Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2001/03/26M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2001\City Council\Council Packets\03-26-2001 Council\Agenda - April 9, 2001 Council.doc CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNCIL AGENDA MONDAY, APRIL 9, 2001 7 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Sonterre, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomas 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. PUBLIC INPUT A. Citizens: Before speaking, must give their full name and address for the minutes. Please limit your comments to three minutes. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 6. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims B. Licenses for Approval C. Acceptance of Revised Planning Commission Bylaws 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Continued Review of Golf Course Feasibility Study – Springsted; 1 hour (Please bring your Study) B. Greenfield Park Ponding Proposal – Michael Ulrich, RCWD 8. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 9. REPORTS 10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Acceptance of February 27, 2001 Park & Recreation Meeting Minutes B. Acceptance and Approval March 26, 2001 City Council Minutes 11. Next Council Work Session: May 7, 2001 Next Council Meeting: April 23, 2001 12. ADJOURNMENT M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2001\City Council\Council Packets\03-26-2001 Council\Agenda - March 26, 2001.doc CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNCIL AGENDA MONDAY, MARCH 26, 2001 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Sonterre, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomas 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Acceptance and Approval of the March 12, 2001 City Council Minutes B. Acceptance of Park & Recreation Commission Minutes 01/24/01 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: A. Resolution 5551, A Resolution of Appreciation for the Irondale Boys Basketball Team 6. REPORTS 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims B. Licenses for Approval C. Resolution 5544 Donating Surplus Property D. Resolution 5545, New Cruiser Purchase, Police Department E. Resolution 5550 to pursue COPS-MORE Grant F. Resolution 5552 Approving Business License for Blimpies 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR: A. Citizens: Before speaking, must give their full name and address for the minutes. Please limit your comments to three minutes. Closed Session to Discuss Potential Litigation 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS 7:05 A. Discussion, Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 5540, a Resolution Approving a Development Review and Conditional Use Permit for Pinewood Elementary School, located at 5500 Quincy Street. – Jim Ericson B. Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 5541, a Resolution Approving a Development Review for a 16,912 Square Foot Office Building at 2720 Highway 10 - Jim Ericson M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2001\City Council\Council Packets\03-26-2001 Council\Agenda - March 26, 2001.doc City Council Meeting March 26, 2001 Page –2- C. Discussion regarding seasonal employees - Givonna Reed 1. Resolutions 5546 and 5547 Adopting Procedures for Hiring Seasonal Employees and Amending the Definition of Seasonal Employee in the Personnel Manual 2. Resolutions 5548 and 5549 Approving Golf Course and Public Works Seasonal Positions 3. Golf Course Personnel D. Consideration of Mower Purchase – Michael Ulrich F. Consideration of Resolution 5537, a Resolution Awarding and Authorizing Execution of a Contract for the Highway 10 Reconstruction and Revitalization Corridor Study. - Jim Ericson G. Consideration of Well Maintenance Bids – Michael Ulrich H. Consideration of Billboard Lease Agreement – Scott Riggs I. Consideration of Website Design Agreement for Services – John Hammerschmidt J. Continued Review of the Golf Course Feasibility Study – Springsted Representatives (please bring your feasibility reports for discussion) – 1 Hour 11. Next Council Work Session: April 2, 2001 Meeting will start at 5:30 p.m. at the Public Works Facility for a tour, meeting will resume at City Hall, Council Chambers at 6:00 p.m. Next Council Meeting: April 9, 2001 12. ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting March 12, 2001 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 7:15 P.M. 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Sonterre, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomas. Council Member Quick was absent. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Monday, March 12, 2001 City Council Agenda. Mayor Sonterre asked the Council if anyone would like to add items to the agenda. City Administrator Miller asked that Item 10C be removed from the agenda as Springsted was not able to be at the meeting. MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Remove Item 10C from the Agenda. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mayor Sonterre asked that a report from Police Chief Clark concerning traffic and speed issues on County Highway 10 be added as Item 10C. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Sonterre. To Approve the March 12, 2001, City Council Agenda as amended. Ayes - 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Monday, January 8, 2001 City Council Minutes. Council Member Marty requested the following changes: On Page 6, Paragraph 10B the last line is all caps please correct. On Page 10, Paragraph 7 insert the word “today” between her and she. On Page 12, Paragraph 4 change the word “work shop” to “work session”. Mounds View City Council March 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 2 MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Approve the Monday, January 8, 2001, City Council Minutes with the Requested Changes. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. B. Monday, February 26, 2001, City Council Minutes Council Member Marty requested the following changes: On Page 5 the motion and second should come at the end after the discussion. On Page 6 Council should approve the list of the candidates before approving the hiring of an officer. On Page 8, Paragraph 6, Line 1 after “the council” insert a comma. On Page 21, Paragraph 4, last line change “work shop” to “work session”. Council Member Stigney stated he felt the motion and second on Pages 5 and 6 were in the proper sequence. After some discussion Council determined no change was needed to Pages 5 and 6. Mayor Sonterre requested the following change: On Page 3, Paragraph 6, change the reference from Marty Sonterre to Mayor Sonterre. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Approve the Monday, February 26, 2001, City Council Minutes with the Requested Changes. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: A. Minnesota State Senator Satveer Chaudhary Senator Chaudhary updated Council on the events taking place in the legislature. He noted he was elected to the House of Representatives before being elected to Senate and then gave an overview of some of the things he worked on while in the House of Representatives. Senator Chaudhary told Council he has been appointed to several major committees and that education is his number one issue. The committees he has been appointed to are the K-12 Budget Division, renamed the E-12 Budget Division, the Education Technology Committee, the Transportation Policy and Budget Division, and the Crime Prevention Committee. Senator Chaudhary told Council one of the major issues facing the legislature is what to do with the budget surplus. Another issue is the Governor’s tax reform plan. The third major issue is re- districting. Initial observations have shown that both rural Minnesota as well as the metropolitan area will have lost population and will lose districts and there will be additional districts added in the suburbs. Mounds View City Council March 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 3 Senator Chaudhary commented that the state is wrestling with what type and how well to fund education. He then stated his top issue is to cut class sizes. He explained there is another proposal to cut class sizes before the legislature that takes a little bit more money but in comparison to the budget surplus he feels it is well worth it. Senator Chaudhary also reported DWI issues and internet pornography are at the top of his list of concerns. He then explained an internet pornography bill will be introduced to the legislature and he is hoping it will make it easier for law enforcement to catch those that possess and/or disseminate child pornography. Senator Chaudhary sent a message to parents indicating he felt that letting kids surf the internet alone is the equivalent of sending kids to the park alone and that great care should be exercised by parents to protect children from viewing things that are inappropriate. He then stated he wants parents to know government is attempting to do its part to catch them with this bill but noted parents need to be ever vigilant at the same time. Senator Chaudhary then spoke to issues concerning Mounds View noting there appears to be some feelings from MNDOT that there is flexibility with the agreement between Mounds View and the County for the use of turn back funds. He noted he entered Mounds View into a program to allow the City to use funds from the Scattered Site Housing TIF Program to take care of dilapidated housing which includes up to 50 homes over the course of 10 years. He noted he will draft a bill for bonding to help fund the renovation or rebuilding of three park shelters in Mounds View noting he was not sure if there will be bonding this year or if it will be worked into next year. Senator Chaudhary noted he and Representative Evans would meet to discuss the sound barrier issue to see what can be done. He then explained he feels there are a couple of approaches. One is to look into why it was not built in the first place and the other is a proposal to fund sound barriers through a leveraging program where locals split the cost with the state with the state paying two thirds of the cost and the locals paying one third of the cost. It may also be possible to fund the sound barrier on an assessment basis. Mayor Sonterre welcomed Senator Chaudhary and invited him back at the end of this legislative session to let Council know what actually happens this session. He then made a point of clarification that the interpretation on turn back funds was the interpretation of Ramsey County to the City of Mounds View noting if Senator Chaudhary felt there may be some flexibility there is a need to schedule a meeting to discuss it. Council Member Stigney thanked Senator Chaudhary for coming to the meeting. Council Member Marty thanked Senator Chaudhary for coming to the meeting and for the town hall meeting noting he liked the way that Senator Chaudhary was staying on track and was tuned into the concerns of residents. Mayor Sonterre pointed out a former mayor was is in the audience who would be a good resource for sound wall information and he asked Senator Chaudhary to speak to him before he left. Mounds View City Council March 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 4 6. REPORTS Mayor Sonterre reported that on March 6, 2001 he attended the opening night festivities at the newly remodeled community center at the manufactured home park. Mayor Sonterre reported that on March 7, 2001 he attended a meeting of the I-35 Corridor Coalition noting the purpose of the meeting was to form a legislative action plan. Mayor Sonterre reported he represented the city at the National League of Cities in Washington, D.C. He noted there was a lot of course work available and the social interaction with other mayors and council members was invaluable. Mayor Sonterre noted he was honored to be appointed to the policy committee for crime prevention and public safety. This steering committee brought forward several items to work on at the national level and those were school safety issues with regard to violence, reintegration of prisoners into society, and the ratings system instituted by the media and entertainment industry to protect children from violence. 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims B. Licenses for Approval C. Resolution 5536 – Resolution Amending Previously Adopted Resolution 5527 Regarding a Development Review Request for an Office Building Located at 7664 Greenfield Avenue; Planning Case No. DE00-002 D. Resolution 5538, Title Change from Lieutenant to Deputy Police Chief E. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, March 26, 2001, 7:05 p.m., to consider Resolution 5540, a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit and Development Review for Pinewood Elementary School F. Resolution 5539, Authorizing Repayment of the Overpayment to Innovation Images for the Year 2000 MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Approve the Consent Agenda as Presented. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR David Jahnke of 8428 Eastwood Road told Council he was expecting an answer to his question from the last meeting concerning the attorney’s fees for the billboard issue. Mayor Sonterre indicated the attorney’s fees amount exceeds the initial amount but stated he did not have the exact dollar amount to answer the question at this time. Mounds View City Council March 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 5 Mr. Jahnke stated he had watched the work session and is concerned about some of the issues discussed indicating he is hoping this Council and Mayor will take accountability for their actions. John Stacy of 8000 Woodlawn Drive addressed Council and expressed concern for the $47.00 sewer charge as he does not feel it is fair to charge him a flat rate. He stated he would prefer to pay per usage as he does for the home he owns in Minneapolis. He then questioned whether the $47.00 is actually more than what it costs the City to provide sewer service. Mayor Sonterre indicated the Public Works Director was not at the meeting and noted he was not privy to the information needed to properly answer the question. He then asked City Administrator Miller to investigate the situation and provide Mr. Stacy with an answer. Finance Director Kessel arrived at the meeting and explained there are two ways to bill for sewer noting the revenues that are generated equal the expenses and the City is not overcharging anyone. In the metro area most cities bill a flat amount for sewer service. Finance Director Kessel referred to a report from the Metropolitan Council noting he could get a copy for Mr. Stacy which outlines the flat rate billing as the most common way to bill for sewer services. Council Member Marty stated he had raised this question a year and a half ago and it faded off the agenda and was not dealt with. He then stated he felt it was a valid question that he would like to see revisited. Council Member Stigney thanked Mr. Stacy for bringing the issue to Council. He then stated he would like to discuss the issue at a work session. 