data points for what cars did at that 16
intersection and the percentage of those that did not completely stop was 11% and the highest 17
was 27% on Saturday at 3:30 p.m. He then commented that his daughter did not write down 18
those that did not stop at all. 19
20
Mr. Reed indicated that if the District is going to funnel children to that intersection to cross an 21
adult paid crossing guard is necessary because it is too dangerous. 22
23
Mr. Reed indicated that the other flaw is continuing west to serve those that live on the north side 24
of H2 if they are on the west side they have to cross Silver Lake Road to get to the sidewalk and 25
there is no controlled stop. He then commented that at Woodcrest there is a depression and 26
vehicles cannot see pedestrians. 27
28
Richard Sonterre of 5060 Red Oak Drive indicated he did not envy the Council of having to 29
make this decision. He then reminded Council that they needed to make decisions for the best 30
interest of this community not of a small group. He further commented that he has heard a lot of 31
information for and against this plan but most of those against are because they do not want it in 32
their back yard but he feels this is a good thing for the community and the safety of the City’s 33
children. He also commented that his children would benefit from the use of the sidewalk. 34
35
Mr. Sonterre reminded Council that 2/3 of the students that attend Sunnyside live in Mounds 36
View and most do not receive bussing. He then commented it is not as much of an issue in the 37
summer but in the winter kids teeter along the snow banks or walk down in the traffic lane and 38
that is very dangerous. 39
40
Mr. Sonterre indicated that children are forced to decide whether to cross with no crosswalk 41
marking and no patrol or walk within a couple of feet of cars traveling in excess of the posted 42
speed limit. 43
44
Mounds View City Council June 23, 2003
Regular Meeting Page 8
Mr. Sonterre indicated he has sat with the police out there running laser and only those going 1
more than 15 m.p.h. over the limit were ticketed. The speeding continues and he has not seen an 2
increase in tickets. 3
4
Mr. Sonterre indicated that this is not just something for kids that go to Sunnyside. He then 5
explained that he has experienced parents in New Brighton that will not their children walk home 6
with his and cross County Road H at an uncontrolled intersection. 7
8
Mr. Sonterre indicated the Comprehensive Plan calls for interconnected pathways for the 9
neighborhoods and this fits that regardless of whether there is a path in New Brighton. He then 10
said there is a path in New Brighton but it endangers his kids to get to it. 11
12
Mr. Sonterre indicated he has discussed this matter with Public Works Director Lee and he wants 13
to be considerate of the neighbors whose yards and lives would be impacted by this sidewalk. He 14
then said he would prefer to have the five foot concrete sidewalk even though it would require 15
purchasing a piece of equipment for maintenance. He further commented that the savings the 16
City gains from making the path narrower would pay for half of the machine this time and the 17
rest could be paid over time as the City builds more smaller paths rather than the six and a half 18
foot. 19
20
Mr. Sonterre indicated that the Comprehensive plan calls for this and it is for public safety. He 21
then commented that this is not a your back yard my back yard thing this is a Mounds View issue 22
that is a safety and convenience issue. He then asked Council to be considerate of residents and 23
balance the costs versus the public safety need. 24
25
David Jahnke of 8428 Eastwood Road commented that he is still really confused as to the 26
priorities of this City because the City borrowed over $1,000,000 to keep a golf course running 27
that has never made any money but the City cannot figure out how to get its children to school 28
safely. He then suggested the money borrowed to the golf course would be more appropriately 29
spent to get these kids bussed to school and maintain their safety. He also commented that the 30
golf course report upset him because there was no financial information in it at all. 31
32
Kimberly Thompson of 5051 Long Lake Road indicated she has a very small house and this 33
sidewalk would severely impact her as it would be 11 to 14 feet outside her windows. She then 34
said she had conducted an informal study to determine how many kids walk along that side and, 35
over the course of the two weeks that she kept track, she found one 15 year old boy walks on that 36
side. 37
38
Ms. Thompson indicated that her privacy would be seriously impacted not to mention that her 39
driveway would be shortened so much that it would be almost unusable. 40
41
Ms. Thompson indicated there are some nice things going on in the City and she likes the 42
Comprehensive Plan as it applies to the walking and scenic trails but this sidewalk is not needed. 43
She further commented she is already the recipient of trash being deposited by pedestrians and 44
putting a sidewalk in front of her house would only add to the problem. 45
Mounds View City Council June 23, 2003
