HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2002/01/07M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2002\City Council\Council Packets\01-07-02 CC\Agenda, January 7, 2002 City Council.doc
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
MONDAY, JANUARY 7, 2002
7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Sonterre, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomas
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
4. CLOSED SESSION (To discuss threatened/potential litigation)
5. PUBLIC INPUT:
A. 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. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Just and Correct Claims
B. Licenses for Approval
C. Resolution 5686 Approving SEH’s Supplemental Agreement Letter-Lee
D. Resolution 5677 Establishing the City of Mounds View Official Calendar for
the year 2002-Miller
E. Set a Public Hearing for 7:05 p.m., January 28, 2002 to Consider a
Conditional Use Permit and Development Review for the Edgewood Middle
School Facility Expansion, CU01-004 & DE01-005 – Atkinson
F. Set a Public Hearing for January 28, 2002 at 7:10 pm for the Second
Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 691, Amending Chapter 502
(Intoxicating Liquor) and Chapter 503 (3.2 Percent Beer) of the Municipal
Code as They Relate to Charitable Gambling-Reed
G. Resolution 5673 Approving 2001 Transfers – Hansen
H. Resolution Approving Seasonal Ice Rink Maintenance Position-Reed
I. Resolution 5684 Approving Application for a Body Armor Replacement
Grant
J. Resolution 5685 Authorizing Payment to Northwest Youth & Family
Services for the Year 2002 – Hansen
K. Resolution 5681 Hiring a Public Works Maintenance Worker
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. Consideration of an Appeal of a Planning Commission Denial of the
Variance Requested by Harstad Companies Regarding the Proposed
Longview estates Major Subdivision, Planning Case VR01-010
M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2002\City Council\Council Packets\01-07-02 CC\Agenda, January 7, 2002 City Council.doc
City Council Meeting
January 7, 2002
Page –2-
B. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 689 Revising Chapter 512 of
the Tobacco Ordinance.
A. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance
B. Stigney, Thomas, Quick, Marty, Sonterre
C. Consideration of Resolution 5682, a Resolution Approving a Minor
Subdivision of 7630 Woodlawn Drive and 7618 Edgewood Drive, Planning
Case MI01-005 – Ericson
D. Resolution 5678 Appointing Official Newspaper, Acting Mayor, Treasurer
and Official Depository for the Year 2002-Miller
E. Resolution 5679 Appointing City Council Members and City Administrator
as Representatives for City Commissions and Other Organizations-Miller
9. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
10. REPORTS
11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. December 10, 2001 City Council Meeting Minutes
12. CLOSED SESSION (Continued)
A. To discuss threatened/potential litigation
B. To discuss private personnel data
13. Next Council Work Session: January 14, 2002
Next Council Meeting: January 28, 2002
14. ADJOURNMENT
Item No.8E
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: Kathleen Miller, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution No. 5679 Appointing City Council Members
and City Administrator as Representatives for City
Commissions and Other Organizations
Date of Report: January 7, 2002
Background
The City Council traditionally appoints its members and the City Administrator as
Representatives to its various Commissions and other Organizations at its first annual
meeting of the year. Attached is Resolution No. 5679 for your review taxation law
generally prohibits any subsequent increase in the proposed levy once it is
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the City Council review the attached resolution and appoint City
Council members to represent the City for the year 2002. Staff further recommends the
City Council approve Resolution No. 5679 Appointing City Council Members and the
City Administrator as Representatives for City Commissions and Other Organizations.
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________
Kathleen F. Miller
City Administrator
RESOLUTION NO. 5679
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPOINTING CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND CITY
ADMINISTRATOR AS REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COMMISSIONS AND
OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
WHEREAS, members of the City Council act as representatives to City
Commissions and other organizations; and
WHEREAS, the following representatives of the City have been named to act as
representatives to the following City Commissions and other organizations for the
year 2002:
Ramsey County League of Local
Government
1.
2. Kathleen Miller
Spring Lake Park/Blaine/Mounds
View Fireman’s Relief Association
1.
2. Kathleen Miller
Human Resources Committee
1.
2.
3. Kathleen Miller
4. Givonna Reed
Mounds View Business Association
1. Richard Sonterre
2. Kathleen Miller
EDA/EDC
1.
2.
Northwest Youth and Family
Services
1.
League of Minnesota Cities
1.
2. Kathleen Miller
Cable Commission
1.
2.
Banquet Center Committee
1.
2.
3. Kathleen Miller
4. Elegant Thymes Rep.
5. Charles Hansen
6. Greg Lee
I-35W Corridor Coalition
1. Richard Sonterre
2. Greg Lee
North Metro Mayors Association
1. Richard Sonterre
2. Kathleen Miller
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mounds View that the aforementioned appointments are hereby approved.
Adopted this 7th day of January, 2002
(ATTEST) _______________________________
Richard Sonterre, Mayor
(SEAL)
_______________________________
Kathleen Miller, City Administrator
Motion By: Marty
Second: Thomas
Sonterre: Aye
Quick: Aye
Stigney: Aye
Thomas: Aye
Marty: Aye
Item No. 7A
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: Charles Hansen, Finance Director
Item Title/Subject: Just and Correct Claims List of December 19, 2001
Date of Report: January 2, 2002
At the December 10, 2001 City Council meeting, I asked for authorization to do a claims
list prior to the next City Council meeting on January 7, 2002. I explained that there is a
state law that requires the city to pay invoices within 30 days or vendors may impose a
late payment penalty.
The City Council replied that since January 7th would be within 30 days, the claims list
could wait and be approved at the meeting. What I failed to adequately explain is that
there frequently are delays which result in invoices being two to four weeks old when
they reach the Finance Department. Also, some vendors have due dates that are less
than 30 days from the invoice date. If we waited four weeks between claims lists, many
invoices would be past the due date and subject to penalty.
Some vendors explicitly state that they will impose penalties. Others don’t threaten the
penalty, but could impose one under state law if we exceed the 30-day limit. Not all
vendors would impose a penalty, but it is hard to predict which ones would.
In order to minimize the city’s exposure to penalties, I reviewed the invoices and
selected those that would be over 30 days old or past their due date by January 7th and
which I thought were routine in nature and wouldn’t be likely to generate a question from
the City Council. These are in the Claims List dated December 19, 2001 and the
checks were released.
The Xcel Energy check is an example of these. It was issued on December 10th, is due
December 27, 2001, totals $16,298.20, and would be subject to a 1.5% penalty
($244.47) if paid late.
There were a few invoices that I thought had a greater chance of being questioned and
these were held for the January 7, 2002 City Council meeting. Checks from the Just
and Correct Claims Lists dated December 31, 2001 and January 7, 2002 will be
released after approval by the City Council.
I hope this solution is acceptable to the City Council.
Respectfully Submitted,
Charles Hansen
Item No. 07B
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: January 7, 2002
Please consider the following contractor licenses for approval. The licenses listed will
expire on December 31, 2002. All applicants have submitted appropriate fees and
proof of insurance. All licenses are renewals unless noted “new” following the
company name. Those licenses defined as “new” include all 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 2001. Those defined as “renewal” were licensed in the year 2001.
ASPHALT
Asphalt Driveway Company
DMJ Corporation
Minnesota Roadways Co.
EXCAVATING
Frattalone Paving, Inc.
GENERAL (COMMERCIAL)
Berwald Roofing Co., Inc.
Fedtech, Inc.
Kraus-Anderson Construction Company
John Pederson Construction – New
Single-Ply Systems, Inc. – New
HVAC
Ace Mechanical Services, Inc. - New
Air Mechanical
Albers Mechanical Contractors, Inc.
Alliance Mechanical Services, Inc.
Allied Fireside dba Fireside Corner
Aspen Ventilation & Heating Co. – New
Automatic Garage Door & Fireplaces, Inc.
Condor Fireplace & Stone
Dahl Heating & Air - New
Dependable Indoor air Quality, Inc.
East Bethel Heating & A/C
Egan Mechanical Contractors, Inc.
Erickson Plumbing, Heating & Cooling
Gilbert Mechanical Contractors
Golden Valley Heating & Air Cond.
City of Mounds View Staff Report
Contractor Licenses for Approval
Page Two of Two
Harris Companies
Kath Heating & A/C
Master Mobile Homes Services, Inc.
Northern Air Corporation
P & H Services Co., Inc.
Riccar Corporation
River City Sheet Metal, Inc.
St. Marie Sheet Metal, Inc.
Schadegg Mechanical, Inc.
Sharp Heating & Air Cond., Inc.
The Snelling Co., Inc.
Standard Heating & Air Conditioning Co.
Superior Contractors, Inc.
Total Comfort
Yale, Inc.
SIGN
Delite Outdoor Advertising, Inc.
LSE Acquisitions, Inc. dba Lawrence Sign
Amtech Lighting Serv. Dba Suburban Lighting
OTHER
R & M Remodelers (sheds only)
Structures Hardscapes Specialists, LLC (Retaining Walls)
Arnt Construction Co., Inc. (Demolition)
Staff Recommendation: Approve license application as requested.
Item No. 7C
Staff Report No.
Date of Meeting: January 7, 2002
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: Engineering Services of S E H for County Road H2
Reconstruction (Pleasant View Drive to County
Highway 10)
Date of Report: January 7, 2002
At the October 8, 2001 council meeting, Council authorized Staff to proceed with the
road reconstruction project on County Road H2 (Pleasant View Drive to County Highway
10).
In accordance with the adopted assessment policy, a 60 day waiting period must
commence before any further action can occur on the project. As of December 8, 2001,
60 days had elapsed.
On December 10, 2001, the engineering firm of Short- Elliot-Henderickson Inc.
(S E H) submitted a Supplemental Letter of Agreement. This agreement outlines the
engineering services needed to facilitate the final planning, design, and preparation of
bid documents necessary to proceed with the County Road H2 Street Reconstruction
Project. The agreement has been attached for Council review. The cost of the proposed
services is estimated to be $72,125.00. Staff has review the agreement and found to be
acceptable and within the budget restraints of this project.
It should be noted that these services will be billed monthly based on an hourly rate and
will be review by staff prior to authorization of payment.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
RECOMMENDATION:
For Council to authorize Staff to execute the supplemental Letter of Agreement which
outlines engineering service proposed by S E H for the reconstruction of County Road
H2 (Pleasant View Drive to County Highway 10).
RESOLUTION NO. 5686
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECONSTRUCTION OF COUNTY ROAD H2 FROM
COUNTY HIGHWAY 10 TO PLEASANT VIEW DRIVE
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mounds is considering to reconstruct
County Road H2 from County Highway 10 to Pleasant View Drive; and
WHEREAS, County Road H2 between County Highway 10 and Pleasant View
Drive is a Municipal State Aid Road (MSA) and must be constructed to MSA Standards;
and
WHEREAS, this project will include complete street reconstruction (width of 26
feet, with possible parking pullouts on the south side) including B618 curb and gutter,
trailway construction (8 feet wide), minor water main placements and construction of
storm sewer.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on October 8, 2001 to consider public
input regarding the proposed project
WHEREAS, on October 8, 2001 the City Council authorized the engineering firm
of Short-Elliott-Hendrickson (SEH), to proceed with development of plans and
specifications for approval.
WHEREAS, a time period of sixty (60) days has since elapsed since the date of
the public hearing for said project
WHEREAS, a Supplemental Letter of Agreement dated December 10, 2001, was
submitted by the engineering firm of SEH with an estimated cost of $72,125.00 for
proposed engineering services
WHEREAS, the Supplemental Letter of Agreement was reviewed by staff and
found to be within the budget of said project
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council authorizes staff to execute
the supplemental Letter of Agreement dated December 10, 2001which outlines
engineering service proposed by S E H for the reconstruction of County Road H2
(Pleasant View Drive to County Highway 10).
Adopted this 7th day of January, 2002.
ATTEST:
Mayor
(SEAL)
City Administrator
Motion By: Marty
Second By: Thomas
Sonterre: Aye
Quick: Aye
Stigney: Aye
Thomas: Aye
Marty: Aye
M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2002\City Council\Council Packets\01-07-02 CC\Item 07D--Reso 5677, Year 2002 Official Calendar Memo.doc
Item No.7D
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: Kathleen Miller, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution No. 5677 Establishing The City of Mounds View
Official Calendar for 2002
Date of Report: January 7, 2002
Background
Minnesota Statute requires that The Mounds View City Council set an official calendar for
its regular City Council Meetings and Work Sessions. Chapter 105 of the City Code states
that regular meetings of the City Council shall be held on the second and fourth Mondays
of each month at 7:00 p.m. If any such Monday is a legal holiday…the meeting shall be
canceled or held on another date and time…
While the City’s Code does not mention Work Sessions, the City Council has traditionally
held these meetings on the first Monday of each month at 6:00 p.m.