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Consideration of Resolution 5537, a Resolution Awarding and Authorizing Execution of a Contract for the Highway 10 Reconstruction and Revitalization Corridor Study. City Administrator Miller noted the City received six proposals and of those six three firms were interviewed. Of the three that were interviewed, Staff feels one in particular stood out as being the best firm for the project. Staff recommends URS/BRW be awarded the contract. Council Member Marty noted the BRW bid was the low bid and that it fit with the RFP but noted with the other costs included some of the other bids could have come in under the BRW bid. Council Member Marty then inquired as to whether BRW had been asked what the costs for everything would be and, if not, if the City should ask the total amount of costs ahead of awarding the contract. City Administrator Miller noted there was a problem comparing proposals as each firm submitted a slightly different proposal. She then explained BRW matched the needs of the City the best Mounds View City Council March 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 6 noting they have a team to work on funding for the project. She also explained BRW was the most qualified of the companies noting they were the firm who worked on the Highway 96 reconstruction in Shoreview. Council Member Stigney stated he felt BRW should be able to estimate the costs for the drawings and estimate future costs based on those drawings. He then stated he did not feel it was acceptable to grant an open-ended contract noting he would prefer to have an estimate of the total costs. City Administrator Miller stated this project was in the early planning stages which is why there is not a total estimate for costs at this point. Council Member Stigney expressed concern for ending up with a grandiose plan that the City could not afford. Council Member Thomas asked if BRW was the only firm with staff to do grant research. City Administrator Miller indicated one other firm had staff for grant research but noted the difference between the two firms was quite significant. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Table Resolution 5537 to allow Staff Time to Further Research the Costs Involved. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. B. Resolution 5541, Authorizing the Hiring of a Police Officer, from a Certified List of Candidates. Assistant to the Administrator Reed noted one of the police officer candidates selected at the February 26, 2001 meeting had accepted a job with another city. She then noted Council would need to consider the next two names on the list and those names are August Wehmeyer and Kirk Leitch. Council Member Marty recommended Council consider Kirk Leitch for the position. Council Member Thomas asked why Council Member Marty had recommended the lesser- ranked individual. Assistant to the Administrator Reed noted Council could have the Police Civil Service Commission review and advise Council as to how to proceed. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5541, A Resolution Authorizing the Hiring of Kirk Leitch as a Police Officer, from the Certified List. Mounds View City Council March 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 7 Council Member Stigney stated he did not know either candidate but said in light of the fact that Council Member Marty had researched the matter he would go with his recommendation. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. C. Discussion of County Highway 10 Traffic Issues Police Chief Clark addressed Council and explained that when he arrived in the City traffic was an issue on County Highway 10. Chief Clark explained that due to the various names the Highway has gone by over the years it was impossible to pull statistics just for County Highway 10. Chief Clark reviewed the report he had submitted to Council pointing out citation information and accident reduction information contained in the report. Chief Clark reported that early last summer he presented the traffic issues to the sergeants and the officers and asked them to find proactive ways to slow the traffic down on County Highway 10 rather than a ticketing blitz for one day. The officers went out and set up analyzers on the roadway and found that on County Highway 10 the average speed in the slow lane of traffic was 48 m.p.h. with 26.1 percent of vehicles exceeding the limit and only 8.22 percent of vehicles traveling in excess of 55 m.p.h. Over the next six (6) days the officers went out with the speed trailer and did selective enforcement and also placed a marked car out there. Six days later the average speed dropped to 45 m.p.h. and the rate of speeding vehicles was cut in half. Chief Clark explained the trailer had to be pulled due to cold weather but stated he intended to put it back out on County Highway 10 as soon as the weather warms up. Chief Clark reported this past week there were three (3) state troopers as well as Mounds View officers setting up a radar site and 50 tickets and several hundred warnings were issued. Council Member Thomas noted she saw three stops this weekend and was impressed. Council Member Marty thanked Chief Clark for the report and for continuing to follow up with this situation. Mayor Sonterre thanked Chief Clark for his report and for presenting it to Council. Chief Clark noted he is not taking nearly the number of telephone complaints concerning traffic issues on County Highway 10 that, to him, means his officers are having an impact on the roadway. 11. Next Council Work Session: Monday, April 2, 2001 Next Council Meeting: Monday, March 26, 2001 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Sonterre adjourned the meeting at 8:36 p.m. Transcribed and recorded by: Mounds View City Council March 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 8 Joan Lenzmeier Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. PARK AND RECREATION MEETING MINUTES January 24, 2001 Meeting was called to order at 6:30 pm. New members were sworn in. All members of the Commission were present and introduced. A unanimous decision of the Commission elected Dan Coughlin as Chairperson and Sherry Gunn as Vice-Chairperson. Secretary appointment will be the staff liaison to the Commission. Former Commission Stan MacDonald addressed the Commission and expressed his gratitude in working with the Commission and wished them success in their future endeavors. Minutes of the December 13, 2000 were approved. New Business: Dan Coughlin requested that Barbara Haake be placed on the next meeting agenda to discuss issues related to Spring Lake. The Commission approved this motion. A motion was approved to create Resolutions for the Park and Recreation Commission on items of major decisions. Old Business: Hillview Park Shelter Replacement Consultants representing TKDA presented preliminary building plans for the Hillview Park Shelter. Several Commission members and staff expressed concerns regarding the building size and construction materials. The architects explained that a masonry building would cost approximately 5 to 10% more than a wood building, but it would save the City money over the longevity of the building in maintenance. The concept of designing the two remaining buildings the same and saving future design and engineering fees was discussed. Staff was directed to consider this and report back at the next meeting. Storage space was also addressed and staff was to consider with the architects in amending the proposed design. The Commission also approved the addition of a second restroom in the facility. Separate male and female facilities are a requirement of the building code for this building. Also approved was a motion for no net loss of usable interior space and the possibility of adding a detached picnic shelter at a later date. Staff was directed to present the concept of replacing all shelters at one time. This could save money in advertising, mobilization, materials, and possibly open the bidding to larger construction companies due to a larger project. Bonding for the project was discussed as a means to fund the construction. Comprehensive Plan and City Survey Staff explained the comments for the City Council work session where this was presented by staff. The commission reiterated that a consultant should conduct this survey and subsequent plan. The survey if authorized by the City Council could include questions regarding all City services, not only Park and Recreation. Recommendation of the Commission was to consult the City Council again on this matter. Information regarding the status and participation of recreation programs and any surveys conducted by the YMCA was requested. Staff will request if this information is available from the YMCA. Other Old Business: A request was made and approved to invite the City Forester to an upcoming meeting to present the Forestry programs and schedules to the Commission. Staff will contact the City Forester to schedule this. Scheduling of the City Park facilities was discussed; Greenfield ball field was of major concern along with soccer fields. A representative from the YMCA will be requested at the next meeting to discuss these issues. Next month’s meeting was motioned to be changed to Tuesday, February 27, 2001 at 6:30 pm, as the regularly scheduled date is Ash Wednesday. No further business was presented. Meeting was adjourned at 8:50 pm C:\Mike's documents\Parks Stuff.doc\MINUTES\PARK AND REC MTG MIN 012401.doc RESOLUTION NO. 5551 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR THE IRONDALE BOYS BASKETBALL TEAM WHEREAS, the Irondale Boys Basketball Team (Knights) made history with its sixty-five (65) to fifty-nine (59) victory over district - rival Mustangs, and WHEREAS, the Irondale Knights’ victory secured its right to go to the State Tournament for the first time in the School’s history, and WHEREAS, the Irondale Knights are hereby recognized for their hard fought efforts in achieving this historic victory. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does hereby proudly recognize the historic achievements of the Irondale Boys Basketball Team’s in going to the State Tournament for the first time ever in the School’s history. Adopted this 26th day of March, 2001. ________________________________ ATTEST: Richard Sonterre, Mayor ________________________________ (SEAL) Kathleen F. Miller, City Administrator Motion by: Rich Sonterre Second by: Rob Marty Sonterre: Aye Quick: Aye Stigney: Aye Marty: Aye Thomas: Aye Item No. 6B 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: April 9, 2001 Please consider the following contractor licenses for approval. The licenses listed will expire on December 31, 2001. All applicants have submitted appropriate fees and proof of insurance. Licenses are noted with a “New” or “Renewal” after 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 2000. Those defined as “renewal” were licensed in the year 2000. HVAC Northern Air Corporation - Renewal Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested. Item No: 6C Meeting Date: April 9, 2001 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 & City Council From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Acceptance of Planning Commission Bylaws Date of Report: April 4, 2001 Background: The Planning Commission’s Bylaws state that they [the Bylaws] shall be reviewed on an annual basis, at the first regular meeting in February. The Planning Commission reviewed their Bylaws on February 7, 2001 and made minor changes. The Bylaws then require that they be sent on to the City Council for their information. Discussion: The first change results from the City Council’s decision to eliminate Commission liaisons. The second correction is less a correction than it is a reformatting of the information so that Emergency Special Meetings became a separate paragraph. The changes appear in gray shading for easy reference. Also included for the Council’s review is the resolution adopted by the Planning Commission on February 21, 2001 which approves the bylaws as amended. Recommendation: No action is required other than to accept the Planning Commission bylaws. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\Planning Commission\BYLAWS\Council Report - Apr 9, 2001.doc MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 647-01 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION ADOPTING REVISED BYLAWS FOR THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WHEREAS, Section 401.06, Subd. 7 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires the Planning and Zoning Commission to adopt bylaws for its governance and for the transaction of its business, and for annual review of these bylaws; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has conducted its year 2001 review of its bylaws and has determined that minor revisions are needed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the bylaws for the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be revised as shown in ΑExhibit A≅, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and that the bylaws as shown in ΑExhibit A≅ supersede previous adopted versions of the bylaws. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that these revised bylaws shall be kept on file with the City Clerk-Administrator and the Community Development Department, and shall be forwarded to the City Council for its acceptance. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 21st day of February, 2001. _________________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson Attest: _________________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\BYLAWS\PC RESOLUTION 647-01.DOC CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BYLAWS (Revised February 21, 2001) I. AUTHORITY: The Bylaws of the Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission (Bylaws) are established in accordance with the Mounds View Municipal Code Section 401.06. Subd. 7 “The Commission shall adopt bylaws for its governance and for the transaction of its business.” Where there is a conflict between the provisions of the Bylaws and the provisions of the City Charter and the Municipal Code, the provisions of the City Charter and the Municipal Code shall govern. (For purposes of simplicity, the Planning and Zoning Commission may hereinafter be referred to as the Planning Commission or the Commission.) II. ADOPTION OF BYLAWS; REVIEW AND AMENDMENT: A. ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT: The Bylaws shall be adopted by Resolution by an affirmative vote of the majority of members of the Planning and Zoning Commission appointed as voting members, and shall be placed on file with the City Clerk- Administrator and the Community Development Department. A copy of the bylaws shall be forwarded to the City Council for its information. Any amendments to the Bylaws shall be adopted by Resolution in the same manner as the original Bylaws. B. ANNUAL REVIEW: The Bylaws shall be reviewed on an annual basis at the first regular meeting of the Commission in February. III. MEMBERSHIP AND VACANCIES Vacancies on the Planning Commission shall be filled in accordance with the Municipal Code, Sections 401.02 and 401.03. IV. OFFICERS A. OFFICERS NAMED: The officers of the Planning Commission shall consist of a chairperson and vice-chairperson. The Commission may create and fill such other offices from its members, as it may determine, to transact Commission business. In addition, the Director of Community Development, or his or her designee, shall act as the recording secretary for the Commission for purpose of preparing meeting minutes. B. ELECTIONS; TERMS 1. Chairperson: At the first meeting in January, the Commission shall conduct an election in order to make its recommendation for the chairperson, following the procedure in Section IV.B.3. The name of the person recommended for chairperson shall be forwarded to the City Council for action at its next meeting in January. Based upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the Mayor, with the approval of the City Council, shall appoint the chairperson of the Commission each year. 2. Vice-Chairperson: The Planning Commission shall elect a vice-chairperson each year at its first meeting in January, following the procedure in Section IV.B.3. EXHIBIT A Resolution 647-01 3. Election Procedure: For each office, the chairperson shall invite nominations from Planning Commission members. After nominations have been received, the chairperson shall entertain a motion to close nominations. If such motion is made and passed, and more than one nomination has been made, the chairperson shall distribute ballots to the Commission members and each member shall write his or her selection on the ballot. The recording secretary shall tally the ballots and announce the nominee receiving the most votes. In the event of a tie, the recording secretary shall announce the nominees tied in the voting and balloting shall be repeated until an election occurs. If only one nomination has been received, the chairperson may conduct the voting by voice vote. If a majority of the members present vote in the affirmative for the nominee, the nominee shall be elected. 4. Assumption of Duties: The Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall assume office at the first meeting in February of each year. 5. Term of Office: The chairperson and vice chairperson shall serve one year terms, and may be re-elected to additional terms in accordance with this Section IV.B. C. DUTIES OF OFFICERS: The chairperson shall preside over the meetings of the Planning Commission, and shall have the authority to add or cancel regular meetings and to call special meetings as provided in Section VI. The vice chairperson shall assume the duties of the chairperson, in the absence of the chairperson. In the event of the absence of both the chairperson and vice-chairperson, those members present shall elect a temporary chairperson to preside over the meeting. V. COUNCIL LIAISON LIAISON TO COUNCIL: The City Council shall may appoint from among its members a Liaison to the Commission on an annual basis. It is expected that the Council Liaison will attend the Commission meetings on a regular basis. In the event of the absence of the Council Liaison at a Commission meeting, a Commission member may be appointed by the chairperson to represent the Planning Commission at the next regular City Council meeting or at the meeting where the City Council will be considering the planning cases acted upon by the Planning Commission in the absence of the Council Liaison. VI. MEETINGS A. TYPES OF MEETINGS; SCHEDULE: The annual meeting schedule of the Commission shall be adopted by Resolution at the first regular meeting in December for the following year. 1. Regular Meetings: Subject to the adopted meeting schedule, the Commission’s regular meetings will occur on the first and third Wednesdays of each month for the purpose of convening public hearings, making recommendations to the City Council, conducting business which requires a vote of the Commission, convening as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, conducting long-range planning functions and other official business. City of Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission - Bylaws Page 5 2. Agenda Sessions: An Agenda Session is an informal session of the Planning Commission, typically held immediately following adjournment of a Regular or Special meeting, at which time the Planning Commission may review minutes, informally review proposed or pending planning cases or ordinance amendments, discuss previous actions of the City Council or other Commissions, and to perform other matters not requiring a vote of the Commission. 3. Special Meetings: From time to time, special meetings may be called in order to process significant caseloads, to review works in progress such as comprehensive plan updates or municipal code revisions, or to undertake a retreat or strategic planning session, either amongst itself or in the company of the City Council or other commissions. Special meetings can be proposed by any Commission member or at the request of the Director of Community Development, yet must be approved by a majority vote of the Commission. 4. Emergency Special Meetings. Emergency special meetings can be called via written notice to the Director of Community Development by the Chairperson or two Commission members, or by the Director of Community Development. (Emergency special meetings are those in which the subject matter is of such an immediate concern that it cannot be delayed until the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission.) The Director of Community Development shall post and mail a notice of any special meeting in accordance with State Statutes. Planning Commission members shall be notified by telephone and in writing, if possible, at least seven days prior to a special meeting. 5. 4. Cancellation of Meetings: Regular or special meetings may be canceled by the chairperson or Community Development Director in the event that there are no items of business requiring the attention of the Commission, or for lack of a quorum, or in response to inclement weather or for any other good and sufficient reason. Members of the Commission shall be notified by telephone of any meeting cancellation. A notice of the meeting cancellation shall be posted as required by State Statutes. B. QUORUM: A majority of the number of voting members appointed to the Commission shall constitute a quorum. C. CONDUCT OF MEETINGS; ADJOURNMENT 1. Meeting Chairperson: If neither the chairperson nor the vice chairperson is present to conduct a meeting of the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission may elect a meeting chair from among those members present prior to the commencement of business. The election shall follow the procedures set forth in Section IV.B.3, except that the Community Development Director, or his or her designee, shall conduct the election. 2. Open Meeting Law: Meetings shall be conducted in accordance with the State of City of Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission - Bylaws Page 6 Minnesota Open Meeting Law (Minn. Statutes 471.705). City of Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission - Bylaws Page 7 3. Adjournment: Meetings shall adjourn at or before 11:00 p.m. unless a two-thirds majority of the members present agree to extend the time of adjournment. If there is no objection, the Chairperson may declare the meeting adjourned without the necessity of a motion or vote by the Commission. D. MINUTES: Minutes shall be recorded for regular meetings and each commission member shall receive a copy of the unapproved minutes for review and approval at a succeeding meeting. Minutes shall be approved by motion. Approved minutes shall be the official record of the business conducted and actions taken by the Planning Commission. Commission members may request copies of approved minutes after they have been corrected, if necessary, and signed as approved. Copies of the approved minutes shall be filed with the Community Development Department. Unapproved minutes shall be clearly marked “DRAFT”; approved minutes shall be marked “APPROVED”. A policy statement regarding the content and format of the minutes shall be on file with the Director of Community Development which may be reviewed from time to time as needed. VI. INFORMATIONAL PACKETS: Each Commissioner shall receive a staff report, plans and additional information, as appropriate, for each item placed on the agenda for any regular or special meeting. The Commission packet should be delivered at least four days prior to the meeting. Each Commissioner is responsible for reviewing the material within the packet prior to the meeting. VII. PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS: Advice from, consultation with, and/or requests for review by the City Attorney, City Engineer, City Planning Agency, or other paid consultants shall be in accordance with the Municipal Code, Section 401.07. VIII. SUPPLEMENTARY PUBLICATIONS: All Commission members shall receive a copy of the Mounds View Municipal Code and a copy of the Municipal Comprehensive Plan as well as other materials provided by the City Council or City Staff. These materials shall be retained by each commission member and returned to the Community Development Director upon the member’s resignation or termination of appointment. IX. CONDUCT OF MEMBERS A. ATTENDANCE: Commission members shall advise the designated Staff member or the Commission chairperson of an anticipated absence from any regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Any member attending less than 20 meetings per year without the consent of the Commission shall be deemed to have vacated the office, and such vacancy shall be filled by the City Council pursuant to Section 401.03, Subd. 1. A leave of absence may be granted by the consent of the Commission. B. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: 1. General Standard: No Commissioner shall be appointed with private or personal City of Mounds View Planning and Zoning Commission - Bylaws Page 8 interests likely to conflict with the general public interest. If any person appointed to the Commission shall find that their private or personal interests are involved in any matter coming before the Commission, they shall disqualify themselves from taking part in any discussion or action on the matter; alternatively, they may be disqualified by a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of the Commissioners in attendance. 2. Conflict Due to Economic Interests: A Commissioner has a conflict of interest if, in his or her discharge of official duties, would be required to take an action or make a decision that would substantially affect the Commissioner’s financial interests or those of an associated business, unless the effect on the Commissioner is no greater than on other members of the Commissioner’s business classification, profession, or occupation. In the event a conflict of interest exists with respect to a particular matter before the Commission, the Commissioner shall disqualify himself or herself from taking part in any discussion or action on the matter. C. EX PARTE CONTACTS: Ex parte contacts are contacts between individuals seeking to influence the decisions of the Planning Commission and individual Commission members outside the meeting forum. Such contacts include meetings with project proponents, residents, property owners, and citizens separate from Commission meetings, communication between Commission members outside the meeting forum, telephone calls or letters which attempt to influence a Commissioner’s opinion on a matter which will be subject to the Commissioner’s vote. When the Planning Commission is involved in a matter which is to be heard and decided by the Commission (e.g. variances), Planning Commissioners shall indicate to the person contacting them that such contact is inappropriate and all testimony needs to be offered at the hearing to ensure a fair hearing for all parties. In all other cases, Planning Commissioners should discourage such contacts and should avoid expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case. When ex parte contacts occur, the Planning Commissioner is responsible for notifying the Community Development Director, and for conveying the substance of the communication at the next commission meeting at which the matter discussed is under consideration. ____________________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ____________________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director Revision History: February 21, 2001 February 2, 2000 March 5, 1997 February 3, 1993 October 1990 N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\BYLAWS\BYLAWS 2001 -- WITH CHANGES.DOC Item No. 7B Staff Report No. Meeting Date: April 9, 2001 Type of Business: C.B. 