Regular Meeting Page 9
1
Ms. Thompson indicated that she has lived on County Road H for 37 years and knows that the 2
sidewalk on the south side is used and she sees parents walking down to meet their kids and 3
crossing with them. She then commented that Pike Lake School has adult crossing guards out 4
there every morning regardless of the weather. 5
6
Ms. Thompson commented that it is possible to bus 1200 children for the amount of money this 7
sidewalk would cost. She then said that she feels the City needs to look at a different way to 8
solve the problem and she does not think this will bring the neighborhood together. 9
10
David Vinkstra of 3000 County Road H2 suggested that strict law enforcement might generate 11
enough revenue to pay for the bussing. 12
13
Mayor Linke clarified that the City could not use TIF funds to bus the children as there are 14
stringent regulations that govern the use of those funds. 15
16
Dave Tillman of 5166 Long View Drive indicated he would like to have the sidewalk as he 17
thinks it is necessary for the children and to move residents between neighborhoods. He then 18
commented that all new communities install sidewalks. He also commented that not having 19
bussing has had a huge impact on his family. 20
21
Elizabeth Jezzo of 5046 Silver Lake Road indicated that she supports the sidewalk because as an 22
adult she resents the fact that this is a safety issue just for children. She then said it is nearly 23
impossible to cross the street and she likes to go down to Long Lake Park with her dog without 24
having to walk along other people’s yards. She further commented that she has nothing in the 25
easement, has access on Silver Lake Road and, as long as TIF funds are used she has nothing to 26
lose so she would like to see the sidewalk. 27
28
Jennifer Kravek of 5092 Rainbow Lane indicated she has two daughters at Edgewood and the 29
majority of students walk down Edgewood Drive to Woodcrest and use the sidewalk on the other 30
side. She then said that she agrees with Mr. Ivory that increased patrol in the area would help to 31
slow drivers down. She further commented that she used to work for a bus company that had 32
paid people that stop traffic to cross students. 33
34
Ms. Kravek volunteered to stop traffic to get the kids across the street. 35
36
Jerry Blanski of 2933 Wooddale Drive commented that he does not have children using this 37
facility and he does not live on County Road H or on a nearby side street. He then said that he 38
sees this as a District 621 problem created when they stopped bussing and, not surprisingly, there 39
is a representative from the district here to speak on behalf of approval of the sidewalk. 40
41
Mr. Blanski indicated that residents are being asked to pay for a sidewalk to cause a problem 42
caused by the School District. He then commented that if all the cities in the area faced with the 43
same predicament all spent $363,000 that amount of money would bus the children to Alaska. 44
45
Mounds View City Council June 23, 2003
Regular Meeting Page 10
Mr. Blanski expressed concern that other neighborhoods will want sidewalks once this one is 1
done and the City cannot afford to do that. He further commented that too much is lost for the 2
residents along the path of the proposed sidewalk and he does not really think this would solve 3
the safety issue for children so he is opposed. 4
5
Mr. Blanski indicated that he would rather have the County fix up the walking and biking paths 6
along County Road H west from Silver Lake Road down to Knollwood. He then said that New 7
Brighton was very nice to the City and gave it a sidewalk and it should be used. He further 8
commented that, if the money will burn up if it is not spent, then it should be used for fixing the 9
streets as that is a real need at this time. 10
11
Mayor Linke indicated the City could not use TIF funds for street improvements but said he 12
wished it were possible. 13
14
Mr. Blanski commented that Mounds View has not worked aggressively with the County to fix 15
the situation. 16
17
Mayor Linke indicated that this Council as well as previous Councils have tried to get the County 18
to do something and has been fighting with them. 19
20
Mr. Blanski indicated he had heard that the City did not want to put in funds as New Brighton 21
has so there is no plan for redesigning. 22
23
Mr. Blanski said he feels sorry for those that would have the sidewalk in front of the house not 24
only do they have the street being plowed then the sidewalk is plowed at different times that puts 25
a huge burden on residents to keep driveways cleared. He then said that the sidewalks would 26
have to be plowed early enough for the children to be able to walk on them to get to school or 27
there is no point. He further commented that he does not feel that children should be walking in 28
cold and snowy weather but should be bussed. 29
30
Mr. Blanski commented that, if an adult has an issue crossing the street in that location, how is 31
anyone going to get children across that street safely. He then said there have been a lot of 32
negative comments and he does not understand why there has been money spent on plans prior to 33