Attached for your consideration is Resolution Number 5677 Setting the 2002 Meeting
Schedule for City Council Meetings and Work Sessions.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the City Council approve Resolution No. 5677 Establishing The City of
Mounds View Official Calendar for 2002.
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________
Kathleen F. Miller
City Administrator
M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2002\City Council\Council Packets\01-07-02 CC\Item 07D--Reso 5677, Year 2002 Official Calendar Memo.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 5677
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW OFFICIAL CALENDAR FOR
2002
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 412.191 requires that City Councils set an official calendar for
Council Meetings; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Charter states that the City Council shall meet regularly at least twice
monthly as they may designate by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 105 of the City of Mounds View’s Code states that regular meetings of the
City Council shall be held on the second and fourth Monday of every month at 7:00 p.m.; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Code further state that if that Monday is a legal holiday the meeting shall be
canceled or held on another date and time; and
WHEREAS, May 28th, September 3rd and November 12th are Tuesday evening meetings, as a
result of the preceding day being a legal holiday; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has traditionally scheduled Work Sessions for the first Monday of the
month at 6:00 p.m.; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does hereby establish
the City of Mounds View Official Calendar for the year 2002 as shown in Exhibit A.
Presented this 7th day of January, 2002.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Rich Sonterre, Mayor
(SEAL) ____________________________________
Kathleen F. Miller, City Administrator
Motion By: Marty
Second By: Thomas
Sonterre: Aye
Quick: Aye
Stigney: Aye
Thomas: Aye
Marty: Aye
M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2002\City Council\Council Packets\01-07-02 CC\Item 07D--Reso 5677, Year 2002 Official Calendar Memo.doc
EXHIBIT A
WORK SESSIONS COUNCIL MEETINGS
January 14 January 7
January 28
February 4 February 11
February 25
March 4 March 11
March 25
April 1 April 8
April 22
May 6 May 13
May 28
June 3 June 10
June 24
July 1 July 8
July 22
August 5 August 12
August 26
September 3 September 9
September 23
October 7 October 14
October 28
November 4 November 12
November 25
December 2 December 9
December 23
Item No. 7 G
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: Charles Hansen, Finance Director
Item Title/Subject: Resolution No. 5673 Approving 2001 Transfers
Date of Report: December 28, 2001
Attached is Resolution 5673 approving transfers for the 2001 budget year. There
are changes in transfers between funds since the budget was adopted.
Transfers between the Vehicle & Equipment Fund and the Water and Sewer Funds
were found to not be in balance in the adopted 2001 budget. Each fund’s budget
expected to receive more in transfers in than the other fund expected to pay in
transfers out. In was necessary to reduce transfers in and increase transfers out to
make them balance.
In the case of the transfers from the Vehicle & Equipment Fund to the Water and
Sewer Funds, the amount was set based upon the budgeted expense for vehicle
purchases in 2001.
In the case of the transfers from the Water and Sewer Funds to the Vehicle &
Equipment Fund, the amount was set at $15,000 each, which splits the difference
between the budgeted transfers and appears to be a reasonable compromise.
Further study of planned future vehicle purchases, the adequacy of current
resources in the Vehicle & Equipment Fund, and appropriate contributions from
other funds, needs to be done prior to working on the 2003 budget.
Respectfully Submitted,
Charles Hansen
RESOLUTION NO. 5673
APPROVING 2001 TRANSFERS
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
County of Ramsey
State of Minnesota
WHEREAS, the City adopted budgets for various funds for 2001 which included
interfund transfers for various purposes.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds
View that the following budgeted transfers for the calendar year 2001 are hereby
approved:
From To Amount
Water Fund General Fund $ 64,500
Sewer Fund General Fund 38,690
Vehicle & Equip General Fund 80,800
Special Projects General Fund 90,000
General Fund Community Center 50,000
General Fund Vehicle & Equipment 25,000
Water Fund Vehicle & Equipment 15,000
Sewer Fund Vehicle & Equipment 15,000
Vehicle & Equipment Water Fund 5,400
Vehicle & Equipment Sewer Fund 5,400
Passed and adopted this 7th day of January, 2002.
ATTEST:
__________________________
Mayor
(SEAL)
__________________________
City Clerk-Administrator
TRANSFERS BETWEEN FUNDS
2001 BUDGET
PER
TRANSFERS
OUT
TRANSFERS
IN
RESOLUTION
5673
Vehicle &
Equip Fund
$5,400 Water Fund $10,000 $5,400
Vehicle &
Equip Fund
$5,400 Sewer Fund $6,000 $5,400
Water Fund $10,000 Vehicle &
Equip Fund
$30,000 $15,000
Sewer Fund $10,000 Vehicle &
Equip Fund
$30,000 $15,000
Motion by Marty
Seconded Thomas
Sonterre Aye
Marty Aye
Quick Aye
Stigney Aye
Thomas Aye
Meeting Date: January 7, 2002
Item No. 7J
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: Givonna Reed, Assistant City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 5680 Approving Seasonal Employment for
Parks Worker
Date of Report: January 2, 2002
At the March 26, 2001 Council meeting the Council adopted Resolution 5549
authorizing staff to fill 10 seasonal positions in the Public Works department.
Eight of the positions were to last not more than six months and two were to last
not more than eight months.
The Parks Foreman has requested that an individual who held one of the 8-
month positions continue on as an ice rink maintenance worker. This individual’s
approved tenure in the Parks department was from April 9, 2001-December 9,
2001. The individual continued to work in Parks until December 17, 2001 at
which time the individual began working on ice rink maintenance. The Parks
Foreman is requesting that the Council approval a full-time seasonal ice rink
maintenance position for December 17, 2001-February 22, 2002. The person in
this position will be responsible for brooming the rink, running the tractor,
shoveling the warming houses and cleaning equipment.
The wage for the ice rink maintenance position will be $9.50/hr with a $.50/hour
performance bonus at the end of employment.
Respectfully Submitted,
Givonna Reed
RESOLUTION NO. 5680
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Approving a Seasonal Ice Rink Maintenance Position
for December 17, 2001-February 22, 2002
WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View Public Works Department does have
a need to hire a seasonal ice rink maintenance worker, and
WHEREAS, Resolution 5546 says that seasonal positions must be
approved by the Mounds View City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City
Council does hereby approve one seasonal Ice Rink Maintenance position
for December 17, 2001-February 22, 2002, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the wage for this
position will be $9.50/hr with a $.50/hour performance bonus at the end of
employment.
Adopted this 7th day of January 2002.
Richard Sonterre, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen Miller, City Administrator
SEAL
Motion by: Marty
Second by: Thomas
Sonterre Aye
Quick Aye
Stigney Aye
Marty Aye
Thomas Aye
Item No.7I
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: Tim Brennan, Deputy Police Chief/Acting Chief
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 5684 Authorizing the Application for a Federal
Grant for Body Armor Purchase Reimbursement
Date of Report: January 7th, 2002
APPLICATION OF A FEDERAL GRANT TO ALLOW FOR UP TO FIFTY-PERCENT
REIMBURSEMENT FOR BODY ARMOR PURCHASES:
A Federal Grant, through the US Department of Justice, is being made
available for 2002. The application window will be open from January
14th, 2002 through April 13th, 2002. The Mounds View Police
Department provides and encourages officers to utilize body armor in
the performance of their duties. There are currently ten officers who
do not have body armor, or whose body armor has exceeded the
manufacturers age recommendation of five to six years. The police
department has budget $1,950.00 for the replacement of three sets of
body armor in 2002. The State of Minnesota also has a program which
reimburses law enforcement agencies for fifty percent of the cost of
body armor purchases. If successful in pursuing this Federal Grant,
the City of Mounds View could conceivably replace all needed body
armor in 2002 at no cost to the city. Applying for said Federal Grant
requires authorization of the Municipality’s Chief Executive Officer.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Council approve Resolution 5684 allowing
for the application of a Federal Grant, which would provide for
reimbursement of up to fifty percent of the cost of police officer body
armor replacement.
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________
Tim Brennan
Deputy Police Chief/Acting Chief
RESOLUTION 5684
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION FOR A FEDERAL GRANT,
WHICH WOULD REIMBURSE UP TO FIFTY PERCENT OF THE COST FOR POLICE
BODY ARMOR PURCHASES
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Police Department currently has seventeen authorized positions for sworn
officers;
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Police Department provides and encourages officers to utilize body armor as
much as possible in the performance of the officer’s duties;
WHEREAS, body armor manufacturers recommend replacement of body armor every five to six years,
depending on use and condition;
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Police Department currently has ten officers who have no body armor, or
whose body armor has exceeded manufacturers age recommendations;
WHEREAS, the Federal Government is reopening a grant program to allow municipalities to apply for up to
fifty percent reimbursement for the replacement of body armor;
WHEREAS, the application window for the grant opens on January 14, 2002 and closes on April 13, 2002;
WHEREAS, authorization to apply for said grant requires approval of the Chief Executive Officer;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council for the City of Mounds View authorizes the
application for a Federal Grant, which would allow for reimbursement of up to fifty percent of the costs
incurred through the replacement of police officer body armor.
Adopted this 7th day of January 2002.
Attest: _____________________________
Richard Sonterre, Mayor
SEAL _____________________________
Kathleen Miller, City Administrator
Mo tion : Marty
Second: Thomas
Sonterre: aye
Stigney: aye Thomas: aye
Marty: aye Quick aye
Item No. 7J
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: Charles Hansen, Finance Director
Item Title/Subject: Resolution Authorizing Payment to Northwest Youth &
Family Services for the Year 2002
Date of Report: January 3, 2002
Attached is Resolution 5685 to authorize payment to Northwest Youth & Family
Services for their program serving residents of the city in the year 2002. This was
reviewed as part of the General Fund budget proposal for 2002. A quarterly report for
the third quarter 2001 and the 2000 Annual Report for Northwest Youth & Family
Services were provided to the City Council.
The final adopted budget included the requested amount on pages GF46 and GF47. If
this resolution is approved by the City Council, payment will be made on the January
28, 2002 Just and Correct Claims List.
Respectfully Submitted,
Charles Hansen
RESOLUTION NO. 5685
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Authorizing Payment to Northwest Youth & Family Services for the Year 2002
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the program and services provided by
Northwest Youth & Family Services to city residents during the 2002 budget process,
and
WHEREAS, the adopted 2002 General Fund budget includes the amount of
$16,432 to pay for the Northwest Youth & Family Services program, and
WHEREAS, Northwest Youth & Family Services has submitted an invoice
requesting payment for its 2002 program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council approves
the payment of $16,432 to Northwest Youth & Family Services for the 2002
program.
Adopted this 7th day of January 2002.
ATTEST:
Richard Sonterre, Mayor
SEAL Kathleen Miller, City Administrator
Motion By: Marty
Second By: Thomas
Sonterre: Aye
Quick: Aye
Thomas: Aye
Marty: Aye
Stigney: Aye
Item No.7K
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: Givonna Reed, Assistant City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 5681 Hiring a PW Maintenance Worker
Date of Report: January 2, 2002
As the Council is aware, Larry Decheine retired from the City in the summer of 2001
after 31 years of service. The Council gave staff direction to fill the vacancy. Staff
interviewed six candidates for the position and Tom Haack is being recommended to fill
the vacancy.
Mr. Haack is currently employed with GM Contracting as a laborer in the sewer and
water department. His responsibilities include installing and repairing water and sewer
distribution systems. Mr. Haack has also worked as a public works seasonal employee
for the cities of Mankato and Maple Lake.
It is recommended that Mr. Haack be hired for the Public Works Maintenance position at
80% of Level A ($11.15/hr). With satisfactory quarterly reviews during the one-year
probationary period, Mr. Haack’s pay would increase 5% every quarter. After one of
year of satisfactory performance Mr. Haack would be at 100% of Level A ($13.93/hr). All
subsequent pay increases would occur per the bargaining unit agreement.
Mr. Haack would begin employment with the City on, or shortly after, January 8, 2002.
Employment with the City would be contingent upon a satisfactory physical examination.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve Resolution 5681 hiring Tom Haack for the Public Works Maintenance position.