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: Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works Item Title/Subject: Greenfield Park Ponding Proposal Date of Report: August 29, 2018 Representatives from Rice Creek Watershed District have presented the City Council with two concept plans for a proposed water quality / detention pond for an area in Greenfield Park. Informational meetings have been held with the residents of the surrounding area to explain the need for this pond and to try and develop a plan that is palatable for all parties. The District has made some concessions by reducing the size of the pond, which would lessen the amount of forested area that would be removed. The District has offered to plant new trees in selected areas in an attempt to reforest the area and screen the view of the pond for some property owners. MnDot has indicated that they would be receptive to utilizing the spoils from the proposed excavation to provide for some type of earthen sound deflector. Currently this location is ranked 183rd in priority in the updated Noise Priority Study. MnDot currently averages approximately 3 noise abatement projects per year. Staff has been directed by Council to provide the advantages and disadvantages of this proposal for Council’s review. The Rice Creek Watershed District is seeking direction from the City of Mounds View, either approving this project and proceeding or denying its construction. *Disadvantages: 1. The pond will alter the current nature of the park, creating an open water body in what now is a combination of areas of woods, low lands, some high lands and pockets of wetland. 2. The addition of an open water body could provide a new habitat for waterfowl, which some property owners might not consider desirable. 3. The addition of an open body of water would be located near a residential area, which some may see as a hazard to younger residents. 4. Although noise pollution monitoring has not taken place in this area, some residents are concerned about potentially increased noise pollution. 5. During the construction of the pond, some wildlife may be displaced. *Advantages: 1. The pond will decrease the amount of bank erosion in lower levels of Rice Creek by an estimated 30%. 2. The pond will provide water quality measures for water entering Rice Creek, currently not available. City of Mounds View Staff Report August 29, 2018 Page 2 3. The pond will provide water quality measures for an area of Mounds View in which the current surface water receives none. 4. If constructed, the pond could preclude the City of Mounds View from being requested or required to provide a water quality pond in the future, if infrastructure reconstruction were to occur. 5. If constructed in accordance with either option presented, an additional trail link could be constructed, providing increased assess to the area. 6. If approved, the pond will provide the City with 4 to 5 Wetland Credits which may be utilized by the City of Mounds View for future economic development, redevelopment, future Hwy 10 improvements, park improvements or sold to private parties. 7. If approved, the possibility of flooding in the area will be lessen due to the vastly increased storage capacity and unaltered flow control point. 8. If Option #2 were approved, which is the smaller pond, a net gain in the forested areas could occur. 9. If approved, this project would demonstrate the City of Mounds View’s initiative in further cooperative projects with other governmental agencies for a common cause. * It should be noted that these disadvantages and advantages were gathered from information presented at informational meetings attended by staff. There may be other opinions for both sides of the issue, depending on individual viewpoints of the proposal. During the planning stages of this proposal, the City of Mounds View and the RCWD jointly held three informational meeting. The first meeting was held with a smaller, select group of residents who seemed most interested in the proposal. It was recommended that a larger group be invited to the following meetings, to gather more input from a greater representation of the residents. For the next two meetings, the first a presentation of the preliminary design review, and the last, a City Council work session, the City sent out invitations to over 200 property owners, notifying them of the proposed project and seeking their input. At both of the subsequent meetings, the attendance remained somewhat constant with approximately 15 to 20 property owners represented. The mailing was once again sent out to property owners for this City Council meeting. Should the City Council vote to proceed with the ponding project, additional direction should also be given to determine the approximate size of the pond. Option #1, the estimated size of the pond is 5 acres. Obviously the larger the pond is constructed the more benefits the City can receive in terms of Wetland Credits and treatment for future projects. Branch #5 of Judicial Ditch #1 which is the City’s primary contributor to Rice Creek received the most treatment from this design. Option #2 reduced the size of the pond to approximately 3.7 acres, which consequently results in a reduction of benefits to some degree. Rice Creek officials have indicated that they will diligently work with the City and it’s residents to design the final project to the greatest level of satisfaction possible, keeping their goals and budget in mind, if this project is approved. Briefly stated, the RCWD will undertake any reasonable means to design a basin that adds aesthetic and recreational value to the Greenfield Park area. Weighing the disadvantages and advantages of the proposal, some residents have expressed the pond as a detriment to the City and the park, while those that may be unaffected or in favor of the benefits of the pond have been relatively silent, could indicate that this is a viable project and does have benefits and merit for the City of Mounds View and Rice Creek. Staff has prepared two Resolutions for Council’s consideration. Resolution No. 5542 approves the ponding project and authorizes the Rice Creek Watershed District to proceed with final plans and specifications which will be presented to the City Council for final approval and Resolution No. 5543 rejects the projects and denies the Rice Creek Watershed District from constructing a pond in Greenfield Park. Staff requests the City Council’s approval and denial of the appropriate resolutions. _________________________________ Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works C:\Mike's documents\projects\Greenfield Park Ponds\Pond Staffrpt Reg Meeting Present.doc City of Mounds View Staff Report August 29, 2018 Page 4 RESOLUTION NO. 5542 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTICT’S CONSTRUCTION OF A SURFACE WATER POND IN GREENFIELD PARK WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mounds View directed the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) to prepare concept plans for the construction of a surface water pond in Greenfield Park and; WHEREAS, district personnel and City staff met with residents on two occasions to discuss the proposal and review the preliminary plans and; WHEREAS, district personnel has presented two options to the City of Mounds View for consideration and; WHEREAS, the final plan, will require the City Council’s approval for construction and; WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View will not be required to contribute any financial funding for the project and; WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View will allow the RCWD use of a section of Greenfield Park for the surface water pond and; WHEREAS, the pond will provide surface water treatment for an area of Mounds View that is currently not treated and; WHEREAS, the creation of the pond will reduce the peak flows into Rice Creek by approximately thirty percent (30%) and; WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View will receive all Wetland Credits created by the construction of the pond and; WHEREAS, the RCWD will be responsible for all future maintenance of the pond and; WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View requires the RCWD a statement of liability for any potential future flooding which might occur due to the design and / or construction of the pond and its maintenance, which may be determined by a court of law and; WHEREAS, the RCWD will continue to consult with the City of Mounds View, in preparation of the final design of the pond. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby approve the construction of a surface water pond, option number 2, as presented by the Rice Creek Watershed District on City property know as Greenfield Park and; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this approval is contingent upon all of the aforementioned clauses in this resolution. Adopted this 9th day of April, 2001. ATTEST: ______________________________ MAYOR (SEAL) ______________________________ CITY ADMINISTRATOR Motion: Thomas Second: Sonterre Sonterre: aye Stigney: nay Quick: aye Marty: aye Thomas: aye C:\Mike's documents\resolutions\5542 Greenfield Pond Approval.doc City of Mounds View Staff Report August 29, 2018 Page 6 RESOLUTION NO. 5543 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SURFACE WATER POND BY THE RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT IN GREENFIELD PARK WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mounds View has reviewed the conceptual plans for the construction of a surface water pond proposed by the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) for Greenfield Park and; WHEREAS, the City Council is denying the RCWD permission to construct a surface water pond in Greenfield Park. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby deny approval for the construction of a surface water pond in Greenfield Park by the Rice Creek Watershed District. Adopted this 9th day of April, 2001. ATTEST: ______________________________ MAYOR (SEAL) ______________________________ CITY ADMINISTRATOR C:\Mike's documents\resolutions\5543 Denying Greenfield Pond.doc Item No. 7B 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: March 26, 2001 Please consider the following contractor licenses for approval. The licenses listed will expire on December 31, 2001. All applicants have submitted appropriate fees and proof of insurance. Licenses are noted with a “New” or “Renewal” after 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 2000.. Those defined as “renewal” were licensed in the year 2000. HVAC Aero Mobile Home Service – Renewal Brian’s Mobile Home - New Sutherlund Plumbing & Heating – New TREE TRIMMING/REMOVAL Northeast Tree & Timber - New Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested. Item No. 7C Meeting Date: March 26, 2001 Type of Business: CA WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Mayor and City Council From: Aaron Parrish, Economic Development Coordinator Item Title/Subject: Resolution 5544 Donating Surplus Property Date of Report: March 20, 2001 Background: As Council may be aware, there is currently a collection of surplus property building up in the basement. This includes old office furniture, chairs, and some old computer equipment. A more detailed inventory is contained in Exhibit “A” of Resolution 5544. From staff’s perspective, the property contained within the inventory could not be disposed of through the state auction. In fact, some of the property was acquired from the state after it could not be sold at auction. In addition, you’ll note that there is some computer equipment listed as well. All of the computers have less than 486k processors, and some even still have the large floppy disk drives. In other words, these computers are very slow and/or obsolete to the point that they can no longer be used for even basic functions. Also, some of the items have been deemed unrepairable at a reasonable expense. Given our inability to dispose of this property through traditional means, staff has discussed the possibility of donating the property to the Mounds View Mobile Park for their newly renovated “Community Center.” The Center, funded with a grant from J.C. Penny, is a renovated laundry facility intended to provide children in the area with educational assistance, recreational opportunities, and an area to meet. Representatives from the Mounds View Mobile Home Park indicated that they could put the property to productive use in their “Community Center”, and have agreed to take the surplus property out of City Hall at their expense. Necessary Actions: Consider Resolution 5544 Donating Surplus Property ______________________________________ Aaron Parrish, Economic Development Coordinator (763) 717-4029 Attachment #1: Resolution No. 5544 RESOLUTION NO. 5544 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DONATING SURPLUS PROPERTY WHEREAS, the city no longer has a productive use for property described in Exhibit A due to deterioration and/or obsolescence; and, WHEREAS, it is not financially feasible to dispose of the property through established city policies pertaining to surplus property; and, WHEREAS, Mounds View Mobile Home Park, through a grant from J.C. Penny, has recently established a “Community Center” that will provide educational assistance, recreational opportunities, and meeting space for park residents and adjacent property owners; and, WHEREAS, Mounds View Mobile Home Park could utilize the property for their “Community Center.” NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Mounds View, Minnesota, that the surplus property itemized in Exhibit A of this resolution shall be donated to the Mounds View Mobile Home Park’s