a hearing. 34
35
Joe Rinke of 5165 Eastwood Road indicated he has the privilege of walking his children to 36
Sunnyside School. He then said he would like to see a sidewalk but does not understand why it 37
would need to be so wide. He further commented that he would like to see no parking during 38
times when children are walking because you have to step out into the street before you can see if 39
cars are coming and it is very dangerous. 40
41
Mr. Rinke indicated he would like to see semaphores or stop signs book ending the school on 42
either end to slow traffic. 43
44
Mounds View City Council June 23, 2003
Regular Meeting Page 11
Mr. Sonterre indicated he has met with numerous officials from Ramsey County and the City has 1
pushed hard on everything except a sidewalk. He then commented that when Ramsey County 2
reconstructs the road the sidewalk will go in and it will be an eight foot wide bituminous path 3
rather than the five or six and a half foot proposed by the City. 4
5
Mr. Sonterre indicated the City has asked for flashing lights and were told no as well as no 6
parking. He then said that Ramsey County has been dealt with aggressively and nothing has 7
happened with regard to all the other issues other than the sidewalk. 8
9
Ms. Olson commented that the reconstruction could be a lot of years off and she would prefer to 10
wait. She then said that it would be just as dangerous for the kids to be playing on the snow piles 11
along the sidewalk as it is now without a sidewalk. She then asked if the City could pay to put in 12
s top signs and whether the City incurs liability for now promptly removing snow and ice if there 13
is an injury. 14
15
Mayor Linke indicated that the County will not allow stop signs regardless of who pays for them. 16
He then said that the City would be responsible for clearing the sidewalk. 17
18
Randy Leonardson of 2801 _____ (NW corner of Silver Lake Road and County Road H) 19
indicated he felt that adding a stop light would increase the safety for kids crossing especially if 20
the road is widened to five lanes. He then said he would donate property for the stop light. 21
22
Public Works Director Lee indicated it is not in the current CIP to put a stoplight at that 23
intersection. 24
25
Mr. Sonterre indicated that they do have plans to conduct a new traffic volume study at that 26
intersection. 27
28
Ron Kravek of 5920 Rainbow Lane indicated that Woodcrest is a huge safety hazard with cars 29
racing up that street. He then said that his father-in-law painted a line on his driveway so his kids 30
know where they have to stop with their bikes. He then said that he does not see the need for a 31
sidewalk in that area and he would like to see traffic laws enforced to slow the cars down. 32
33
Mayor Linke closed the public hearing at 8:27 p.m. 34
35
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Linke. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 6042 with a 36
6.5 Foot Wide Concrete Walkway, Option 2 to the Western City Limits and Utilize TIF Funds. 37
38
Council Member Marty commented that he is concerned with the safety of the children in the 39
City but there are limited funds available during these tight budget times. He then said that the 40
TIF funds should increase over the next year or two and suggested revisiting the sidewalk 41
discussion in a couple of years but he cannot support the sidewalk at this time. 42
43
Mounds View City Council June 23, 2003
Regular Meeting Page 12
Council Member Stigney thanked everyone for the comments. He then said that he is confused 1
about the bussing because he understands there is a line to deduct the amount you have to pay for 2
bussing your kids on your taxes and his son did that. 3
4
Michele Sandback of 2356 Sherwood Road explained that residents are able to deduct the 5
amount on taxes but you do not get all of that amount back. 6
7
Council Member Stigney indicated that, if there is so much concern for the safety of children, 8
why do they not throw out a dollar to help with the situation. He then asked if there is assistance 9
available to subsidize the bussing for those that cannot afford it. He further commented that he is 10
not in favor of this at this time due to LGA cuts as well as all of the negative comments heard at 11
this meeting. He also indicated that he would like to discuss ways to make the area safer rather 12
than just paying all that money to put in a sidewalk that may not help the situation. 13
14
Council Member Gunn thanked everyone that spoke and said she thinks the Council needs to 15
stop and discuss the issues so she would like to table this to the next work session. 16
17
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Linke. To Table Resolution 6042 to the Work Session on July 7, 18
2003. 19
20
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 21
22
Residents asked if there is something the residents could do to force the county to fix the 23
sidewalk and put in stoplights. 24
25
Council recommended contacting the County Commissioners. 26
27
Michelle Sandback suggested residents go to the School Board meetings to let them know they 28
need to take the issue to the County. 29
30