Respectfully Submitted
Givonna Reed
RESOLUTION NO. 5681
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION HIRING TOM HAACK AS A
PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE WORKER
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has given direction to hire for
the Public Works Maintenance position; and
WHEREAS, Tom Haack is being recommended to fill the vacant position
and would begin employment with the City on, or shortly after, January 8, 2002; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Haack will be compensated at 80% of Level A
($11.15/hr). Pending satisfactory quarterly performance evaluations during the one year
probationary period, Mr. Haack’s pay would increase 5% every quarter until he reaches
100% of Level A ($13.93/hr). All subsequent pay increases would occur per the
bargaining unit agreement. All other personnel policies will apply per the City’s
personnel manual.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City
Council does hereby approve Resolution 5681 hiring Tom Haack as to fill the position of
Public Works Maintenance Worker effective January 8, 2002.
Adopted this 7th day of January 2002
ATTEST:
Richard Sonterre, Mayor
SEAL
Kathleen F. Miller, City Administrator
Motion by: Marty
Second by: Thomas
Sonterre Aye
Quick Aye
Stigney Aye
Marty Aye
Thomas Aye
M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2002\City Council\Council Packets\01-07-02 CC\Item 08A--Harstad Appeal Report.doc
Item No: 8A
Meeting Date: January 7, 2002
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: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of an Appeal of a Planning
Commission Denial of the Variance Requested by
Harstad Companies Regarding the Proposed
Longview Estates Major Subdivision
Planning Case VR01-010
Date of Report: January 2, 2002
Background:
This item was on the Council’s agenda on December 10, 2001. After significant
discussion and input from the public and the applicant, a vote was taken to deny the
request to overturn the denial. This vote failed and the item was tabled for action on
January 7, 2002. I am merely attaching the report from December 10, 2001, as none of
the facts have changed.
Discussion:
The issue, in summary, is whether or not there is sufficient hardship to warrant approving
the variance and overturning the Planning Commission’s denial. Staff has indicated that
a case could be made to justify the approval of the variance, but we did not offer a
recommendation regarding the request. After recent conversations with the City’s
engineering consultants, staff is less inclined to support the variance approval. A
representative from SEH will be in attendance for the meeting to answer any questions.
Recommendation:
Discuss and further consider the request to overturn the Planning Commission denial of a
variance to deviate from supplemental zoning requirements within a wetland zoning
district.
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
763-717-4021
Attachment:
1. Council Report from Dec 10, 2001
SJR-137976v3
MU125-32
[Redlined #1]
ORDINANCE NO. 689
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO CIGARETTE AND TOBACCO
PRODUCTS AND AMENDING TITLE 512 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW
MUNICIPAL CODE
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Title 512 of the Mounds View Municipal code shall be amended to read:
CHAPTER 512
CIGARETTE AND TOBACCO PRODUCTS
SECTION:
512.01: Definitions
512.02: License Required
512.03. Application
512.034: License Restrictions
512.04: Prohibited Sales
512.05. License fee; Term; Transfer
512.06. Display of License
512.057: Penalties
512.068: Suspension Or Revocation
512.079: Hearing And Notice
512.108: Exception
512.01: DEFINITIONS:
Subd. 1. TOBACCO-RELATED PRODUCT: Cigarettes, cigars, cheroots, stogies,
perique, granulated, plug cut, crimp cut, ready rubbed and other smoking tobacco,
snuff, snuff flower, cavendish, plug and twist tobacco, fine cut and other chewing
tobaccos, shorts, refuse scrips, clippings, cuttings and sweepings of tobacco prepared
in such manner as to be suitable for chewing, sniffing or smoking in a pipe, rolling
paper or other tobacco related devices.
Subd. 2. VENDING MACHINES: Any mechanical, electric or electronic device,
SJR-137976v3
MU125-32
appliance or any other medium or object designed or used for vending purposes
which, upon insertion of money, tokens or any other form of payment, dispenses
tobacco products. (Ord. 553, 4-24-95)
512.02: LICENSE REQUIRED: No person shall directly or indirectly keep for
retail sale, sell at retail, or otherwise dispense tobacco products unless licensed by the City.
License applications shall be submitted to the Clerk-Administrator together with the license
fee as determined from time to time by City Council resolution. A license shall be issued
for a specific premises identified in the application and shall expire on December 31 of each
year. (Ord. 553, 4-24-95)No person shall directly or indirectly or by means of any device
keep for retail sale, sell at retail, or otherwise dispose of tobacco at any place in the city
unless a license therefor shall first have been obtained as provided in this section.
512.03. Application.
Subd. 1. Contents. Application for a license required by the provisions of this section shall
be made to the City Clerk-Administrator on a form supplied by the City. Such
application shall state:
(a) the full name and address of the applicant;
(b) the location of the building and the part intended to be used by the
applicant under such license;
(c) the kind of business conducted at such location; and
(d) such other information as shall be required by the application form.
Subd. 2. City Council Review. Upon the filing of an application with the Clerk-
Administrator, it shall be presented to the City Council for its consideration. If
granted by the Council, a license shall be issued by the Clerk-Administrator upon
payment of the required fee.
512.034: LICENSE RESTRICTIONS:
Subd. 1. General Restrictions. No license shall be issued under this section except to a
person of good moral character. No license shall be issued to an applicant for the
sale of tobacco at any place other than applicant's established place of business. A
separate license shall be issued for the sale of tobacco at each fixed place of
business, and no license shall be issued for a movable place of business. No person
shall sell, offer for sale, give away, furnish or deliver any tobacco-related product to
any person under eighteen (18) years of age. No person shall keep for sale, sell, or
dispose of any tobacco containing opium, morphine, jimson weed, bella donna,
strychnia, cocaine, marijuana, or any other deleterious or poisonous drug except
nicotine and other substances found naturally in tobacco or lawfully added as part of
the manufacturing process.
SJR-137976v3
MU125-32
Subd. 2. Possession by Minors. No person under the age of 18 years shall purchase,
possess, or consume tobacco.
Subd. 13. Vending machines used to dispense tobacco products shall not be located in an
area which permits unrestricted access by a person under the age of eighteen (18)
years even though such area may be under the supervision of the licensee or the
licensee's agent or employee. This restriction shall apply to vending machines
located in structures used for commercial, industrial, high-tech, office or public
purposes.
Subd. 24. Only one license is required for any or all vending machine(s) located on the
premises of the licensee.
Subd. 35. Every licensee is responsible for the conduct of its employees while on the
licensed premises and any sale or other disposition of tobacco products by an
employee to a person under eighteen (18) years of age shall be considered an act of
the licensee. (Ord. 553, 4-24-95)
512.04: PROHIBITED SALES: No person shall sell, offer for sale, give away, furnish or
deliver any tobacco-related product to any person under eighteen (18) years of age. (Ord.
553, 4-24-95)
512.05. License fee; Term; Transfer. The fee for every license required by the provisions
of this section shall be set by resolution of the City Council. The license is effective from
January 1 to December 31st of each year. Payment of the license fee is due on or before the
close of business on January 1st of each year. Licenses issued under the provisions of this
section shall not be transferable from one person to another.
512.06. Display of License. Every license issued under the provisions of this section shall
be kept conspicuously posted about the place for which the license is issued and shall be
exhibited to any authorized person upon request.
512.057: PENALTIES:
Subd. 1. Any person selling or furnishing a tobacco-related product to any person under
eighteen (18) years of age shall be guilty of an administrative offense and shall pay
an administrative penalty of twenty five dollars ($25.00).Licensees. If a person
licensed under this section or an employee of a person licensed under this section
violates any provision of this ordinance, the licensee shall be charged an
administrative penalty of $75.00 $150.00 If a person licensed under this section or
an employee of a person licensed under this section violates any provision of this
ordinance twice at the same location within 24 months of the initial violation, the
licensee shall be charged an administrative penalty of $200.00 $400.00. If a person
licensed under this section or an employee of a person licensed under this section
violates any provision of this ordinance three times at the same location within 24
months of the initial violation, the licensee shall be charged an administrative
penalty of $250.00 $500.00. No penalty under this section 512.07, subd. (1) shall
take effect until the licensee has received notice, served personally or by mail, of the
SJR-137976v3
MU125-32
alleged violation, and has had an opportunity for a hearing before the City Council.
A decision by the city council that a violation of this ordinance has occurred shall be
in writing. Judicial appeal shall be as provided for by state law.
Subd. 2. Any licensee whose employee violates any provisions of this Chapter is guilty of
an administrative offense and shall pay an administrative penalty of fifty dollars
($50.00). (Ord. 553, 4-24-95)Individuals. Any person who sells tobacco to a person
under the age of 18 years shall be charged an administrative penalty of $50.00 for a
first offense and $25.00 additional for every subsequent offense. This penalty shall
be in addition to the penalty charged under section 512.07, subd. (1). No penalty
under this section 512.07, subd. (2) shall take effect until the person against whom
the penalty will be charged has received notice, served personally or by mail, of the
alleged violation, and has had an opportunity for a hearing before the City Council.
A decision by the City Council that a violation of this ordinance has occurred shall
be in writing. Judicial appeal shall be as provided for by state law.
Subd. 3. Defenses. It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of selling tobacco to a
person under the age of 18 years in violation of this ordinance that the licensee or
individual making the sale relied in good faith upon proof of age as described in
Minnesota Statutes, Section 340A.503, subdivision 6.
Subd. 4. Minors. Any person under the age of 18 years who purchases, possesses, or
consumes tobacco shall be treated as follows: for a first offense the violator will be
referred to Northwest Youth and Family Services, and be required to complete
NYFS’s Tobacco Education Program, and pay the related fees or expenses. A
second violation will result in an administrative penalty of $50.00, and will also
result in a referral to Northwest Youth and Family Services for monitored
community service. Third or subsequent violations will be referred to the Ramsey
County Attorney’s Office, Juvenile Court Division, for prosecution. Failure to
comply with the requirements set forth above for a first or second offenses will
result in an immediate referral to the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office for
prosecution through the Juvenile Court Division.
512.068: SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION: In addition to any other penalty
imposed under section 512.07, any license issued under this section may be suspended or
revoked by the City Council for a violation of any provision of this Chapter if the licensee
has been given a reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard.Any violation of any
provision of this Chapter may be cause for suspension or revocation. A second violation
within twelve (12) months shall result in a suspension of at least not less than two (2) days
seven (7) days. A third violation within a twenty four (24) month's time frame shall result in
a suspension of at least five (5) not less than seven (7) thirty (30) days,. A fourth violation
within a twenty four (24) month's time frame shall result in revocation of license for the
balance of the year 365 days. (Ord. 553, 4-24-95)
512.079: HEARING AND NOTICE:
Subd. 1. Revocation or suspension of a license shall be preceded by a hearing before the
Police ChiefCity Council. A hearing notice shall be given at least ten (10) days prior
SJR-137976v3
MU125-32
to the hearing including notice of the time and place of the hearing and shall state the
nature of the charges against the licensee. Judicial appeal shall be as provided for by
state law.
Subd. 2. An aggrieved party may appeal the decision of the Police Chief within ten (10)
days of receiving notice of the City's action. The filing of an appeal stays the action
of the Police Chief in suspending or revoking a license until the City Council makes
a final decision. (Ord. 553, 4-24-95)
512.108: EXCEPTION: A person under eighteen (18) years of age who purchases or
attempts to purchase tobacco-related products while under the direct supervision of a
responsible adult for training, education, research or enforcement purposes shall not be
subject to the penalties imposed by Section 512.05. (Ord. 553, 4-24-95)
SECTION 2.
This ordinance takes effect 30 days after its publication.
Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this ____ day of ________, 2001.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this _____ day of
_____________, 2001.
Richard Sonterre, Mayor
Kathleen Miller, City Clerk-Administrator
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Scott J. Riggs, City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 5678
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPOINTING OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER, ACTING MAYOR,
OFFICIAL DEPOSITORY AND TREASURER FOR THE YEAR 2002
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 412.831 requires that City Councils annually
designate a newspaper of general circulation as its official newspaper; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 412.121 requires that City Councils annually elect
an Acting Mayor from among Council Members; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 427.01-.12 requires that City Councils annually
select an official depository for City funds; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 6. Section 6.04 of the City Charter states the City Council
shall appoint a City Treasurer whose duties shall be specified by State Law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Mounds View does hereby appoint the following:
Official Newspaper: Primary:______________________
Secondary:____________________
Acting Mayor: _____________________________
Primary Depository: Western Bank (for checking accounts, savings
accounts and investments)
Secondary Depositories: Minnesota Municipal Money Market Fund
MBIA-4M Fund
Prudential Securities, Inc.