Community Center. Adopted this 26th day of March, 2001. ATTEST: ______________________________________ Rich Sonterre, Mayor ______________________________________ Kathleen Miller, City Clerk/Administrator M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2001\City Council\Council Packets\03-26-2001 Council\Item 07C--Res 5544, Donating Surplus Property.doc Exhibit A: Surplus Property Item # Description Asset Tag Date 1 Silver/Blue Metal Desk 6010-4360-0109 1-9-75 2 Black Chair (5) N/A N/A 3 Wood Desk with Black Top 6010-4140-0020 11-17-92 4 Round Table with Wood Top N/A N/A 5 Blue Metal Desk 6010-4360-0103 1-1-69 6 Utility Cart 000-946 8-11-95 7 Computer Cart 6010-4150-0105 12-31-91 8 Black Metal Desk N/A N/A 9 Computer Stand N/A N/A 10 Cabinet 610-4360-0097 2-18-92 11 Chairs (10) N/A N/A 12 HP Laserjet IIP 7010-4150-3004 12-6-89 13 HP Laserjet IIID N/A N/A 14 Monitor 7010-4190-0170 03-12-91 15 Zeos CPU N/A N/A 16 Monitor N/A N/A 17 Zeos CPU N/A N/A 18 Typewriter 000-729 1-31-93 19 Zeos CPU 7010-4190-0178 12-31-91 20 PC Gailors CPU N/A N/A 21 Zeos CPU N/A N/A 22 Express CPU 7010-4260-0003 N/A 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: William A. Clark, Chief of Police Item Title/Subject: Resolution 5545 Patrol Car Purchase Date of Report: August 29, 2018 PATROL CAR PURCHASE: The Police Department is scheduled by budget allocation to purchase one new police vehicle this year. The State bid was found for both Ford and Chevrolet. The Chevrolet is almost two thousand dollars cheaper than the Ford. Last year the Department purchased two Chevrolets and they have worked out very well. The Chevrolets produce considerably better gas mileage than the Fords, saving the city money above the purchase price. The Department would like to order a new Chevrolet. The state bid was awarded to Hinckley Chevrolet in Hinckley. The state bid price is $19,275.00 plus tax and license. As was the case last year with the federal bid, Polar Chevrolet has offered us the state bid price and included additional options on the vehicle for the same price. Polar is a local dealer, located in White Bear Lake, rather than removed from us by distance. I have contacted finance and found that as long as state bid is the basis, we can purchase the vehicle elsewhere citing the price. The order deadline for cruiser bids is April 6, 2001. RECOMMENDATION: The Department recommends that we purchase the new cruiser from Polar Chevrolet at the state bid price of $19,275.00 plus tax and license. We will receive additional options on the vehicle and continue to receive excellent service from a local dealer. Respectfully Submitted, ___________________________ William A. Clark Chief of Police RESOLUTION 5545 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF POLICE CRUISER WHEREAS, the Mounds View Police Department has budgeted and researched the purchase of a new police cruiser, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Police Department recommends that the bid for the vehicle purchase be awarded to Polar Chevrolet, White Bear Lake, and Polar Chevrolet has met the state bid price for the vehicle, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the bid for purchase of the new cruiser be awarded to Polar Chevrolet for $19,275.00, plus tax and licensing. Said vehicle to be ordered prior to the April 6th deadline for Chevrolet police package orders. Adopted this 26th day of March 2001. Attest: Richard Sonterre, Mayor SEAL Kathleen Miller, City Administrator Item No. 7E 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: William A. Clark, Chief of Police Item Title/Subject: Resolution 5550 Consent to pursue COPS-more grant Date of Report: August 29, 2018 CONSENT TO PURSUE FEDERAL COPS-MORE GRANT The Police Department is in the preliminary development of a federal grant under technological development under COPS-More 2001. Preliminary discussion has occurred with Ramsey County, St. Paul, and Jim Hess as well as various vendors. The grant is by prospectus and budget. The anticipated development of the grant is approximately 130 work hours. The intent of the grant application will be to improve the wireless and seamless flow of information to and from the field cruisers and the elimination of a tremendous amount of busy work done by our records technician. The preliminary numbers (not final by any means) are at $93,000 of which ten percent is from the city. This coincides with a stated goal of going to laptops in the cruisers rather than the outdated Mobil Data Terminals. The changeover to wireless has additional benefits to the City in areas of building inspection, public works, etc. with additional modules from the vendors. RECOMMENDATION: The Department recommends that we pursue the grant. There is no guarantee that we will receive same as it is competitive in nature and we will be competing with other departments that have full time researchers and grant writers. There will also be an opportunity before reception to turn down the funding. Respectfully Submitted, ___________________________ William A. Clark Chief of Police RESOLUTION 5550 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR COPS-MORE GRANT WHEREAS, the Mounds View Police Department has researched the application of applying for a Federal COPS-More Grant, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Police Department recommends that the Department pursue the grant for technological improvement to the Department, Now, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City authorizes the Department to pursue the Federal COPS-More Grant, executing such application process as necessary. Said Grant process to occur on a timetable determined by the Federal COPS Office. Adopted this 26th day of March 2001. Attest: Richard Sonterre, Mayor SEAL Kathleen Miller, City Administrator Item No. 7F 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 to the City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Business License for Blimpies Date of Report: March 26, 2001 On March 20, 2001 Bransey Enterprises, Inc. submitted a Restaurant License application to operate Blimpies Subs and Salads. Bransey Enterprises would like to open the restaurant April 3, 2001 which means this item would have to be approved by the City Council at the March 26, 2001 Council meeting. I have not had an opportunity review Bransey’s license application, however, I expect to be able to prior to the Council meeting. In the unexpected event that I find reasons to deny this license, I will notify the Council at the March 26, 2001 Council meeting. RECOMMENDATION Approve Restaurant License for Bransey Enterprises, Inc dba Blimpies Subs and Salads for March 26, 2001-June 30, 2002 contingent upon all license requirements being met by the applicant. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Givonna Reed Assistant to the City Administrator Park and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes February 27, 2001 1. Roll Call: All members were presented when the meeting was called to order except Tony Zuk. He arrived later. 2. Approval of January Minutes: Sherry Gunn motioned the minutes be approved with corrections, seconded by Frank Silvis. The Commission reviewed the minutes of the YMCA programming committee, which brought about discussion about the committee’s role in programming. Staff was directed to discuss this with the YMCA and report back to the Commission. 3. Unfinished Business: Representatives from TKDA presented three preliminary plans and cost estimates for the Hillview Park shelter. Building materials and cost justification was discussed along with utilization by various groups. It was noted that the original plans have changed due to the need for storage, code compliance and no net loss of usable space. Staff will request past shelter bookings from the YMCA. Further discussion resulted with a vote being taken on which option the Commission would recommend to the City Council. Option #3 with block construction was chosen. Mayor Sonterre was in attendance and briefed the Commission of the possible Legislative issues the City may face in future budgets. Staff will present this to the City Council at a work session and also consult with surrounding communities regarding any past shelter construction. 4. New Business: Mary Scotch made a brief presentation to the state of the water quality and quantity of Spring Lake. Ms. Scotch requested support from the Park and Rec. Commission for a Joint Powers Agreement which is to be formed with the three Cities that surround the lake; Fridley, Spring Lake Park and Mounds View. The Commission unanimously voted to support this motion. 5. Commissioner / Staff Reports: The Commission reviewed the position description presented by staff. It was decided that the Forestry dept. should be added to the description. Staff will amend the document and forward it to the City Council. Tony Zuk presented staff with a company that constructs skateboard ramps. 6. Future agenda Items / Other Business: The Commission requested that the City Forester present a report at a future meeting, staff indicated contact would be made. The Commission also requested a report from representatives of the YMCA regarding past programs, attendance and future programming for this spring and summer. Staff was requested to contact the Irondale Baseball Association in regards to the maintenance of Greenfield baseball field and replacement of the nets and tarps. A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:08 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Director of Public Works Item No: 10 A Meeting Date: March 26, 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 & City Council From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Discussion, Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 5540, a Resolution Approving a Development Review and Conditional Use Permit for Pinewood School, located at 5500 Quincy Street Date of Report: March 21, 2001 Discussion: The Planning Commission tabled action on this request for the second time at their meeting on March 21, 2001 because representatives from the school failed to attend the meeting or address Planning Commission and residents’ concerns regarding the project. Rather than canceling the public hearing scheduled for March 26, 2001and renotifying the residents, staff would suggest opening the public hearing and immediately continuing the public hearing to a future meeting. Staff will however consult with the City Attorney to ensure continuation of the public hearing without testimony or discussion is legal and appropriate. If the attorney advises against this, staff will inform the Council prior to the meeting. In response to concerns from the residents in attendance who received notices for the Council meeting, Staff assured the residents that the City Council would take NO ACTION on this request until the Planning Commission offered its recommendation to the Council. Recommendation: Open the public hearing then move to continue the public hearing to the next regular meeting date to allow the Planning Commission an opportunity to forward their recommendation to the City Council. Take no other action on this request. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director 763-717-4021 N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\VR01-001, CU01-001, DE01-001 (Pinewood School)\Pinewood (CC) - Mar 26, 2001.doc PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting March 26, 2001 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 7:08 P.M. 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Sonterre, Quick, Marty, Stigney, and Thomas. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Monday, March 26, 2001 City Council Agenda. Mayor Sonterre noted Item 4B should be the acceptance of the January 24, 2001 minutes for Park and Recreation rather than February 27, 2001. Mayor Sonterre asked that Item 11, the Closed Session Discussion, be moved up in the Agenda to be heard after Item 9. City Administrator Miller asked that Item 10H be removed from the agenda. Assistant to the Administrator Reed asked that Item 10C3 be removed from the agenda as requested by the HR Committee. MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Approve the March 26, 2001, City Council Agenda as amended. Council Member Marty asked why Item 10H is being removed. Mayor Sonterre explained that the remaining legal questions were answered and there was no need for Council to discuss the matter. City Administrator Miller explained that there was an addendum added to the agreement that clarified what the City had agreed to a year ago thereby ending the need for Council discussion. Ayes - 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View City Council March 26, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 2 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Monday, March 12, 2001 City Council Minutes. Council Member Thomas noted Senator Chaudhary serves on two separate transportation committees and asked that the minutes be changed to reflect that. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Approve the Monday, March 12, 2001, City Council Minutes with the Requested Change. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. B. Park & Recreation Commission Minutes January 24, 2001. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Accept the January 24, 2001, Park & Recreation Commission Minutes as presented. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: A. Resolution 5551, a Resolution of Appreciation for the Irondale Boys Basketball Team Mayor Sonterre reported the Irondale Boys Basketball Team had recently made history by beating the cross-town rival Mustangs to earn a spot in their first-ever state tournament. He then read the Resolution of Appreciation that recognized the Irondale Boys Basketball team for its historic achievement. Mayor Sonterre noted there would be a parchment copy of the Resolution available soon to be presented to the school. 