Mr. Sonterre indicated the bussing issue could be resolved in September when the School 31
District comes to the voters for a referendum to get their operating budgets back. 32
33
A resident commented that some residents have four or five kids in the district and cannot afford 34
the $200.00 per child for bussing. 35
36
Council Member Stigney asked Staff to determine whether low-income residents could get 37
subsidized bussing. 38
39
C. Public Hearing, Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 716, an 40
Ordinance Amending Section 1108.04 of the Zoning Code Pertaining to 41
Conditional Uses within the R-3 and R-4 Zoning Districts 42
43
Mayor Linke opened the public hearing at 8:41 p.m. 44
45
Mounds View City Council June 23, 2003
Regular Meeting Page 13
Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated that this change is in response to issues with regard 1
to multifamily properties and the fact that in certain areas no City review was required for the 2
expansion of those multiple dwelling facilities. He then indicated that this change would require 3
City review to determine whether the proposal would be detrimental to the surrounding area. 4
5
Interim City Administration Ericson read the language requirement from the Ordinance as it was 6
changed and is slightly different from the language at the last meeting. 7
8
Mayor Linke closed the public hearing at 8:43 p.m. 9
10
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Gunn. To Waive the Reading, Approve the Second Reading, and 11
Adopt Ordinance 716, an Ordinance Amending Section 1108.04 of the Zoning Code Pertaining 12
to Conditional Uses with the R-3 and R-4 Zoning Districts. 13
14
ROLL CALL: Gunn/Stigney/Marty/Quick/Linke. 15
16
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 17
18
D. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6035 Regarding an Off-Sale 19
Intoxicating Liquor License for Network Liquors on Ten; 2345 West County 20
Road H2 21
22
Mayor Linke opened the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. 23
24
Mayor Linke closed the public hearing at 8:46 p.m. 25
26
Council Member Quick asked how long the license is good for. 27
28
Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated it is a one-year license. 29
30
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 6035, a 31
Resolution Regarding an Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Network Liquors on Ten. 32
33
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Amend the Resolution to Reflect a One-Year License. 34
35
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 36
37
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 38
39
E. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6036 Regarding an On-Sale 40
Intoxicating Liquor License for Robert’s Sports Bar and Entertainment; 41
2400 County Road H2 42
43
Mayor Linke opened the public hearing at 8:47 p.m. 44
45
Mounds View City Council June 23, 2003
Regular Meeting Page 14
Mayor Line closed the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. 1
2
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 6036, a 3
Resolution Regarding an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Robert’s Sports Bar and 4
Entertainment. 5
6
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 7
8
F. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6037 Regarding an On-Sale 9
Intoxicating Liquor License for Jake’s Sports Café; 2400 Highway 10 10
11
Mayor Linke opened the public hearing 8:48 p.m. 12
13
Mayor Linke closed the public hearing at 8:49 p.m. 14
15
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 6037, a 16
Resolution Regarding an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Jake’s Sports Café. 17
18
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 19
20
G. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6038 Regarding an On-Sale 21
Intoxicating Liquor License for the Mermaid; 2200 Highway 10 22
23
Mayor Linke opened the public hearing at 8:49 p.m. 24
25
Mr. Blanski asked whether the license fees for the Mermaid cover the costs of increased policing 26
at the business. 27
28
Mayor Linke indicated that the costs would be covered by the license fee. 29
30
Mayor Linke closed the public hearing at 8:50 p.m. 31
32
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 6038, a 33
Resolution Regarding an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for the Mermaid. 34
35
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 36
37
H. Resolution 6041 Establishing a Calendar for the Preparation and Adoption 38
of the 2004 Budget 39
40
Finance Director Hansen indicated the City’s Charter requires that the dates and times for 41
consideration of the budget be set by Resolution and this Resolution would do so. He then 42
reviewed the proposed schedule for budget review and adoption for the remainder of the year. 43
44
Mounds View City Council June 23, 2003
Regular Meeting Page 15
Council Member Quick asked how the City looks with regard to the cuts made by the legislature 1
and whether the City could handle the cuts with the levy at its current level. 2
3
Finance Director Hansen indicated that the City will lose $326,000 this year and $426,000 next 4