RBC Dain Rauscher, Inc.
Salomon Smith, Barney, Inc.
U.S. Bank Systems Investment Services
Wells Fargo Brokerage Services, LLC
Raymond James, Inc.
US Bank Corporate Trust Services
American National Bank St. Paul
Federal Reserve Bank of Mpls.
Prime Vest Financial Services, Inc.
TCF National Banks
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Administrator/Clerk, the Treasurer, or
the Deputy Treasurer are authorized to conduct banking and investment
businsess on behalf of the City and the persons appointed to these positions are
the following:
Kathleen Miller, City Administrator/Clerk
Charles Hansen, Treasurer
Mary Tatarek, Deputy Treasurer
Presented this 7th day of January, 2002.
(ATTEST) ______________________________
Rich Sonterre, Mayor
(SEAL) _______________________________
Kathleen F. Miller, City Administrator
Motion By: Quick
Second By: Thomas
Sonterre: Aye
Quick: Aye
Stigney: Aye
Thomas: Aye
Marty: Aye
RESOLUTION NO. 5679
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPOINTING CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND CITY
ADMINISTRATOR AS REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COMMISSIONS AND
OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
WHEREAS, members of the City Council act as representatives to City
Commissions and other organizations; and
WHEREAS, the following representatives of the City have been named to act as
representatives to the following City Commissions and other organizations for the
year 2002:
Ramsey County League of Local
Government
1. Rich Sonterre
2. Kathleen Miller
Spring Lake Park/Blaine/Mounds
View Fireman’s Relief Association
1. Rob Marty
2. Kathleen Miller
Human Resources Committee
1. Roger Stigney
2. Barbara Thomas
3. Kathleen Miller
4. Givonna Reed
Mounds View Business Association
1. Richard Sonterre
2. Kathleen Miller
EDA/EDC
1.
2.
Northwest Youth and Family
Services
1. Rob Marty
League of Minnesota Cities
1. Rich Sonterre
2. Kathleen Miller
Cable Commission
1.
2.
Banquet Center Committee
1. Roger Stigney
2. Gary Quick
3. Kathleen Miller
4. Elegant Thymes Rep.
5. Charles Hansen
6. Greg Lee
I-35W Corridor Coalition
1. Richard Sonterre
2. Greg Lee
North Metro Mayors Association
1. Richard Sonterre
2. Kathleen Miller
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mounds View that the aforementioned appointments are hereby approved.
Adopted this 7th day of January, 2002
(ATTEST) _______________________________
Richard Sonterre, Mayor
(SEAL)
_______________________________
Kathleen Miller, City Administrator
Motion By: Marty
Second: Thomas
Sonterre: Aye
Quick: Aye
Stigney: Aye
Thomas: Aye
Marty: Aye
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
December 10, 2001
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
7:02 P.M.
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Sonterre (not present), Quick, Marty, Stigney, and Thomas.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A. Monday, December 10, 2001 City Council Agenda.
City Administrator Miller asked Council to move the Special Orders of Business from Item 8 to
Item 4.
Assistant City Administrator Reed asked that Resolution 5676, a Resolution closing City Hall on
New Year’s Eve be added to the Consent Agenda as Item 6N. She then noted that the correct
Resolution number for Item 6K was 5675.
City Administrator Miller noted that the agenda was amended to include a closed session.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Approve the December 10, 2001, City Council
Agenda as amended.
Ayes - 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
4. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
Acting Chief Brennan indicated that an airplane had crashed in Mounds View on November 10,
2001 at 4:20 p.m. and noted that without the assistance of several residents the victims of the
crash would not have survived. He then indicated that the City would like to present certificates
recognizing those residents for their life saving efforts.
Acting Mayor Stigney read the certificate and presented them to Mark Arnold, Dennis Crawford,
Bradley Knopf, Lora Allen, Jane Johnson, Christopher Johnson, Jerome Espeseth, Bruce Bogie
and Ryan Markfeld.
Acting Chief Brennan also thanked the officers on duty, Mike Campa and Dave Anderson, and
all of the other officials who did a spectacular job handling the scene.
Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 2
______________________________________________________________________________
5. PUBLIC INPUT
Wendy Marty of 2626 Louisa Avenue indicated that when the City purchased the fitness
equipment from TSS, Mayor Sonterre, Mr. Sonterre had indicated that he needed payment in
advance and she would like to know what he did with the $4,120.00 for six months before
placing the order. She then noted that she had received public documentation indicating that the
landlord for TSS had filed three eviction summons between June and July 2000 when TSS was
evicted. She also noted that Reebok Team Uniforms has a judgment against TSS for amounts
outstanding.
Ms. Marty asked when she could expect to receive an answer about what Mayor Sonterre had
done with the money for the six months prior to ordering the equipment.
City Administrator Miller indicated the Mayor was not in attendance at the meeting and said she
would relay the request to him.
Dana Mendoza of 2633 Clearview Avenue asked if the City could be sued concerning the
personal fitness equipment.
City Attorney Riggs indicated that Council would be discussing that issue in its closed session
this evening.
Mr. Mendoza requested that, if it is determined that the City could be sued, the equipment be
removed from the Community Center until the City determines how to proceed.
City Administrator Miller indicated that a representative from the League of Minnesota Cities
had reviewed the equipment and is more concerned with the level of usage and wear on the
equipment than with potential liability. She also noted she had received information from the
person that oversees the YMCA and that person had indicated that the insurance agency had
recommended contacting Reebok to ascertain whether or not there would be a problem as the
insurer does not see it as a problem.
Mr. Mendoza asked Council to ask the Mayor not to participate in the decision making process
on this matter if the City decides to sue the company because it seems to him to be a conflict of
interest.
Council Member Thomas indicated that Council was not informed enough at this point in time to
make a motion as requested by Mr. Mendoza. She then noted that Council would carefully
consider his request along with information provided by the City Attorney.
Mr. Mendoza asked if the City had received the certified letter Mayor Sonterre had indicated was
sent to the City Administrator.
City Administrator Miller indicated she had received the letter and said Council would be
reviewing it in closed session this evening.
Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 3
______________________________________________________________________________
Mary Knoll of 5725 Bunker Hill Drive indicated she had thought the City Attorney had said two
weeks ago when she asked about the fitness equipment that it was not part of potential litigation.
City Administrator Miller indicated that she was told that the fitness equipment was part of
potential litigation.
Ms. Knoll indicated that she feels that the Mayor should be held to a higher standard and he has
failed the citizens of Mounds View.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Resolution 5670 Approving a Contract with Incode/CMS for the Purchase of
Fixed Asset Accounting Software
B. Licenses for Approval – No Licenses Submitted
C. Resolution 5660, Approving the 2002 SCORE Recycling Grant Request to
Ramsey County
D. Resolution 5654, Approving a Step Increase for Lois Lestina-Yost
E. Resolution 5662, Approving a Step Increase for Jim Ericson
F. Resolution 5563, Declaring the Housing Inspector a Fire Fighter for Enrollment in
PERA’s Police and Fire Fund
G. Resolution 5661, Approving the 2002 Fee Schedule
H. Resolution 5564, Authorizing a Cost of Living Adjustment for City of Mounds
View Employees
I. Resolution 5665, Hiring a Public Works Director
J. Resolution 5666, Hiring an Economic Development Coordinator
K. Resolution 5675, Authorizing Payment to Elegant Thymes Management Company
L. Resolution 5669, Authorizing the Fire Department to Apply for a State Grant to
Continue as a Chemical Assessment Team
M. Resolution 5668, Appointing a Building Official/Fire Marshall/Fire Inspector
N. Resolution 5676, Closing City Hall on New Year’s Eve
Council Member Marty requested that Items 6D, K, and N be removed for discussion.
Acting Mayor Stigney requested that Items 6E, H, I, M, and J be removed for discussion.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Quick. To Approve Consent Agenda Items 6A, B,C, F, G, and L
as presented.
Council Member Marty indicated he had not received any information concerning Resolution
5654.
Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 4
______________________________________________________________________________
Assistant City Administrator Reed indicated that at the May 7, 2001 City Council Meeting
Resolution 5562 was approved which authorized the hiring of Ms. Lestina-Yost starting at Step 4
and authorizing her increase to step 4 ½ after six months.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Approve Consent Agenda Item 7D as Presented.
Acting Mayor Stigney asked that Resolution 5654 be read.
Acting Mayor Stigney asked whether Ms. Lestina-Yost would be receiving another increase in
six months or if the next increase would be in one year.
Assistant City Administrator Reed indicated that the next increase for Ms. Lestina-Yost would be
in one year.
Council Member Marty commented that if there would have been information in his packet he
would not have asked the question.
Council Member Thomas indicated the information was in the packet.
Assistant City Administrator Reed indicated she understood Council Member Marty’s comments.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Acting Mayor Stigney asked that Resolution 5662 be read.
Council Member Marty questioned whether the dates in the Resolution were correct because it
stated that the last increase was approved on September 10, 2001 and took effect on May 17,
2001.
City Administrator Miller explained that the City was late in doing Mr. Ericson’s performance
review and the increase was made retroactive to his six-month anniversary date.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Approve Consent Agenda Item 7E as Presented.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Acting Mayor Stigney asked that Resolution 5564 be read.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Marty. To Approve Consent Agenda Item 7H as Presented.
Council Member Thomas noted that the cost of living increase does not take affect until after the
budget is approved.
Acting Mayor Stigney indicated that he felt the City was out of line approving a 4% increase for
non-union personnel due to the recession the economy is in and the projected social security
Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 5
______________________________________________________________________________
increase of 2.6%. He then noted he was aware that the City wants to keep non-union personnel
in line with union personnel but said he is opposed to the increase.
Ayes – 3 Nays – 1(Stigney) Motion carried.
Acting Mayor Stigney asked that Resolution 5665 be read.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Quick. To Approve Consent Agenda Item 7I as Presented.
Assistant City Administrator Reed indicated that the start date should be January 2, 2002.
Council Member Marty asked when Council would get to meet the new Public Works Director.
City Administrator Miller indicated there were no meetings between now and his start date.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Acting Mayor Stigney asked that Resolution 5666 be read.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Approve Consent Agenda Item 7J as Presented.
Council Member Marty asked if Mr. Backman was at the meeting.
Community Development Director Ericson introduced Mr. Backman to Council.
Council Member Marty indicated that he did not receive any information on Resolution 5675.
Assistant City Administrator Reed apologized for not having information in packets and then
explained that Council had authorized Elegant Thymes to manage the banquet center. She
further explained that finance had provided numbers through the end of October upon which to
base the payment to Elegant Thymes.
Assistant City Administrator Reed explained how the contract dictates the payment to Elegant
Thymes and asked for authorization to pay Elegant Thymes $5,177.54.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Quick. To Approve Consent Agenda Item 7K as Presented.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Acting Mayor Stigney asked that Resolution 5668 be read.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Approve Consent Agenda Item 7M as Presented.
Acting Mayor Stigney expressed concern with including an increase at six months because this
employee is starting higher up on the pay scale. He then noted he felt the practices have been to
wait one year for an increase when starting higher in the pay scale.
Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 6
______________________________________________________________________________
Acting Mayor Stigney commented that he feels the City could contract out this position and base
the pay on a percentage of the building permits rather than hiring a full time employee and paying
benefits for that employee.
Ayes – 3 Nays – 1(Stigney) Motion carried.
Council Member Marty asked that Resolution 5676 be read.
Assistant City Administrator Reed indicated this Resolution had come before Council because
staff had received comments from employees indicating it would be nice to treat the New Year’s
holiday the same as Christmas Eve.
Council Member Marty read the part of the Resolution that requires that employees must use flex
time, vacation time, compensatory time or unpaid leave for four (4) hours.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Approve Consent Agenda Item 7N as Presented.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. Public Hearing and Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning Commission
Denial of a Variance Requested by Harstad Companies Regarding the
Proposed Longview Estates Major Subdivision, Planning Case VR01-010.
Community Development Director Ericson indicated that Mr. Harstad was before Council to
request an appeal of the Planning Commission denial of his request to vary from the minimum
lot width requirements of Chapter 1010 governing the wetlands. He then noted that he had
noticed residents within 350 feet and others known to be interested in the project.