year of the promised $879,000. He then indicated that the City has the right to levy back 60% of 5
what is lost in LGA. 6
7
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Gunn. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 6041, a 8
Resolution Establishing a Calendar for the Preparation and Adoption of the 2004 Budget. 9
10
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 11
12
I. Discussion Regarding Pawnshop Ordinances 13
14
Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated that there were issues raised concerning the 15
pawnshop ordinances at the June 2, 2003 work session and this is a discussion of those issues. 16
He then asked that Council discuss an overlay district, screening of all employees, and a fee 17
increase. 18
19
Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated that an overlay district could be established in the 20
area north of new Highway 10 or an area south of County Road H in the Mustang Drive. He also 21
noted an overlay district is a geographical area rather than a boundary around lots. 22
23
Council Member Gunn asked whether the overlay district would mean that a pawnshop could not 24
be located in the mall. 25
26
Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated that, if an overlay district is created, that is where a 27
pawnshop could locate. 28
29
Council Member Marty indicated he is in favor of the overlay district and would like it located 30
north of Highway 10. 31
32
Council Member Gunn indicated she would like to look into the overlay district as well. 33
34
Council Member Stigney indicated he is in favor of an overlay district but would like to hear 35
from residents as to the location for the overlay district. He then indicated he would like the fee 36
to be raised to $10,000 and said he would like to know if the City could check employees for 37
misdemeanors rather than just the license holders. 38
39
Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated that the City would conduct the criminal check for 40
the license holder and the manager. 41
42
Mayor Linke indicated he was concerned with the overlay district because he had heard of some 43
cities getting into trouble for picking an overlay district for a particular type of business. He then 44
asked that the City Attorney look into the matter. 45
Mounds View City Council June 23, 2003
Regular Meeting Page 16
1
Council Member Stigney indicated he understood that it was when the license holder came up for 2
renewal that the City wanted to change the district. He then suggested that the City take a 3
broader approach and create the district not only for pawnshops but for related businesses as 4
well. 5
6
There was consent on the $10,000 fee and to look at an overlay district. 7
8
Mayor Linke indicated he would go with the south side. 9
10
Richard Sonterre of 5060 Red Oak Drive thanked Council for its interest in the overlay district 11
and said that his understanding of the situation is that the reason there was an issue is because 12
they singled out a specific type of business and it ran akin to spot zoning. He then said he would 13
support the area to the north of Highway 10 because there are no residential structures, no 14
churches and no schools in the area. He further commented that he did not think there was 15
another geographical location in the City that would provide this type of separation. 16
17
Council Member Marty indicated that is why he would prefer the north side. 18
19
Council Member Gunn asked if there is buildable space in the area. 20
21
Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated there was not but noted there is rentable space in 22
the area. 23
24
J. Consideration of a Development Review Request for LandCor Development 25
26
Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated that this item is on the agenda as it failed on a two 27
to two vote at the last meeting. He then said that the PUD was successfully amended to allow for 28
this type of use and all of the requirements have been met. He also indicated that while the 29
Planning Commission would have preferred to have a restaurant on that location the market has 30
proven that the site is not suitable for that and they are supportive of this plan. 31
32
Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated that at the last meeting Resolution 6033 failed on a 33
vote of two to two so no action was taken and Staff brings this before Council for consideration 34
and recommends approval of the project. He then indicated that a representative of LandCor 35
Development was in attendance to answer any questions. 36
37
Audie Tarpley from LandCor Development addressed Council and asked for approval of the 38
development review for the projects. He then said that they have met all the requirements 39
including setbacks and adhered pretty strictly to the principals of the PUD. He further 40
commented that they have two signed tenants for the office building and one is an investment 41
company and the other is a chiropractor. 42
43
Mounds View City Council June 23, 2003
Regular Meeting Page 17
Mr. Tarpley indicated that they are in active negotiations with other possible tenants and said he 1