Director Ericson indicated that in order to be granted a variance there is a set of criteria that must
be met. He then indicated that, in this situation, the Planning Commission felt there was no
hardship and no justification to warrant approving the variance. He further indicated that, in his
staff report, he had included Staff’s interpretation of the criteria and how those could be met.
Director Ericson indicated that Staff had provided two Resolutions for consideration, one
upholding the Planning Commission denial and another overturning the Planning Commission’s
decision and granting the variance.
Director Ericson indicated that letters expressing opposition to the requested variance received
from residents were placed in Council boxes earlier today.
Director Ericson indicated that it was Staff’s recommendation that, potentially, there are grounds
for approving a variance but noted the property is covered more than 50% by wetlands. He then
Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 7
______________________________________________________________________________
noted that Mr. Harstad had made his request to Rice Creek Watershed District and had been
approved pending receipt of title documents.
Director Ericson indicated that the variance would allow 11 lots versus the eight lots that would
be allowed by Code.
Director Ericson commented that Staff feels that there is sufficient justification to approve the
variance, however, given the sensitive nature of the property Staff would stop short of
wholeheartedly saying the variance should be approved.
Acting Mayor Stigney opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m.
Martin Harstad addressed Council and indicated he was there representing his father, Keith
Harstad, who owns the property and has owned the property for the better part of 30 years. Mr.
Harstad indicated that the local governing unit that governs wetland conservation has given its
approval of the project. He also indicated that the Army Corp of Engineers as well as the
Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources, the DNR, and Ramsey Soil and Water
Conservation District were notified and none of these agencies has expressed any concern with
the proposed development.
Mr. Harstad indicated that, if the property did not have the wetlands, he would be able to get
approximately 30 lots developed.
Mr. Harstad indicated that the neighbors have suggested that the property is in a flood zone and
that the houses will sink. He then indicated that soil correction issues would be handled prior to
the first house being built because he has no interest in building a house or selling a lot to have a
house built on where it would sink. He also indicated that the FEMA map does not show any of
the lots proposed on Longview Drive as being in a flood zone.
Mr. Harstad indicated he was not denying the fact that there are wetlands on the property but
noted there are seven (7) acres and the wetlands have been delineated and a formula used for
filling them.
Mr. Harstad indicated that tree preservation is important and explained that the watershed uses a
formula for filling the wetland of two to one but noted he had asked to stop a little short of the
two to one in favor of leaving an outlot to be dedicated to the City in order to save as many trees
on the site as possible.
Mr. Harstad indicated there would be no development on the Silver Lake Road portion due to the
proposed deed restriction and said, if he were to propose lots on both sides, all the trees would be
wiped out.
Mr. Harstad indicated that the lots he has proposed are in line with the lots across the street and
noted that the utilities for 10 of the lots are already installed in anticipation of development.
Mr. Harstad expressed a willingness to address resident questions or comments.
Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 8
______________________________________________________________________________
Pete Severson of 5172 Longview Drive indicated he has lived there for 15 years and explained
that there is a dip in Silver Lake Road in the area being proposed for development which
indicates to him that it is a swamp. He noted there have been many problems in that area. He
also noted that he did not feel the buffer along Silver Lake Road would provide a buffer for
residents and expressed concern for the removal of the trees along Longview Drive. He further
indicated that he did not have a water issue because he is higher than adjoining properties but
stated others in the area do have a water issue because the area is very swampy.
Mr. Severson commented that when Mr. Harstad purchased the property it was swamp land and
it still is swamp land. He then indicated it is interesting that Mr. Harstad is only interested in
selling lots, not building on them and he said he wonders why.
Barbara Koziak of 5173 Red Oak Drive indicated that she purchased her property in May of 1973
and was told the area was a preserved wetland and nobody would build there. She indicated she
has walked several of her dogs past the area and it is a swamp. She also noted that the street
slopes to the wetland and noted that the deer and ducks need the wetland to survive.
Ms. Koziak expressed her concern for digging out the wetland and putting in soil that does not
absorb water along with adding impervious surfaces to the wetland because she feels that will
create a significant water issue in the area.
Ms. Koziak indicated that she likes the trees on the site and noted that, while she is not pleased
with the tree removal, it would not affect the value of her property but water in the basement
would.
Dave Tillman of 5166 Longview Drive indicated that he lives on the east side and his basement
floor is a foot above street level and he has a sump pump that runs. He also noted that he is
sitting on sand and they are speaking of peat soil.
Mr. Tillman indicated that this is not a single variance but a request to vary the entire block. He
then noted that he assumed that when he purchased his property the City would uphold the Codes
in place because he feels varying from those Codes detracts from his property.
Vern Larson of 2760 Wooddale Drive indicated that the entire area slopes downhill to the
wetland and there are deer and ducks in the wetland. He also indicated that since he is in the
lowest area he would end up with the water problems if the matter is not properly handled.
Pete Severson indicated that Mr. Larson’s house was built without a basement due to the water
table.
Michelle Sandbeck of 2356 Sherwood Road indicated that she did not live in this area but said
about a year ago Rice Creek Watershed was talking about putting in a wetland by her house and
has now approved taking this wetland. She then asked if this was some type of exchange and
whether or not an environmental impact study was done for this.
Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 9
______________________________________________________________________________
Director Ericson indicated he did not believe an environmental impact study was applicable.
Michelle Sandbeck indicated that, if residents are concerned, Rice Creek Watershed District
should determine whether there is a need for an environmental impact study based on the
worksheet.
Council Member Thomas indicated that Rice Creek Watershed District, as part of its application
process, reviews whether or not an environmental impact study is required.
Acting Mayor Stigney asked Staff to verify that Rice Creek had looked into the necessity of an
environmental impact study.
Council Member Marty indicated that an environmental impact study could be requested.
Council Member Thomas indicated that, if the City requests the study, the City has to pay for it.
William Werner of 2765 Sherwood Road indicated that he has watched this type of thing going
on in the City for 40 or 50 years. He then indicated that when the City deviates from the wetland
plan it always creates other problems. He further commented that Rice Creek Watershed is not
concerned with water problems of the City and asked Council to remember that they represent
the overall view of all the residents and this could have an impact on a larger area because storm
sewers may be needed to handle the water runoff.
Mr. Harstad indicated that storm sewers is a good issue to raise because he feels his property is
wetter than it would be if the City had storm sewer in the area rather than allowing runoff to
collect on his property.
Mr. Harstad indicated that his father had developed and built a lot of homes in the area and he
feels that the lack of storm sewer has had a huge adverse affect on this piece of property. He then
indicated that because of the lack of storm sewer in this area he would need to maintain ditches
in the front yards and would maintain trees in the front yards as part of the development. He
further noted that he disagreed with the comments that there are not many trees along Silver Lake
Road because based on the aerial photographs there are a considerable number of trees.
Mr. Harstad indicated he could not guarantee a 40 foot wide swath of trees would be saved but
expressed a willingness to work with Staff to determine what trees could be saved as part of the
grading plan.
Mr. Harstad indicated he could not speak to the water problems of the houses in the area but
commented that some of the houses were built prior to the requirement to have drain tiling. He
then commented that he would be shocked if the proposed development had anything other than
a positive affect on the property values of surrounding properties.
Mr. Harstad offered to meet with any resident that would like to meet with him to discuss any of
the issues.
Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 10
______________________________________________________________________________
Dave Tillman of 5166 Longview Drive indicated that it was his recollection from the original
neighborhood meeting that Mr. Harstad had indicated that the trees could not be saved because
you cannot backfill up four feet on a tree and expect it to live.
Dan Mendoza of 2633 Clearview expressed concern for setting a precedent in the City by
allowing this variance. He then indicated that, if the City does not grant the same variance to
another party, the City could end up in another costly legal battle.
City Attorney Riggs requested that Community Development Director Ericson’s staff report be
entered into the record at this point in the meeting.
Item No: 7A
Meeting Date: December 10, 2001
Type of Business: PH & 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: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Appeal of Planning
Commission Denial of a Variance Request To Deviate
From Supplemental Platting Requirements Articulated
In Chapter 1010 Of The Mounds View City Code
Date of Report: December 3, 2001
Background:
On May 15, 2001, Keith Harstad applied for a major subdivision to subdivide the
undeveloped property south of County Road H2 between Silver Lake Road and Longview
Drive. The parcel, which is slightly larger than seven acres, lies completely within the
wetland zoning district and about half of the parcel has been delineated as wetland. As
such, the requirements of Chapter 1010 in addition to 1202 apply to this proposed
development.
The standard platting requirements contained within Chapter1202 of the City Code
require a minimum lot size of 11,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 75 feet. The
Preliminary Plat originally submitted by Mr. Harstad conformed to and exceeded these
standards. Further evaluation revealed that the wetland zoning district regulations
contained in Chapter 1010 were more stringent, with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square
feet and a minimum lot width of 125 feet. As a result of these requirements, the
preliminary plat was redrawn to show all of the lots in excess of the 20,000 square foot
minimum. Only one lot, however, can satisfy the 125-foot width requirement which
prompted the variance request.
Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 11
______________________________________________________________________________
On November 7, 2001, the Planning Commission voted 4-1 to deny the
variance for reduced lot widths within the proposed Longview Estates Major
Subdivision. The Commission did not find sufficient hardship to warrant
granting the variance and as such approved Resolution 678-01 denying the
variance request. Mr. Harstad has appealed the Planning Commission’s
decision to the City Council.
Discussion:
For the Council to overturn the Planning Commission’s denial, it must find that, in its
opinion, there is a demonstrated, substantial hardship or practical difficulty associated
with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or
restrictive to the property owner. State statutes require that the governing body 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 following criteria and analysis was presented to the Planning Commission for their
review at the November 7, 2001 meeting:
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.
The property proposed for residential replatting was originally platted in 1963 as part
of the Mueller Addition. Considered marginal property because of the wetlands, it
was never developed. The vast acreages of available land made its development cost
prohibitive. Even so, sanitary and water utility stubs were installed during the road’s
constructions in anticipation of eventual development on the west side of the road. To
not use the preinstalled utilities would cause a hardship upon the applicant and would
take away to some extent a preexisting development expectation. The plat was
approved and the utilities installed prior to the City’s adoption of the more restrictive
wetland zoning regulations in 1992.
b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant
of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties under the terms of this Title.
If the code requirements in Section 1010 are taken literally, the applicant would lose
the potential to develop three lots. Other property owners within this wetland zoning
district would face similar requirements. However few if any other property owners
would have a preexisting vested interest in their undeveloped property as in this case.
c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.
The land was originally platted in 1963 and the utilities were installed not too long
thereafter. The utilities were installed with the expectations of future development.
Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 12
______________________________________________________________________________
While the applicant was fully aware of the development constraints of the site, the
applicant did not cause the special conditions or circumstances (the wetlands and
the wetlands ordinance of 1992.)
d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that
is deni ed by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district.
The parcel is zoned R-1, single family residential. The applicant is proposing
a development consisting of single-family homes. Granting a variance in
this case would not confer a special privilege denied to other property
owners. All other platting requirements would be met by this proposal.
e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship.
Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship.
The variance requested would be considered the minimum necessary to alleviate
the hardship if one were to make the assumption that the subdivision less the
wetland zoning district overlay requirements would constitute the standard by
which the hardship was measured.
f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other
property in the same zone.
The intent of the wetlands ordinance and the resulting subdivision
requirements is to protect the integrity of the hydrological system and the
City’s surface water management system. In addition, wetlands
preservation and sensible land use management are critical to the present
and future health, safety and general welfare of the land, animals and people
within the City. That being said, such preservation and conservation efforts
need to be balanced with the right to develop one’s property. Because Rice
Creek Watershed District, the local regulatory agency governing wetlands
development, has approved the plat and alteration plans, and because the lots
all exceed 20,000 square feet with significant dedication of easements, staff
believes the variance for the reduced lot widths would not be materially
detrimental to the purpose of the Wetlands Zoning Regulations.
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 substantial ly diminish or impair property values within the
neighborhood.
It is not expected that the proposed variance for reduced lot widths would
not result in any of the above-cited adverse effects.
Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 13
______________________________________________________________________________
It was staff’s opinion that the hardship requirements were potentially satisfied, however a
majority of the Planning Commission disagreed, citing the stated purpose of Chapter
1010, which is as follows:
“The Council finds that wetlands within the City, as part of the ecosystem, are critical
to the present and future health, safety and general welfare of the land, animals and
people within the City, as well as within the Rice Creek Watershed District, that
existing and potential development within the City and Rice Creek Watershed
possess increasing ecological and economic problems and demands, having the
effect of potentially despoiling, polluting, accelerating the aging, eliminating or
negatively and irretrievably altering both the wetlands and their functions (and the
processes associated therewith) which, if managed, will constitute important
physical, educational, ecological, aesthetic, recreational and economic assets for
existing and future residents of the community and the Rice Creek Watershed
District.”
The larger lot area and wider lot width requirements, the Planning Commission reasoned,
was a means to preserve and protect our wetland areas as originally intended by the
drafters of Chapter 1010. The one dissenting Commissioner believed that the applicant
had satisfied the spirit of Chapter 1010 by platting lots all in excess of 20,000 square feet.
The Planning Commission’s resolution of denial is attached for the Council’s reference.
Recommendation:
Continue the public hearing and consider testimony and documentation. If the Council
believes that the Planning Commission’s action was appropriate and that the findings
contained in Resolution 678-01 are proper, the Council could approve version 1 of
Resolution 5659, a resolution which upholds the Planning Commission denial by rejecting
the applicant’s appeal.
If the Council finds that there is in fact sufficient hardship to justify overturning the
Planning Commission’s denial, the Council could approve version 2 of Resolution 5659, a
resolution which approves the variance for ten reduced-width lots within the Longview
Estates Major Subdivision.
If the Council should have any questions about this request or the resolutions, please feel
free to contact me prior to the meeting.
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
763-717-4021
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\Development Cases\VR01-010 (Harstad Variance)\Harstad Appeal Report - Dec 10, 2001.doc
The Staff report was added as presented and no changes were made.
Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 14
Acting Mayor Stigney closed the public hearing 8:18 p.m.
Council Member Marty indicated he felt the letter submitted by Michael and Helen Grant was
excellent. He indicated that the City developed the wetland zoning ordinance to protect and
preserve the wetlands in the City. He then indicated that, if wetlands are filled in and a hole is
dug for a pond the City would not have wetlands anymore. He further indicated that the wetland
cleans the water before it flows into Rice Creek and it also cleans the water before it seeps into
the water table and enters the ground water supply.
Council Member Marty indicated that it was brought to his attention a number of times in the
past that there is a dip in that part of Silver Lake Road. He then commented that the area is a
peat bog and that is why they have to continue to fix Silver Lake Road in that area. He further
commented that there would be a need to go down hundreds of feet to completely remove all the
peat.
Council Member Marty indicated that a newly constructed neighborhood of very nice homes in
New Brighton was constructed on a wetland and the homes are settling and cracking.
Council Member Marty indicated the City had discussed the possibility of having a trailway
along the west side of Silver Lake Road in that area because the east side is a designated wetland
and the remainder of it is wetland buffer. He then commented that whether it is wetland or
wetland buffer the first word is wetland and if you start building in wetlands it could, and has in
some cases, cause wetlands to receed.
Council Member Marty commented that he did not see how anybody could really build in that
area without altering the natural habitat and the wetland conditions there.
Council Member Thomas clarified that the variance is not to allow construction but to allow for
11 houses versus the eight that would be allowed by City Code.
Director Ericson indicated she was correct.
Council Member Thomas asked whether Rice Creek Watershed District had given any comments
with its approval to indicate why it felt that allowing this development was acceptable.
Director Ericson indicated that he did not receive any other information other than the report
which indicated that the development met all the criteria.
Council Member Thomas asked whether the City’s requirements were taken into consideration.
Director Ericson indicated the City’s requirements were not taken into consideration as a part of
Rice Creek Watershed District review and approval of the project.
Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 15
Council Member Thomas asked if there was documentation available concerning the change in
water flows for eight versus 11 houses.
Director Ericson indicated that the engineers have not put much time into reviewing the
development at this point because it is premature but said that Rice Creek Watershed did look at
run off because that is one of the issues to look at and one of the criteria considered and Rice
Creek feels with additional wetland area to be mitigated the flow would be acceptable.
Council Member Thomas asked for actual numbers.
Director Ericson indicated he did not have actual numbers for the difference of eight versus 11
houses.
Director Ericson indicated the request was for a variance based on the minimum lot width
requirements and Rice Creek was fine with the 11 lots. He then noted that if there were only
eight lots the runoff would be less but stated he had no calculations at this time.
Dave Tillman of 5166 Longview Drive indicated that the lots were also required to be 20,000
square feet in area rather than the standard 11,000 square feet.
Director Ericson indicated that the 11 lots, as submitted, do satisfy the 20,000 square foot
requirement. He then indicated that the recommendation of denial by the Planning Commission
was not unanimous and noted that one planning commissioner felt that by creating the 20,000
square foot lots the applicant was meeting the intent of the Code.
Council Member Marty asked if the lots went all the way to Silver Lake Road.
Director Ericson indicated he was not sure how deep the lots were but stated there is a 41 foot
outlot along Silver Lake Road.
Council reviewed the maps of the proposed development.
Mr. Harstad explained that Rice Creek Watershed had determined the areas that were upland and
those that are lowland, or wetland. He noted the federal government had created a nationwide
standard for making that determination and once the standard is adhered to the property, a
wetland delineator puts in flags to mark the area. He then pointed out the upland and delineated
wetland area on the map and noted there would not be a net loss of wetlands with this project.
Mr. Harstad indicated that by using the City’s magic number of 125 feet of frontage it would be
possible for him to get more than 13 lots on the property but that would require using Silver Lake
Road frontage and wiping out all the trees on the site. Mr. Harstad indicated he also has safety
concerns for adding more cars and driveways to Silver Lake Road.
Mr. Harstad indicated that by using the 125 foot wide lot requirement he would be able to get a
minimum of 14 lots on the site but stated he did not think Council or the residents would like to
Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 16
see that type of development in the area. He also stated he did not think it made good planning
sense to do it that way because the development as proposed matches up with the development
across the street.
Mr. Harstad indicated he had stated trees could not be saved on the site but had been corrected by
his engineers. He indicated that because of the ditch trees can be left in the buffer area as well as
whatever trees are in the wetland. He explained that the only areas they are proposing to go in
and grade is the mitigation sites shown on the map. He further explained that the storm water
would be treated in a pond prior to discharge into the wetland and that is not currently happening.
Council Member Marty commented that he felt approving this variance could set a precedent for
other wetland property owners to come in and ask for the same thing.
Council Member Quick asked City Attorney Riggs if the City needed to be concerned with
setting a precedent in this case.
City Attorney Riggs indicated that Council always has discretion and needs to apply the
standards of the City’s Code to each unique situation.
Council Member Quick clarified that what happens here is unique and would not apply to other
properties.
City Attorney Riggs agreed with the comment of Council Member Quick.
Council Member Thomas indicated that Council has had to judge several situations in the last
year and Council would be in error to allow a precedent where it did not judge each case on its
individual merits. She commented that she did not feel this would set a precedent but stated she
has an issue with establishing the hardship. She then asked Community Development Director
Ericson to review for her why he feels the hardship requirement has been satisfied.
Director Ericson indicated that, per his Staff report, Staff is not so sure that it clearly meets the
hardship requirements but a case could be made that it does or could meet the requirements.
Director Ericson listed the seven criteria and gave Staff’s interpretation of each as follows:
1. 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.
The property proposed for residential replatting was originally platted in 1963 as part of the
Mueller Addition. Sanitary and water utility stubs were installed during the road’s
construction in anticipation of eventual development on the west side of the road. To not
use the preinstalled utilities would cause a hardship upon the applicant and would take
away to some extent a preexisting development expectation. The plat was approved and
Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 17
the utilities installed prior to the City’s adoption of the more restrictive wetland zoning
regulations in 1992.
2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights
commonly enjoyed by other properties under the terms of this Title.
If the code requirements in Section 1010 are taken literally, the applicant would lose the
potential to develop three lots. Other property owners within this wetland zoning district
would face similar requirements. However, few if any other property owners would have a
preexisting vested interest in their undeveloped property as in this case.
3. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.
The land was originally platted in 1963 and the utilities were installed not too long thereafter.
The utilities were installed with the expectations of future development. While the applicant
was fully aware of the development constraints of the site, the applicant did not cause the
special conditions or circumstances (the wetlands and the wetlands ordinance of 1992.)
4. That granting the variance requested will 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.
The parcel is zoned R-1, single family residential. The applicant is proposing a
development consisting of single-family homes. Granting a variance in this case would not
confer a special privilege denied to other property owners. All other platting requirements
would be met by this proposal.
5. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship.
Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship.
The variance requested would be considered the minimum necessary to alleviate the
hardship if one were to make the assumption that the subdivision less the wetland zoning
district overlay requirements would constitute the standard by which the hardship was
measured.
6. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other
property in the same zone.
The intent of the wetlands ordinance and the resulting subdivision requirements is to
protect the integrity of the hydrological system and the City’s surface water management
system. In addition, wetlands preservation and sensible land use management are critical
to the present and future health, safety and general welfare of the land, animals and people
within the City. That being said, such preservation and conservation efforts need to be
balanced with the right to develop one’s property. Because Rice Creek Watershed District,
the local regulatory agency governing wetlands development, has approved the plat and
Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 18
alteration plans, and because the lots all exceed 20,000 square feet with significant dedication
of easements, staff believes the variance for the reduced lot widths would not be materially
detrimental to the purpose of the Wetlands Zoning Regulations.
7. 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.
It is not expected that the proposed variance for reduced lot widths would not result in any
of the above-cited adverse effects.
Director Ericson indicated that Staff had stopped short of saying they are wholeheartedly in
support of the variance because there are wetlands and the wetlands provide an important
function to the City’s ecosystem. He then indicated that Staff had drafted the two resolutions
because Staff feels that a case could be made in support of the variance but it is a very subjective
review and the Planning Commission felt that the hardship simply was not there.
Council Member Thomas indicated she did not see where the hardship requirement had been met
and noted the City is not denying Mr. Harstad the right to develop his property in accordance
with City Code.
Acting Mayor Stigney asked how many sanitary sewer lines were put in.
Director Ericson indicated that the sewer was in for 10 lots.
Council Member Stigney questioned whether the sewer lines would line up properly if the
development were reduced to eight lots.
Director Ericson indicated that four or five lines may be lined up properly if the development was
reduced to eight lots.
Council Member Thomas indicated that the utilities were installed in 1963 but noted that the
number was not based on an actual approval it was based on a proposed plat. Based on that, she
noted that she does not feel that using the utilities already being installed at the property as a
basis for hardship is appropriate.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5659, a
Resolution Upholding the Planning Commission’s Denial of a Variance for Reduced Lot Widths
for the Proposed Longview Estates Major Subdivision.
Ayes – 2 (Marty/Thomas) Nays – 2 (Stigney/Quick) Motion failed.
Director Ericson suggested tabling the mater until the next City Council meeting for
consideration before a full Council.
Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 19
City Attorney Riggs indicated that Council would need to take action on the matter at the January
7, 2002 work session due to the 60 day time limit.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney. To Table this Matter to the January 7, 2002 Work Session.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
B. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 689, Revising Chapter 512 of
the City Code Relating to Tobacco Products.
Acting Chief Brennan indicated he had noticed the School District, NW Youth and Family
Services, Minnesota Institute of Public Health and the County Attorney for this hearing as well as
those establishments with tobacco licenses in the City.
Acting Mayor Stigney opened the public hearing at 8:58 p.m.
Tom Manke indicated that his store has failed two compliance tests during the last nine years and
stated that whether the penalty is $5.00 or $5,000 it would not change how he trains his
employees. He then explained that they go over the laws monthly with existing employees and
carefully train new employees. He further explained that people that are of age and/or parents
purchase cigarettes and hand them to the underage kids.
Ian Anderson of 5380 Cliffton Drive indicated that kids are out on the streets smoking and asking
for cigarettes and the police drive by and do not do anything about it. He then suggested that the
authorities need to pull their weight to get kids to stop, including the School District and the
police department.
Paul Fidor of 9001 Stratford Crossing in Brooklyn Park indicated he was a resident of Mounds
View for 29 years before moving to Brooklyn Park and he operates Fidor’s Market and has gone
through a lot of changes and dealt with many issues on cigarette licensing. He then indicated that
his employees are told that if he fails a compliance check because of one of them they will be
fired immediately.