could not guarantee the type of businesses that go into the office building. He then asked 2
Council Members to vote on the merits of the project and not on previous issues. 3
4
Mayor Linke indicated that Council had already passed the PUD allowing for office space and 5
this Resolution would approve the office use on this site. 6
7
Council Member Stigney indicated that Council was told this would be for medical uses and that 8
fell through and now Council is told that there is some sort of investment company and a 9
chiropractor and not to take into consideration previous things. He then said that residents did 10
not want a chiropractor and he opposes that and, as far as retail, he does not feel this City needs 11
any more drive thru windows, the site should have stayed restaurant and he is opposed to the 12
whole project. He further commented that he thinks this development is a benefit to the 13
developer and not the community. 14
15
Mr. Tarpley indicated that no one from LandCor, especially him, ever suggested that this would 16
be a medical office building. He then said that from the very beginning he has made it clear that 17
he did not know whom the final tenants would be. He then said that this development would be 18
a benefit to the community, as it will increase the tax base because as the property sits there is 19
little tax money coming in. He further commented that no one had ever made any comments to 20
him concerning the drive thru windows and noted that he wants to work with the community but 21
at this point he is surprised to hear that Council is unhappy with the project as the PUD was 22
amended to allow for this project. 23
24
Mayor Linke indicated that Council had no say in the type of tenants that lease the building. 25
26
Council Member Stigney disagreed that no comments were made with regard to medical tenants 27
because he knows that it was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. 28
29
Mr. Tarpley indicated that he never stated this would be a medical building. He then explained 30
that he had given information on the types of calls he had been receiving with regard to leasing 31
the facility and those were medical but it was all unofficial information and he never suggested 32
this was to be primarily a medical office building. 33
34
Mayor Linke indicated that the tenants are immaterial to the discussion. 35
36
Council Member Stigney indicated that he opposes the plan. 37
38
Mr. Tarpley asked Council Member Stigney to indicate what he opposed on the merits of the 39
project. 40
41
Council Member Stigney indicated he wanted the site to remain a restaurant site. 42
43
Mr. Tarpley asked that Council Member Stigney be removed from the vote as the PUD 44
amendment has been approved and his project meets all the City requirements. 45
Mounds View City Council June 23, 2003
Regular Meeting Page 18
1
Mayor Linke indicated that would not be necessary. 2
3
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Quick. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 6033, a 4
Resolution Approving a Development Review for LandCor Development. 5
6
Council Member Marty indicated he agreed with Council Member Stigney on this issue. 7
8
Ayes – 3 Nays – 2(Stigney/Marty) Motion carried. 9
10
Council recessed at 9:20 p.m. 11
12
Council reconvened at 9:25 p.m. 13
14
K. Discussion Regarding City Attorney Firm Interviews 15
16
Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated that several firms were interviewed and they were 17
all asked the same questions. He then presented the Staff recommendation to Council for 18
consideration. 19
20
Council discussed the interviews and whether to conduct second interviews. 21
22
Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated there was a $1,000.00 difference in the retainer for 23
Kennedy and Graven and for Kelly and Faucet and noted that Kennedy and Graven should be 24
considered for the long standing history with the City and institutional legal memory. 25
26
Council Member Marty indicated he would like to interview Kelly and Faucet and Barna Guzzy 27
at the July work session. 28
29
Council Member Stigney expressed concern with the depth of the Kelly and Faucet firm and said 30
that he would like to consider Kennedy and Graven because of the long standing history with the 31
City and pending issues such as the Harstad matter. 32
33
Council Member Stigney indicated there is an offer pending with Innovative Images that has not 34
been settled yet drafted by Kennedy and Graven so there are unresolved issues so he is 35
uncomfortable with making a change at this time and taking into consideration the administration 36
of how to respond and who to respond to that could be handled. 37
38
Mayor Linke indicated he would like to interview all three on July 7, 2003. 39
40
Council Member Stigney indicated that he is uncomfortable dealing with an unknown due to the 41
fact there are only seven members of Kelly and Faucet. 42
43
Mounds View City Council June 23, 2003
Regular Meeting Page 19
Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated that Mr. Kelly is a very well respected attorney and, 1
after checking with a city that he represents, there has never been an occasion where they had an 2