Mr. Fidor commented that he feels that increasing the fee for compliance violations does not
solve the problem. He then stated he feels that more time should be invested in young kids to tell
them and beat into their minds that smoking will kill you. He also indicated that they ask kids
who are smoking to leave because they do not want anyone to think that the cigarettes were
purchased from their business.
Mr. Fidor said he would hate to see his name as failing a compliance check but knows as they go
along they eventually will fail.
Chuck Durand of 2732 Highway 10 indicated that they do everything they can to stop smoking
by kids but they are forced to hire young kids because the pay scale does not allow college
Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 20
graduates and there are signs everywhere drilling it into the employees but it is hard when an
adult comes in and buys a pack of cigarettes and you see the adult hand the cigarettes to the kids
and there is nothing you can do about it. He then suggested that more needs to be done to teach
prevention rather than putting the burden solely on the retailers.
Acting Chief Brennan indicated a representative from NW Youth and Family Services was to be
at the meeting to discuss penalties for minors caught with tobacco products. He then indicated
that one of the comments he has heard most prevalently is a suggestion toward diversion. He
then explained that NW Youth and Family Services indicated there is a youth diversion program
that deals with parents and the youth together and then follows up with a seminar and subsequent
offenses are handled with community service.
Ian Anderson of 5380 Cliffton Drive indicated he was 13 years old when he was “busted” for
smoking and required to take a four hour class with no smoke breaks. He then asked what
happened to that kind of deterrent. He further indicated that more than half the students he hung
around with quit smoking because of that diversion program.
Mr. Anderson indicated that the School District was doing a good job but dropped it and he feels
the City, parents, and the School District should get involved. He also commented that he had
offered to teach a seminar on alcoholism because he does not drink because his mother died from
alcoholism.
Perry Lofquist of 450 Manor Drive in Spring Lake Park indicated that NW Youth and Family
Services has a diversion program that the police and the City can send kids to and the kids are
required to pay $40.00. He then explained the program and noted that they try to stay away from
the health aspect of smoking because young kids do not think that they are going to die.
Council Member Quick asked how many kids NW Youth and Family Services sees for tobacco
diversion programs per year.
Mr. Lofquist indicated that the program sees 300 to 350 kids per year for tobacco diversion and
then indicated that shoplifting is the most common followed by drugs and alcohol. He then
indicated that they are trying to fight society because a lot of parents feel that if all their kids do is
smoke that is nothing to worry about.
Mr. Lofquist indicated the largest referral agency for diversion is the court system followed by
Roseville’s Police Department, New Brighton, Mounds View and then St. Anthony.
Acting Mayor Stigney closed the public hearing at 9:16 p.m.
Council Member Thomas explained that some of the changes being made are not only changes in
penalties but also a significant change to possession for the minors which was not there before.
She then asked if possession of tobacco was an administrative offense.
Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 21
Acting Chief Brennan indicated that the Ordinance would give the City the option of diversion
rather than writing out an administrative offense.
Council Member Thomas asked what language would be inserted in the Ordinance from the
public hearing.
Council Member Quick asked what the penalty is for parents.
Acting Chief Brennan indicated it was a misdemeanor.
Council Member Quick asked if there is a penalty for allowing minors to consume tobacco on
your property.
Acting Chief Brennan indicated there was not.
Council Member Thomas indicated that these changes give the retailer a defense that they did not
have before because, in most cases, the retailers are working hard to make sure their
establishments are in compliance with the tobacco ordinance.
Council Member Thomas suggested a $50.00 fine for someone who purchases, possesses or
consumes under age18, or the diversionary program which costs $40.00.
Acting Chief Brennan indicated it would be better to get the kids into the diversion program and
said he feels that should be the first priority.
Council Member Thomas asked what the fees for a first and second offense would be in court.
Acting Chief Brennan indicated he was told that the court usually assesses a $75.00 fine when it
hears a case and he assumes that would be for a first offense.
Council Member Marty suggested requiring that the first offense should be a ticket to the
diversion program rather than offering options.
Council Member Thomas asked how many repeat kids NW Youth and Family Services sees in its
diversion program.
Mr. Lofquist indicated that approximately 14% of the kids are seen a second time. He then
indicated that the consequences become more extreme as the kids go through the system.
It was the consent of Council to add a penalty of $50.00 for the second offense and another ticket
to the diversion program.
Acting Mayor Stigney asked whether the schools handle the first offense.
Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 22
Acting Chief Brennan indicated that violations on school property are a misdemeanor and the
first two offense are handled by the School District and the third offense is handled by the
County Attorney.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Table this Matter to the Next Council Meeting.
Ayes - 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Council Member Marty asked if the matter could be put on the Consent Agenda.
City Attorney Riggs indicated that the matter required a roll call vote.
Council Member Marty thanked Mr. Lofquist for coming.
C. Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 691, Amending Chapter 502
(Intoxicating Liquor) and 503 (3.2 Percent Beer) of the Municipal Code
Assistant City Administrator Reed indicated that this was before Council as a result of work
session discussion concerning Chapters 502 and 503 as they relate to charitable gambling. She
then indicated that Council had requested that language requiring nonprofits to have a registered
office in Mounds View before they can conduct charitable gambling was deleted and a 10% fund
to be contributed to the City was added.
John Wharton of the Lions Club indicated that he is opposed to the Ordinance change because
the Lions always make a point to make sure the money stays local and if the City makes this
change it opens up the City to outside gambling operations that would not benefit Mounds View.
He then indicated there is a large health care society that is very aggressive and holds 130
licenses in the state of Minnesota.
Council Member Thomas explained that it was not the intent to take out the requirement to be
part of the City and said it is the intent to redo the entire Ordinance in January. She then noted
that there is a Mounds View group that is not allowed to function in Mounds View and that is
why the Ordinance is being changed.
Mr. Wharton asked whether the City was aware that there are specific allowed uses for the funds
and that all expenditures need to be reported to the Gambling Control Board.
Council Member Thomas indicated the matter would be up for discussion again in January.
Brian Blaziak of 2361 Laporte Drive indicated that the Lions do use the funds for the community
and all charitable gambling benefits this City through fire, police, the food shelf, school projects,
and scholarships and if the Ordinance is altered in this way it could stop the ability to give to the
Community.
Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 23
Gretchen Waldenbridge of 8072 Long Lake Road indicated that changing the Ordinance would
open up a window of opportunity for other organizations to come in and will not benefit the
residents of this City. She then asked when they would have the opportunity to have input into
the discussion.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Waive the Reading and Introduce Ordinance 691,
Amending Chapter 502 and 503 of the Municipal Code.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Council Member Marty suggested that, in light of comments brought forward tonight, that Staff
gather further information for discussion at a Council work session.
City Administrator Miller indicated the matter would be on the agenda for the first work session
of the year.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Direct Staff to Acquire all State Forms for All
Charitable Gambling Organizations in the City of Mounds View for Review for the Last Ten (10)
Years.
Council Member Marty asked why the information was necessary.
Council Member Quick indicated that Council had asked for further information and he had
never seen a form.
Council Member Thomas indicated that she would like information on the regulations included
for discussion in time for the second reading.
Mr. Wharton indicated that the state only requires forms to be held for three and a half years.
Council Member Quick amended his motion to ask Staff to obtain whatever the state has on file.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
D. Consideration of Resolution 5651, a Resolution Approving a Minor
Subdivision of the Property Located at 7841 Spring Lake Road; Planning
Case MI01-002.
Planner Atkinson indicated that the applicant had requested a minor subdivision of the property
located at 7841 Spring Lake Road to create a 30,474 square foot buildable lot with the majority
fronting on an unimproved portion of Knollwood Drive and the remainder on Oakwood Drive.
He then indicated that the Planning Commission had requested that a portion of land be
dedicated for a future cul-de-sac to allow for the subdivision of the property to the south prior to
approval of this matter. He further indicated that a park dedication fee of $2,346.00 and separate
easement documents are required.
Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 24
Council Member Marty indicated he had raised some concerns regarding the cul-de-sac because
he thought that the cul-de-sac needed to be there prior to development because of the need for a
turn around for emergency vehicles.
Planner Atkinson indicated that the Uniform Fire Code requires that a dead end of less than 150
feet in length does not require a turn around and this dead end is 135 feet.
Council Member Marty questioned whether the property owner would be moving the gate.
Planner Atkinson indicated that the Resolution requires that the property owner move the gate
and recommends that the temporary driveway be located as far south as possible to use as little of
the access drive as possible.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5651, a
Resolution Approving a Minor Subdivision of the Property Located at 7841 Spring Lake Road.
City Attorney Riggs indicated that language would be added to the Resolution to allow Staff to
resolve any easement issues to ensure that the appropriate title work is prepared.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
D. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 690, an Ordinance Amending
Chapter 1001 Entitled “Building Code”
Community Development Director Ericson explained that this is the second reading of Ordinance
690 and noted Council had discussed the matter with Kathi Osmonson at the work session and
the language concerning fire alarm installations was deleted from the Ordinance. He then noted
that the Ordinance would become effective 30 days after adoption.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Waive the Reading, Approve the Second Reading and
Adopt Ordinance 690, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1001 Entitled “Building Code”.
Council Member Thomas thanked Director Ericson for the extra information.
ROLL CALL: Quick, Stigney, Thomas, Marty, Sonterre (not present).
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
F. Just and Correct Claims
Finance Director Hansen explained that the Just and Correct Claims were placed under Council
Business to discuss the format of the report.
Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 25
Finance Director Hansen indicated that at the November 26, 2001 Council Meeting it was
decided that the check to URS would not be released. He then indicated that he felt that Council
had agreed at the work session to release the check and asked if that was the case.
Finance Director Hansen indicated that the next regularly scheduled Council Meeting was not
until January 14, 2001 which is five weeks away and the City would be late on some of its bills
and would incur penalties so he asked for permission from Council to do a claims list in the last
week of December and one for January 14 and present them both to Council on January 14, 2001
to avoid penalties.
Council Member Thomas indicated that Council had decided to call to order on January 7, 2001
to discuss the Harstad variance and could approve claims at that time.
Council Member Marty indicated he liked the third format provided by Mr. Hansen.
Council Member Thomas indicated she would be fine with either two or three.
Council Member Quick indicated he preferred option two.
Acting Mayor Stigney indicated he was not sure whether he preferred two or three.
Finance Director Hansen indicated he would continue providing versions two and three until a
determination is reached.
Council Member Thomas indicated she thought Council had decided to hold the check to URS
until they came back with a new plan that was adjusted.
City Administrator Miller indicated she understood that the City would release the check for the
work done to date. She then indicated that the check was only part of the fees set aside and
before the City would pay the remainder it would require changes to the proposal.
Council Member Quick asked what portion of the work was completed.
Community Development Director Ericson indicated that 60 or 65% of the work was done.
Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the check was for a little over 10% and
URS has done 60% of the work.
Council Member Thomas agreed that for coming to the meeting and agreeing to answer questions
and provide a better plan she would show leniency.
Council Member Marty indicated that releasing the check would go a long way toward
maintaining a good working relationship.
Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 26
Council Member Marty questioned the cell phone usage for Bob Nelson as he had never seen the
name before.
Acting Chief Brennan indicated he is the School Resource Officer that teaches the dare program
and explained that the contract requires that he have a cell phone. He then explained that he was
using the police department cell phone but was unable to obtain a cell in most of the school
building so he had to sign up with a different carrier. He then indicated that other options were
purchased but stated the reimbursement request is only for the amounts allowed by the City.
Council Member Marty indicated he would like information on Check Number 107174 for
expense reimbursement.
Finance Director Hansen indicated he would provide the information with the packet that goes
out at the end of the week.
Council Member Marty questioned whether the fees paid to Kennedy and Graven on the
Highway 10 billboard would be recovered from the billboard company.
Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the funds would be recovered from the
billboard company.
Acting Mayor Stigney questioned whether repair of the public works garage door was a product
of improper installation and, if so, if the City should be paying for them to fix it.
Finance Director Hansen indicated he was not sure.
Acting Mayor Stigney requested that Finance Director Hansen provide him with information
concerning the repair and whether or not the City could have requested that the company repair it
at their own expense due to improper installation.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Approve Just and Correct Claims.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Council recessed at 10:00 p.m.
Council reconvened at 10:08 p.m.
G. Consideration of Resolution 5671 Adopting the 2002 Property Tax Levy and
General Fund Budget
Finance Director Hansen indicated that numerous budget discussions and a truth in taxation
hearing have been held and Resolution 5671 would adopt the general fund budget and proposed
property tax levy.
Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 27
Finance Director Hansen indicated that he made some changes to the budget due to personnel
changes.
Council Member Marty indicated that he had understood that part of the reasoning behind
needing an Assistant City Administrator was so that the City could save the $8000 per year on
the contract for minute taking.
Council Member Thomas explained that the discussion concerning minutes was related to the
clerical position that was considered and not approved, not the Assistant Administrator position.
Council Member Marty questioned what the treatment and cleaning of Silver View Pond
entailed.
Finance Director Hansen indicated he had spoken to Steve Dazinski who explained that the
treatment is primarily for algae growth in the summer and a chemical that is not handled by parks
personnel is used.
Council Member Thomas asked if this is the only pond that is treated that way.
Finance Director Hansen indicated that this pond is the only item that the treatment is budgeted
for.
Council Member Marty questioned whether a dollar amount should be inserted into the chemical
per gallon section.
Finance Director Hansen indicated the dollar amount should be there and it works out to $1.30
per gallon but noted that the actual price may vary.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5671, a
Resolution Adopting the 2002 Property Tax Levy and General Fund Budget.
Acting Mayor Stigney commented that this budget talks about rhetoric that residents have to pay
more because the City is not getting the same amount in intergovernmental fees. He then pointed
out that Mounds View residents pay, in addition to property taxes, a water meter fee, water
service maintenance fee, street light fee, surface water management fee, a sanitary sewer fee of
$47.00 per quarter, any special assessments for street resurfacing and a franchise fee for gas and
electric use that brings in $400,000. He then commented that he does not feel that the City has
made any attempt to lower the levy from the preliminary amount and has added to Staff by
adding a full time building official, the Assistant City Administrator position, and the proposed
full time cable coordinator. He also indicated that he questions the money spent on national
conferences and noted the Mayor just returned from his second national convention of the year
because the City has no policy on it.
Acting Mayor Stigney indicated that it is interesting to note that in the previous year the City
went from $17,236 in 1999 to 2000 and when levy limits went away the City went to $420,895 in
Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 28
2000 to 2001. He indicated that it is interesting to note that intergovernmental fees actually
increased by $67,000 and there was still a maximum rate of 25% increase in the property tax
levy. He further indicated that the City is using the maximum allowable levy and he does not
feel that Council is doing enough to lower it.
Council Member Quick asked what the budget started at when it was first presented.
City Administrator Miller indicated the budget was $438,000 more than what is currently before
Council.
Council Member Quick indicated that $438,000 was cut from the first proposal and said he feels
Council is doing a good job of keeping costs down and services up. He then indicated that the
City could cut out services to save money but said he did not think that would be appropriate and
residents would be calling to complain about not receiving services they are accustomed to
receiving. He further commented that he feels the residents are getting a good deal for the
amount they are taxed and told Council Member Stigney that if it is such a burden to live in
Mounds View he should put up a for sale sign and move out.
Acting Mayor Stigney clarified that he feels the City is using increased revenue from the state
from last year as a baseline for this year to force the taxpayers to pay the maximum the state will
allow. He then commented that he would move at his own discretion.
Council Member Quick indicated that if he had as many problems with the way the City was run
as Council Member Stigney did he would move out of the City.
Acting Mayor Stigney commented that he wished Council Member Quick would move out of the
City.
The other Council Members in attendance asked that the conversation move on.
Council Member Marty indicated he wanted to point out that last year the main expenses or
expenditures were the hiring of two additional police officers and noted that residents had said
that is what they wanted.
Council Member Marty commented that the City did not approve keeping the taxes high as the
norm but stated it is a product of the fact that the City did not get the state funding it was
accustomed to receiving due to changes made by the governor. He then commented that other
cities are doing the same thing.
Council Member Thomas suggested there is more work that could be done on the budget and
indicated that the increase in health care for employees was beyond Council control and there
were other issues that Council was forced to deal with during the course of the year. She then
noted that she feels that Council has done a great job of providing a workable budget that is
under 3% and under the rate of inflation.
Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 29
Council Member Quick thanked Staff for the extra time and efforts they put into providing a
workable budget.
Council Member Marty asked if it would be possible to start a little earlier on the budget
discussion next year.
Council Member Thomas explained that usually budget discussions begin in May and this year
they did not begin until August due to the delay in the legislature.
Acting Mayor Stigney indicated it was interesting to note that at the last budget session he had
asked Staff to look at their budgets to see if they could reduce them by 1% and not one Staff
member has responded to that request.
Acting Mayor Stigney indicated that this Council voted to approve the 80% health care costs. He
then noted that Council just approved a 4% cost of living increase for employees.
Ayes – 3 Nays – 1(Stigney) Motion carried.
H. Resolution 5672 Adopting the 2002 Budgets for Funds Other than the
General Fund.
Finance Director Hansen indicated that he had made some changes and reviewed those changes
with Council. He indicated that the most expensive option for cable personnel was added to the
budget.
Finance Director Hansen indicated that the public works director had started at step 1 which
resulted in a reduction in that budgeted amount. He also noted that the water and sewer amounts
were tied together.
Finance Director Hansen indicated that there were two changes not in the memorandum, the first
was he discovered that the repair of the exhaust hood over the stoves in the kitchen at the banquet
center was not included and that amount was $2,600 and the second error was that the 15%
adjusted down for the audit was removed from other budgets but was not added to the golf course
budget and that amount increased by $4,500.
Finance Director Hansen indicated that the transfers between funds did not balance in the 2001
budget. He noted the vehicle and equipment fund had a transfer out to water and sewer for
vehicles in the amount of $5,400 but the water and sewer fund showed it received $1,500. He
then explained he had looked at the numbers and set the transfer amount to vehicles and
equipment of $27,000 and a transfer of $2,500 to sewer.
Finance Director Hansen indicated that he had set the amounts for future vehicle and equipment
needs at $15,000 for each fund.
Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 30
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5672, a
Resolution Adopting the 2002 Budgets for Funds Other than the General Fund
Council Member Marty commented that it is interesting to note that, in reviewing previous years’
budgets for the golf course, with all the alleged improprieties this year the budgets are really very
similar to what they have been in the past.
Council Member Marty questioned why the golf course remedial lawsuit improvements fund was
zeroed out for this year’s budget.
City Administrator Miller indicated that those dollars were for the cost of bringing the golf
course up to par and that lawsuit no longer exists.
Council Member Marty indicated that it was his recollection that there were more steps that
needed to be completed to keep the course from reverting back to its previous condition.
City Administrator Miller indicated she had worked with Ken Mathison and he has reviewed all
the numbers and he feels the dollars, as budgeted, are adequate.
Council Member Marty explained that sofas and televisions were coming up through the
fairways and that is how the City got involved in the lawsuit and he is concerned that the
situation may happen again if all the steps to solve the problem are not completed.
City Administrator Miller indicated that the maintenance dollars are in the budget that the golf
course staff thought were necessary. She then indicated that the line item that was zeroed out for
the coming year was set up for that lawsuit and that lawsuit is completed.
Acting Mayor Stigney commented that he felt there would be some future improvement in the
budgets if it were a goal of the Council to strive for more efficient services and operations.
Council Member Quick indicated that for the 17 years he has been on the Council it has been a
goal of the City to do things more efficiently and cost effective. He then commented that
Council Member Stigney should consider the community as a whole when making decisions as a
Council Member because it seems that the Council could work to do something that benefited the
majority of the City and, if Council Member Stigney did not like the idea, he would not support
it.
Council Member Marty commented that he feels differing opinions are good for discussion
purposes and even though Council does not always agree the Members are all working for the
betterment of the entire community. He then asked if the cable technician would be discussed at
a later date.
City Administrator Miller indicated that the matter would be discussed sometime during the
course of the coming year.
Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 31
Council Member Marty noted that even if funds are set aside the money does not have to be
spent. He then commented that he feels it is time to discuss the sewer fees because he does not
feel everyone in the City should pay a flat rate because usage varies.
Council Member Thomas asked Council to leave the editorial comments off as there was a lot of
business to accomplish and it was 10:45 p.m.
Acting Mayor Stigney indicated he felt the discussions were necessary because if saving the
taxpayers money has always been a goal of this Council he wonders why it was never listed as a
goal and had not come up for discussion at any retreat.
Council Member Quick commented that Council Member Stigney’s version of cost effectiveness
is to cut everything rather than plan for the long term.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Call the Question.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Ayes – 3 Nays – 1(Stigney) Motion carried.
I. Resolution 5654 Authorizing the City Administrator to Sign the Engagement
Letter Dated December 3, 2001 from MMKR for the Provision of Auditing
Services for the Years 2001, 2002 and 2003.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5654,
Authorizing the City Administrator to Sign the Engagement Letter Dated December 3, 2001 from
MMKR for the Provision of Auditing Services for the Years 2001, 2002 and 2003.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
J. Review Esultant Web Services Contract
Jeffrey Schissler of 2331 University Avenue SE addressed Council and explained how the
proposal before Council was arrived at.
Mr. Schissler indicated he had been given verbal authorization from Mr. Hammerschmidt to
proceed with the project because anything under $15,000 did not need Council approval.
Mr. Schissler indicated that 40 to 50% of the e-commerce programming has been done and only
about 15% of work on the actual website. He then commented that his company would like to be
paid for the services provided.
City Administrator Miller asked how many hours the Company had put into the e-commerce side
of the project.
Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 32
Mr. Schissler indicated that approximately 35 hours had been spent on the programming for the
e-commerce portion of the site.
City Administrator Miller confirmed that Council was not interested in the e-commerce portion
of the project. She then indicated that she had presented Council with three options as had been
discussed with the City Attorney.
Council Member Thomas told Mr. Schissler that Council is in a difficult position and then
questioned why the company had proceeded with the project without having finalized the
contract.
Mr. Schissler indicated he was told by Mr. Hammerschmidt that he did not need Council
approval of any expenditures under $15,000 as he intended to use the carpet budget for the
website. He also noted that approximately 95% of his projects are not governed by contracts and
said that he was pressured to have the site up and running by the April 1, 2001 deadline as
printed in the newsletter.
Council Member Marty asked how many other government agencies or entities Mr. Schissler had
done work for. He then noted the contract was presented to the golf course committee but never
made it past a Council work session.
Council Member Marty indicated there was no action to approve or disapprove the contract and
noted that the website sounded like it would be beneficial but Council never really discussed it
and had not approved the contract.
Mr. Schissler indicated that he has done over 1,000 website projects and does some work for
nonprofits and for Hennepin County.
Mr. Schissler indicated that he was led to believe that Mr. Hammerschmidt had the approval for
the $15,000 without needing Council approval.
City Administrator Miller indicated that it is unfortunate that work was done and stated that she
feels that any discussion concerning whether or not to proceed with the website contract should
be tabled until the new golf course manager has been hired.
Council Member Marty recommended that Mr. Schissler check back with Council after the new
golf course manager is on board.
Mr. Schissler indicated that he felt his company was entitled to some compensation for the work
done on the project because he was led to believe that the project had been authorized to the
amount of $15,000. He then indicated he would like to finish the project for the City.
Council Member Thomas indicated that she was not comfortable agreeing to the contract or
deciding not to proceed until she had more information as to the scope of the project.
Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 33
Council Member Quick commented that Council has been forced to deal with a lot of infractions
and has had to sort through them as they come up. He then stated he agreed with Council
Member Thomas that more information is needed before determining how to proceed.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Marty. To Table the Rest of the Meeting to the Next Council
Meeting.
Council Member Marty commented that he had no corrections to the minutes and asked whether
other Council Members did. He then suggested amending the motion to approve the minutes
along with tabling the rest of the agenda.
Council Member Thomas accepted his friendly amendment.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
9. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
None.
10. REPORTS
None.
11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. November 26, 2001 City Council Minutes.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Marty. To Approve the Minutes of the Monday, November 26,
2001 Council Meeting as Presented.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Council recessed to the EDA meeting at 11:13 p.m.
Council reconvened at 11:17 p.m. and moved to the closed session.
Acting Mayor Stigney indicated that Council would adjourn from the closed session.
12. CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING LITIGATION
Council recessed to the closed session at 11:17 p.m.
13. Next Council Work Session: Monday, January 7, 2002
Next Council Meeting: Monday, January 14, 2002
Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 34
14. ADJOURNMENT
Acting Mayor Stigney adjourned the meeting at ____ p.m.
Transcribed and recorded by:
Joan Lenzmeier
Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.