issue that could not be handled by the firm so he would not want to exclude them on firm depth. 3
4
Council Member Quick indicated he did not agree with interviewing anyone as he feels the City 5
should stay with Kennedy and Graven. He also commented that there is not enough difference in 6
the fees to justify all the expense of the process. 7
8
Council Member Marty indicated he wanted to interview Kelly and Faucet and Barna Guzzy. 9
10
Council Member Stigney indicated he wanted to stay with Kennedy and Graven. 11
12
Council Member Gunn indicated she would feel comfortable staying with Kennedy and Graven. 13
14
Mayor Linke indicated that the City would stay with Kennedy and Graven and would not be 15
interviewing any other firms. He then suggested the City discuss ways to reduce attorney fees 16
such as not having an attorney at the Council meetings. 17
18
City Attorney Riggs indicated he feels there are things that could be done differently and 19
suggested coming to a work session to discuss them. 20
21
Council Member Marty indicated he has concerns with Kennedy and Graven because he has 22
asked several times to see the legal outcome from the golf course from inception to the lawsuit 23
that was lost and he also has concerns with the Kessel and Hammerschmidt matters and the legal 24
advice given by the attorney. 25
26
Council Member Quick indicated that Kennedy and Graven was not the attorney on that case. 27
28
Council Member Stigney asked if the City Attorney had any issue dealing with an unsigned 29
contract. 30
31
City Attorney Riggs indicated the City could fire an attorney at any given time. 32
33
Council Member Stigney asked if the City Attorney could sue the City for firing him. 34
35
City Attorney Riggs indicated that ethically he could not put language into a contract to that 36
effect because the Council has the right to seek legal counsel from anybody at any given time 37
38
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 39
40
A. City Council Minutes June 9, 2003 41
42
Change the spelling of Haames to Hammes. 43
44
Mounds View City Council June 23, 2003
Regular Meeting Page 20
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Gunn. To Approve the City Council Minutes of June 9, 2003, as 1
Amended. 2
3
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 4
5
11. REPORTS 6
7
Council Member Stigney indicated he had attended the League of Minnesota Cities conference in 8
St. Cloud and sat in on some fiscal information and health insurance as well as budgeting and 9
how to deal with City cutbacks. He also sat in on a seminar on how to stick together or fall apart, 10
working with other communities to piece together a common goal and he found the sessions to 11
be quite informative. 12
13
Council Member Stigney provided handout information on dealing with cutbacks for Council 14
Members. 15
16
Council Member Marty thanked Mr. Ericson for the administrator’s report as it is excellent and 17
very helpful to keep Council apprised of what is going on. He then recognized Joe Kinney and 18
Officer Mennard who recently received commendations for performing their jobs in an 19
exceptional manner. 20
21
Council Member Marty indicated that the Festival in the Park would be held on August 16, and 22
17, 2003. 23
24
Council Member Quick indicated that when Mr. Ericson took on the job of Interim City 25
Administrator he put himself into a position that forced him to lose some vacation that he had 26
coming to him and he thinks now is a good time to bring this up because the City is very close to 27
hiring or coming to an agreement with a new administrator. He then said he feels Council should 28
reinstate the vacation that he was not able to take. 29
30
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Linke. To Direct Staff to Prepare a Resolution Reinstating Mr. 31
Ericson’s Lost Vacation. 32
33
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 34
35
Mayor Linke indicated that he was approached by Mr. Hall wanting to look at the 2:00 a.m. bar 36
closing for the Mermaid. He then said that Mr. Hall was not able to be at this meeting as it was 37
his anniversary and then asked that the matter be added to the work session agenda for 38
discussion. 39
40
Mayor Linke indicated that Council needed to spearhead the salary negotiations with Mr. Ulrich 41
rather than New Brighton or the Interim Staff. 42
43
Council agreed to set a Council Meeting for Wednesday, June 25, 2003 to discuss the City 44
Administrator’s salary and benefits package. 45
Mounds View City Council June 23, 2003
Regular Meeting Page 21
1
City Attorney Riggs indicated that this meeting would need to be continued to Wednesday, June 2
25, 2003, as there is not time for notice for a special meeting. 3
4
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, July 7, 2003 5
Next Special Council Meeting: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 6
Next Council Meeting: Monday, July 14, 2003 7
8
13. ADJOURNMENT 9
10
Mayor Linke continued the meeting to Wednesday, June 25, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. 11
12
13
Transcribed and recorded by: 14
15
16
Joan Lenzmeier 17
Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 18