6. REPORTS Council Member Marty reported he had received a number of calls concerning the Children’s Home Society and stated he had asked City Administrator Miller to report on the matter at this meeting. City Administrator Miller stated she had received notice that the Children’s Home Society was ceasing operation and would terminate its lease agreement with the City. She noted since receiving notice she had spoken to several entities that have expressed an interest in subleasing the space. City Administrator Miller noted she had put those entities in touch with the attorney for the Children’s Home Society and has since been asked to put together specifications and requirements for anyone interested in subleasing to hand out to council as Council will be involved in approving any sublease of the property. She then asked that Council read the Mounds View City Council March 26, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 3 information she handed out and get back to her by tomorrow morning with any changes or additions they would like to see. Council Member Marty commented the resident input he has received indicates residents would like to see the facility remain a children’s child care facility since it is set up for that. Mayor Sonterre reported he has been spending time at the Capitol and there are three items that have made it through the revising process and will be introduced. The first is a bill creating a scattered site TIF district for residential purposes. The second is a $1 million appropriation to the City to cover two thirds of the cost to build a sound wall on County Highway 10 from Long Lake Road to the I-35 intersection. The third is a $50,000 allocation for the development of a pathway system between the Fridley and Blaine portion of the Rice Creek Watershed. Assistant to the Administrator Reed reported she was attempting to schedule the Board and Commissions’ appreciation dinner and then asked Council which date it preferred. It was the consent of Council to schedule the Board and Commissions’ appreciation dinner for May 3, 2001. Assistant to the Administrator Reed reported the City Administrator’s six-month evaluation was coming up and asked Council to return the evaluation sheets to her. Mayor Sonterre noted he had taken care of the evaluation sheets for the City Administrator. Assistant to the Administrator Reed stated that in her staff report she had indicated she did not have time to review all the items for the license approval but she has now and with the exception of an inspection by the fire marshal Blimpies has complied with all City requirements. Council Member Marty stated he felt the 2001 Wetlands/Waters bill being introduced by Senator Stevens and Representative Osmond is a good bill that the City should support. Mayor Sonterre asked Council Member Marty to contact the authors of the bill to voice support for it. 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims B. Licenses for Approval C. Resolution 5544, Donating Surplus Property D. Resolution 5545, New Cruiser Purchase, Police Department E. Resolution 5550, to pursue COPS-MORE Grant F. Resolution 5552, Approving Business License for Blimpies MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Sonterre. To Approve the Consent Agenda as Presented. Mounds View City Council March 26, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 4 Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR Jerry Linke of 2319 Knoll Drive addressed Council and indicated he was the Vice President of Innovative Images LLC and is under contract with the City for the marketing and management of the banquet facility. He then noted Convention Center information is private information and cannot be disseminated. Mr. Linke indicated the reason he has brought this matter to Council is on March 20, 2001 City Administrator Miler had the computer removed from the banquet facility in order to get information out of it. She then had the computer replaced with a computer that does not meet the requirements of the contract and does not allow him to do his job. Mr. Linke explained that on March 23, 2001 the City Attorney had said it was okay to remove the computer because he felt it was data the City was entitled to. Mr. Linke stated that, in his opinion, the information is private data. He then noted the records need to be accessible and they are and that the City did not need to take the computer. Mr. Linke explained he did not receive notice that the computer would be removed so it was removed without permission. He stated the computer contains private data that cannot be given to the City without going through the proper channels. He stated that he deemed the removal of the computer and attempt to remove data to be in violation of the Data Practices Act and requested that tomorrow morning first thing the computer be brought back. He further stated he felt he received a “this is none of your business” attitude when dealing with the City. Mayor Sonterre noted this matter would be a future item for the agenda and, as such, it is not appropriate for this section of the meeting. City Administrator Miller stated she did not believe she or the City Attorney ever told Mr. Linke the matter was none of his business. She also noted she did confer with the City Attorney before having the computer removed. City Attorney Riggs noted the responsible person per the contract with Innovative Images LLC is the City Clerk Administrator not the entity the City has contracted with. He noted the City is treating the information in the confines of what is required by the Government Data Practices Act and the information needs to be in the possession of the City. He further stated he is not sure where Mr. Linke is quoting information from so he cannot comment on that. Mayor Sonterre asked that the City Administrator, City Attorney, and Mr. Linke agree to disagree on the matter and move on. Mounds View City Council March 26, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 5 Mr. Linke stated he had gotten the information he was quoting right out of the Data Practices Act. David Jahnke of 8428 Eastwood Road thanked the Mayor for the answer on the attorney’s fees for the golf course issue. He then asked if the YMCA had approached the City to take over the Children’s Home Society lease. City Administrator Miller explained that on March 12, 2001 she received a phone call from the attorney for the Children’s Home Society who said they had been in preliminary discussions with the YMCA about the possibility. Mr. Jahnke expressed his concern that entities entering leases with the City seem to be able to walk away from their contracts seemingly without penalty. He then questioned whether the City Attorney reviews the contracts before they are entered into. Mr. Jahnke noted he was pleased that it appears the City will be able to go ahead with the billboards out at the golf course to help pay for the course. He then stated he hoped Council did not go getting into debt for another nine holes before paying off the nine it owes on already. He went on to state that he had read an article written by a national golf expert who said the consultant made a serious mistake not to consider Blaine’s golf course when doing the study. Council Member Stigney commented he had read that article and it was a question he intended to ask Springsted about. He then commented that if the City gets the billboards there should not be a need for another nine holes to pay for the course. Mayor Sonterre clarified it would have been hard for Springsted to consider the Blaine course as it was not under construction at the time and, to his knowledge, there is not even a funding source for the golf course at this time. He then noted that if the national expert thought the course was under construction he would be right but there is currently no construction and no approved funding for the course. City Administrator Miller commented the City Attorney had reviewed the Children’s Home Society lease and there is a buyout clause in the lease. She then noted the City is working with Children’s Home Society to sublease the facility. Rhonda Smieja of 5298 St. Stephen Street stated she feels it is important to have a child care center in Mounds View. She stated the City spent money to develop the facility and she would like to have her tax dollars to go to fund a child care facility. She further stated she would appreciate it if the City made every effort to put a child care center back in the building. Brad Jahnke of 8408 Eastwood Road read a statement indicating he felt the formula for funding the golf course was flawed and a government entity is never as good at private business as a private company. He stated he thinks creative financing should be used to improve City infrastructure rather than for business ventures that cost taxpayers money. He stated he feels Mounds View City Council March 26, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 6 residents do not have much say on decisions such as these. He stated the City Council does not rule Mounds View except as stated by the City Charter. He stated he wished this Council would take heed of public resistance to proposed projects. He stated he thinks the question is not what kind of new numbers are needed to fund the golf course but the more important question is should government be in business. He asked Council to answer that question and then proceed. Mr. Jahnke stated he feels the golf course should fly on its own if it is going to fly. He noted he had been told by a previous mayor that the City would make money hand over fist with the golf course. He then stated he does not believe in gambling because he can’t stand the suspense of wondering whether or not he will win. He further stated the suspense for the golf course issue is comparable to gambling for him. Mayor Sonterre commented that the second portion of Mr. Jahnke’s comments was far more meaningful and heartfelt than the first portion as he spoke what he felt rather than reading a prepared statement. Mr. Jahnke then stated he is not judging this Council yet and will reserve judgment to see how Council handles the issues. Jacolyn Sjodin of 8285 Eastwood Road stated she has been working with children for 12 years as a teacher and truly believes in good quality child care programs. She then stated that after this program was closed she was heartbroken for the parents looking for child care as it is a very difficult task. She further stated the program that was in place was a good one and she hopes Council looks at the situation and can find a way to continue with another child care program. Council recessed to a closed session discussion at 7:54 p.m. Council reconvened at 8:53 p.m. 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Discussion, Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 5540, a Resolution Approving a Development Review and Conditional Use Permit for Pinewood Elementary School, located at 5500 Quincy Street. Director Ericson explained the public hearing was set in anticipation of a recommendation from the Planning Commission. As the Planning Commission was not able to forward a recommendation to Council, Staff is requesting that the public hearing be continued to the next meeting. Director Ericson noted he anticipated the Planning Commission would take action on April 4, 2001 and this matter would be back before Council on April 9, 2001. He further noted there were a few residents present for this matter and he had explained the matter would be continued to the next meeting. Mounds View City Council March 26, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 7 Mayor Sonterre asked Director Ericson to explain why the Planning Commission had not taken action on the matter. Director Ericson explained the school district was invited to attend both hearings at the Planning Commission but did not do so. He then explained the Planning and Zoning Commission feels it needs input from the school district before acting. Mayor Sonterre asked if Director Ericson had requested the school be at the next Planning Commission meeting. Director Ericson noted he had asked for a representative at the next meeting but noted he had asked for a representative at the previous meeting and was assured there would be one in attendance and there was not. Mayor Sonterre opened the public hearing at 8:55 p.m. . MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Marty. To Continue the Public Hearing to the Next Council Meeting. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. B. Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 5541, a Resolution Approving a Development Review for a 16,912 Square Foot Office Building at 2720 Highway 10. Community Development Director Ericson noted this request is before Council for development review of a 16,912 square foot building on Highway 10 south of the Holiday station. The Planning Commission has reviewed this matter at three meetings and there is a representative from the developer and the Minnesota Institute of Public Health present to answer questions. Director Ericson outlined the issues pertaining to the development review and pointed out the main issue is Mr. Winiecki’s concern for the setback of the building. Director Ericson explained the developer had compromised by bringing the building back twenty feet for a total of fifty feet. Director Ericson explained Mr. Winiecki had indicated that a previous Council had assured him any building built on that site would be setback even with his building. Director Ericson indicated he had gone through two years worth of minutes and did not find anything to indicate there was an agreement for the setback. Director Ericson explained the reason the developer is before Council is they are seeking approval for something different than what the concept plan showed. Mr. Winiecki has requested the building be setback to match his building. The developer and Minnesota Institute of Public Health say that it is not feasible to move the building back due to the added expenses they would incur. Mounds View City Council March 26, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 8 Director Ericson stated Staff feels the compromise is sufficient and the site plan looks like it would be a nice building for the site. He then noted the Planning Commission recommended Council approve the development plan. Mayor Sonterre asked for an explanation of the costs involved to move the building back. Director Ericson noted there would need to be a ten-foot high retaining wall which adds significant cost to the project. He also noted the developer is trying to avoid encroaching into the wetland buffer any further. Council Member Quick asked how far the building encroaches into the wetland buffer. Director Ericson pointed out the wetland buffer line on the plan which indicates a small portion of the building is in the wetland buffer. Council Member Marty asked for clarification as to what kind of tax base this building would bring to the City. Director Ericson explained the building would be located within a TIF district and any taxes generated would go into the TIF pool. He then stated he was under the assumption that this entity would not be generating taxes but had recently been told the company has been paying property taxes in Anoka. He clarified that the general fund will not see any taxes generated at the present time. Mr. Winiecki of 2704 N.E. Highway 10 read a letter to Council and provided informational handouts to Council. He then asked for a continuance because once the building is up it is too late to change it. He stated he has been doing business and paying taxes in the City for 20 years and would like the extra time to have his experts review the materials and information provided tonight. Mayor Sonterre asked if he could quantify business losses or damages if the building was built as proposed. Mr. Winiecki stated he has not come up with a figure yet for business losses. Mayor Sonterre stated he was surprised to hear Mr. Winiecki refer to his business as a retail business with a need for visibility. Mr. Winiecki stated he receives a tremendous amount of activity from people who see the building and call. He stated he liked the original building concept plan and feels he had assurances that the concept plan would be followed. He stated if he would have known the concept plan could be changed he would have voiced his concern more loudly. He then asked the City attorney if he should have been noticed for a change in the PUD. Mounds View City Council March 26, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 9 City Attorney Riggs stated the City has done what it needed to do and Mr. Winiecki did not need to be notified. Mr. Winiecki stated he felt the developer should abide by a reasonable setback to take into consideration other businesses. Council Member Thomas asked Mr. Winiecki why he did not have a problem with the building on the other side of his building being located forward of his building. Mr. Winiecki stated there was a tremendous hardship for that lot due to the pond. He also indicated there is more traffic coming south on Highway 10 and people are looking in the direction of his building so visibility on that side is a bigger issue to him. Council Member Thomas asked Mr. Winiecki how much of his business is off of highway traffic. Mr. Winiecki stated there was a concern from MNDOT for access onto Highway 10. He stated there is a tendency to cut through to turn and go south on Highway 10 so he thinks it is important that everyone coming south on highway 10 can see the buildings. Council Member Thomas asked him how much of his business is from driving south and seeing the building. Mr. Winiecki stated it is difficult to say how many people go by the building and turn around to come back. Council Member Quick asked Mr. Winiecki if he had a sign in front of his building. Mr. Wienecke stated he did have a sign in front of his building. Council Member Quick asked if the sign is clearly visible from Highway 10. Mr. Winiecki stated he believes it is the combination of the sign and the building that create business for him. Council Member Quick asked if the proposed building were setback at thirty feet if that would restrict the visibility of his sign. Mr. Winiecki stated his sign should be visible from Highway 10. Council Member Marty complimented Mr. Winiecki for the background work he had done and thanked him for the informational handouts he had provided. Jerry Jaker, the director of Minnesota Institute of Public Health, addressed Council and explained he was the tenth employee hired and has been with the company for 18 years. Sixteen of those years he has been the director. Mounds View City Council March 26, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 10 Mr. Jaker then stated the mission of Minnesota Institute of Public Health is to safeguard and protect public heath and they use a variety of mediums to accomplish that mission. Mr. Jaker stated his company offers the world research-tested, powerfully communicated advice on caring for oneself. He stated they have a contract with the state of Minnesota that is 40% of his company’s business. He also indicated there would be no clinical work or counseling at the building. Mr. Jaker stated he was scheduled to be at a meeting in Washington, D.C., but opted to come to the Council meeting instead as he feels it is important to show Council how much he ad his company want to come to Mounds View. He stated he is surprised there is a concern but stated there is a process and they have been through most of the process. He noted he is not a “my way or the highway” type person indicating he listens and sees what can be done, even at added expense to respond to the concern raised. Mr. Jaker stated Mr. Winiecki’s business is not a retail business so signage is more important than the building. He stated Minnesota Institute of Public Health wanted to be good neighbors and come to Mounds View and contribute. He stated he took issue with Mr. Winiecki’s suggestion that Minnesota Institute of Public Health would be providing new information at this meeting as there is nothing new. He then stated he is pleased and honored that the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the project. Mr. Dzurik stated he had not brought any new material to this meeting other than the couple of changes requested by the Planning Commission. He noted in the PUD and the Resolution it states the plan was a general concept plan for the building. He noted that when they heard Mr. Winiecki’s concerns they called the civil engineer and asked how far the building could be pulled back before having significant impact on the retention pond and the civil engineer said twenty feet is the most it could be moved before the need for slope stabilization and retaining walls. Mr. Dzurik stated that out of concern for Mr. Winiecki he had asked the surveyor to stake the building so he could see the building and judge how it would impact Mr. Winiecki’s building. Mr. Dzurik noted they have made an effort to make the building fit the residential type feel of the area. He then presented a drawing of the third phase of the building which is the upward expansion that may happen at some point in the future. He then stated he feels Minnesota Institute of Public Health has compromised by moving the building back. Council Member Stigney stated the building appears to have an entrance that is in front of the building making it out further than the fifty foot setback. Mr. Dzurik clarified the entrance does not face Highway 10. Council Member Stigney questioned if the developer rather than pushing the building back could shrink the building and meet the requirements of everyone. Mounds View City Council March 26, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 11 Mr. Dzurik stated there is an event that may happen that will increase the need for space by 3,000 to 4,000 square feet and the only reason they are allowing for the second-story expansion is they are a long-term business and needed to allow for expansion in order to allow them to stay in the location and expand in the future. Mayor Sonterre asked for clarification as to where the proof of parking was located. Mr. Dzurik pointed out the twenty-two stalls on the plan. Greg Johnson of 2865 Highway 10 asked for clarification as to where the expansion would be indicating he believed it would be further into the wetland buffer. Mr. Dzurik clarified that the expansion would not be any further into the wetland buffer than previously indicated. Mayor Sonterre noted MNDOT had expressed concerns for curb cuts in that area and asked if Ramsey County was concerned. Director Ericson indicated he had spoken to Ramsey County and was informed that they were fine with the curb cut since MNDOT had previously approved it. He also indicated it was thought during the planning stages that it would be possible to combine entrances to eliminate one or two of the curb cuts which is not the case. Mr. Winiecki commented that he felt the building would command a presence and take away attention from his building. Ron Dushano, the owner of the property, addressed Council and stated he feels the building will draw attention to that side of the street which should help Mr. Winiecki’s business. He stated that Minnesota Institute of Public Health will pay taxes which when TIF runs its course will go into the City’s general fund. He stated he feels people will see Mr. Winiecki’s sign and then look to the building. He then stated he felt Minnesota Institute of Public Health has made a good faith gesture by moving the building back twenty additional feet. Council Member Stigney asked whether Minnesota Institute of Public Health is a taxable entity. Mr. Jaker explained that Minnesota Institute of Public Health pays taxes at a discounted rate in Anoka due to a special negotiation with the City and the County Attorney. Mayor Sonterre asked if there was a fixed statutory discount for taxes due to the nature of Mr. Jaker’s business. Council Member Quick asked the City attorney if all requirements through City codes and the PUD are met if the developer could build whatever they want. Mounds View City Council March 26, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 12 City Attorney Riggs indicated that as long as PUD requirements and City codes are met the developer could build whatever they wanted on the site. Council Member Stigney clarified that within a PUD Council has discretion with what it will allow. Director Ericson explained that the discretion occurred in 1997 when the City approved the PUD noting if the City wanted the setback to match the Winiecki building it would have required the setback to be 73 feet. Council Member Marty stated he liked the original footprint noting that would call for a larger building than proposed here. He then asked Director Ericson at what point the building encroaches into the wetland buffer. Director Ericson pointed out the wetland buffer line on the map noting the building was approximately 16% in the wetland buffer. Council Member Marty asked how much of the building would be in the wetland buffer zone with the building setback at thirty feet. Director Ericson stated he thought the building would be approximately five percent in the wetland buffer zone if setback at thirty feet. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney. To Extend the Council Meeting Thirty Minutes to 10:30 p.m. Ayes – 4 Nays –1(Marty) Motion carried. Council Member Thomas clarified the extension was for all Council business not just the current issue. Council Member Stigney asked Mr. Winiecki if he still felt he needed a continuance to prepare information. Mr. Winiecki stated he would like to consult with legal counsel on this issue. He then asked if there is a general criterion for setbacks for businesses noting it seemed unusual to him that an adjacent property owner does not have any rights. Director Ericson stated he was not sure of any general setback requirements across district boundaries noting setbacks vary by district. MOTON/SECOND: Quick. To Approve Resolution 5541, a Resolution Approving a Development Review at 2720 Highway 10 with a Thirty-Foot Setback. The Motion died for lack of a second. Mounds View City Council March 26, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 13 Council Member Marty stated he would like to give Mr. Winiecki time to prepare his argument and asked if a continuance would cause a hardship for Minnesota Institute of Public Health. Mr. Jaker explained his lease expires on September 30, 2001 noting he is in the process of negotiating a three-month extension based on the starting date of the construction of their new building. Mr. Dzurik explained there is only two or three weeks leeway in this project and pushing it back to a one week leeway during the Christmas season potentially pushes the job into a rush situation with overtime and added costs to the project. He then stated they needed to start on May 1, 2001 and there is a nine week lead time for ordering steel. He then stated he would like to be able to order the steel next week. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Approve Resolution 5541, a Resolution Approving a Development Review at 2720 Highway 10 as Presented. Council Member Stigney noted he understands the need for the construction timeline but stated he felt the City owed something to Mr. Winiecki who has been in business in the City for a long time. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney. To Table this Matter to April 9, 2001. The Motion died for lack of a second. Council Member Marty questioned whether Council could call a special meeting at the work session on April 2, 2001 to allow time for Mr. Winiecki to gather his facts and avoid a two week delay for the developer. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Table this Matter to April 2, 2001. Ayes – 4 Nays – 1(Quick) Motion carried. C. Discussion Regarding Seasonal Employees 1. Resolution 5546 and 5547, a Resolution adopting Procedures for Hiring Seasonal Employees and Amending the Definition of Seasonal Employee in the Personnel Manual. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Approve Resolution 5546 as Presented. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Approve Resolution 5547 as Presented. Mounds View City Council March 26, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 14 Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 2. Resolutions 5548 and 5549 Approving Golf Course and Public Works Seasonal Positions. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Sonterre. To Approve Resolution 5548 as Presented. Council Member Stigney stated he was concerned that the City would end up hiring out more hours than last year. Assistant to the Administrator Reed stated she had added up the maximum number of hours very quickly during the closed session noting this would be the maximum number of hours and there may be a short season which would make the number less. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Approve Resolution 5549 as Presented. Council Member Stigney stated he was not comfortable approving fifty hours of overtime for each of the ten full time seasonal employees. Assistant to the Administrator Reed clarified the fifty hours was a total for all ten full time employees noting there is seldom overtime work but Staff is asking for the approval in the event there is overtime. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Sonterre. To Extend the Meeting Fifteen Minutes. The Motion died for lack of a second. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Sonterre. To Extend the Meeting to 10:50 p.m. Ayes – 2 Nays – 3 (Marty/Thomas/Stigney) Motion failed. Council Member Marty requested the items not heard at this meeting be heard first on the agenda for the next meeting. Public Works Director Ulrich stated the well maintenance issue needed to be addressed at this meeting. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Sonterre. To Continue the Meeting for Five Minutes. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View City Council March 26, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 15 D. Consideration of Well Maintenance Bids. Public Works Director Ulrich noted he had received two quotes for well maintenance indicating it had been nine years since this was done. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Approve the Well Maintenance Bid as Presented by Staff. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. E. Consideration of Resolution 5537, a Resolution Awarding and Authorizing Execution of a Contract for the Highway 10 Reconstruction and Revitalization Corridor Study. MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5537, a Resolution Awarding and Authorizing Execution of a Contract for the Highway 10 Reconstruction and Revitalization Corridor Study as Presented by Staff. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Council Member Marty thanked Director Ericson for researching the issue and providing information to Council. F. Consideration of Mower Purchase. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Approve the Mower Purchase as Recommended by Staff. Council Member Marty questioned whether the mower had equipment that would enable it to be used during the winter. Public Works Director Ulrich indicated the mower could be used in inclement weather in the spring and fall but noted the mower would not be used during winter conditions. Council Member Stigney questioned whether the old equipment would be sold or used as a trade in for the new mower. Public Works Director Ulrich stated he would attempt to sell the old mower and if no bids were received he would use it as a trade in for the new mower. Council Member Stigney expressed a concern for budgeting for one amount and then taking contingency money out of the water fund to cover the purchase. Mounds View City Council March 26, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 16 Public Works Director Ulrich explained the extra $7,000 would come out of the equipment fund. He then noted the figure was based on the original cost of equipment plus an inflationary number indicating he hoped to be plus or minus fifteen percent. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 11. Next Council Work Session: Monday, April 2, 2001 Next Council Meeting: Monday, April 9, 2001 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Sonterre adjourned the meeting at 10:41 p.m. Transcribed and recorded by: Joan Lenzmeier Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 10 B Meeting Date: March 26, 2001 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 & City Council From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 5541, a Resolution Approving a Development Review for a 16,912 Square Foot Office Building at 2720 Highway 10 Planning Case No. DE01-002 Background: Minnesota Institute of Public Health (MIPH) a subsidiary of Blue Cross Blue Shield, has applied for a development review to construct a 16,912 square-foot office building on the vacant lot southeast of the Holiday Stationstore. The lot was originally envisioned to support a 25,000 square foot two-story office building, which is what the Silverview Estates PUD allows for in the PUD Document. MIPH would also like approval for a second expansion which would potentially add 6,000 square feet of second-story office space. While the use and square footages are consistent with the PUD, because the footprint and configuration are different from what was approved, the site plans need to be reviewed and reapproved. All together, the maximum proposed office space would be 22,912 square feet. The office building would be used to provide office space for MIPH staff. No clinic, outpatient, classroom or medical procedures would take place at this facility. Discussion: This proposal at full build-out satisfies all City zoning requirements and the requirements of the Silverview Estates PUD. Existing or Dimensional Requirements: Required Proposed Met? Front Setback (Highway 10) 30 feet 50 feet Met Sideyard Setback (Holiday) 20 feet 140 feet Met Sideyard Setback (Winiecki) 20 feet 44 feet Met Parking lot Setback (Highway 10) 10 feet 10 feet Met Parking lot Setback (Holiday) 10 feet 10 feet Met Parking lot Setback (Winiecki) 10 feet 125 feet Met MIPH Report to Council March 26, 2001 Page 2 Winiecki Setback: The MIPH office building was originally proposed to be set back 30 feet from the Highway 10 property line, which is the minimum setback allowed per City Code and the Silverview Estates PUD. In response to concerns from Mr. Winiecki that the proposed building would block all visibility to his own building, the developer offered to pull their building back an additional 20 feet, incurring added expenses in doing so. Mr. Winiecki however maintains that the building should be set back as far from Highway 10 as his own building—approximately 73 feet. The applicant has stated that it would be cost prohibitive to pull the building back any further. Later in this report I will address Mr. Winiecki’s concerns and what has been done in response to this issue. Parking: The Silverview Estates PUD established the parking requirements for the office component to be one space per 250 square feet of gross floor area. The building is shown to be 16,912 square feet (13,912 square feet plus another 3,000 square foot first floor expansion), which would result in the provision of 68 spaces. The site plan shows 70 spaces. The second expansion would be a upper story addition of 6,000 square feet which would require an additional 24 spaces and a total of 92 spaces at full build-out. In addition to the 70 stalls provided, 22 spaces are indicated as proof of parking, to be constructed if and when the second-story expansion is completed. The parking plan is consistent with the PUD and also complies with the ADA requirements for handicapped accessible stalls. Wetland Buffer: The original Silverview Estates PUD anticipated encroachment within the 100-foot wetland buffer. The approval established a maximum impervious surface coverage of 40 percent. The proposed building with expansion would cover approximately 16.5 percent of the buffer area, significantly less that what was originally shown on the general concept plan. Landscaping: The applicant has provided a landscape plan which was reviewed and approved by Rick Wriskey, the City Forester, after making small changes to the types of species being provided. Lighting: The applicant has submitted a photometric analysis of the site based on the foot-candle readings of the proposed lighting. According to the photometric analysis, there are three parking lot pole lights, three building mounted wall packs, and three lights recessed into the underside of the front entry canopy. The parking lot poles will be 24 feet tall and the MIPH Report to Council March 26, 2001 Page 3 bulbs would be completely encased within a one-piece aluminum housing. The provided foot-candle readings are all within the Code requirements. Access: Access to this parcel can be achieved from the east-bound lane of Highway 10 or from Silver Lake Road. The Highway 10 access is a right-in right-out access only and does not provide for access from the west-bound lanes. The access from Silver Lake Road is a full access shared with the Holiday store and documents are on file which grants permanently access to Holiday, which was a condition of the Silverview Estates PUD. The driveway and access drive widths, turning radii and parking lot aisle widths have been reviewed by the Fire Marshal who found the plans consistent with fire department requirements. Dan Soler, the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer, has requested that the access width onto Highway 10 be thirty feet and that any work within the right of way shall require a county permit. Accessory Structures: The plans indicate a trash enclosure on the lot behind the building. The PUD allows for a trash enclosure but no other accessory buildings. The enclosure will be constructed of a masonry material to match the building and will have locking or latching gates which when closed do not offer any visibility of the dumpsters or refuse within the enclosure. Drainage and Utility: The applicant has consulted with Rice Creek Watershed District to determine if their review was necessary. Because the site area is less than 2.5 acres, their review is not needed. (RCWD reviewed the original development in 1997 and approved the overall plans and stormwater ponding elements.) The applicant has provided detailed stormwater runoff data which indicates the amount of impervious surface on the site is less than what was originally proposed, and less within the critical buffer area. As such, less runoff will be generated than was originally expected. The proposed first floor elevation (FFE) is 912.3, which is four feet above the City’s recommended minimum building elevation for this site. Corridor Improvements: As has been the case with previous Highway 10 development projects, the City requires provision of a 9-foot wide bituminous trailway and decorative lights. In consideration of the Highway 10 Corridor study, staff would suggest perhaps delaying the installation of both trailway and decorative lighting until the Corridor study has been completed. In return, staff would suggest that a cash payment be made in lieu of the installation of the improvements equivalent to the cost of two lights ($10,000) and 275 lineal feet of 9-foot wide bituminous trailway at $15 per lineal foot ($4,125.) Altogether, the improvement dedication would amount to $14,125. Staff would further suggest that if the improvements (or similar improvements that benefit the property) are not made within five MIPH Report to Council March 26, 2001 Page 4 year’s time, the money could be refunded to the property owner. The applicant is agreeable with this arrangement. Signage: The applicant proposes to install a 32 square foot internally illuminated sign near the Highway 10 access drive built upon a masonry base with materials to match the building. This sign currently exists at the MIPH office in Anoka. The signage on the building would be individually mounted letters to read “Minnesota Institute of Public Health.” The area of the building mounted signage would be approximately 24 square feet. Altogether, there would be approximately 56 square feet of signage for this development. Development Agreement: Because two of the four lots within the original Silverview Estates PUD have already been developed, the developer has requested that a new development agreement be drafted which pertains solely to the MIPH project (Lot 2). Staff and the City Attorney will work on this new development agreement and would not expect there to be any issues resulting from this process. For reference, the City approved a similar separate development agreement for the Realife Cooperative of Mounds View (Lot 4.) Setback Concerns: As mentioned earlier in this report, Mr. Winiecki would like to see the front setback of the proposed MIPH office building match his own setback, as was originally the shown on the Silverview Estates plans. (Refer to the attached Silverview Estates site plan.) The approved and executed Silverview Estates PUD document, however, indicates the minimum front setback to be 30 feet, similar to the zoning code requirement if this were not in a PUD. (Refer to Page 2 of this document.) Staff contends that the site plan proposed by the applicant satisfies all requirements of the PUD and Zoning Code, yet because the footprint and building configuration is different than what was originally approved, the applicant is seeking reapproval of the plans. In response to Mr. Winiecki’s concerns about compromised sightlines, staff drafted three sightline scenarios which are included for the Council’s review. The first scenario addresses the proposed 50-foot MIPH setback and the points at which partial visibility and full visibility to the Winiecki building is possible. The second scenario shows the MIPH building set back 73 feet to match the Winiecki building. Even set back the same distance, the Winiecki building loses a significant amount of visibility from what it has now. The last scenario shows the difference between the two setbacks as to the impact to full visibility. Staff believes the minimal difference between the two sightlines does not warrant necessitating a 73-foot setback for the MIPH building. Mr. Winiecki expressed to the Planning Commission that it was his recollection that the City Council assured him in 1997 that the setback of the office building on Lot 2 would match his own building. The Planning Commission directed staff to review the meeting MIPH Report to Council March 26, 2001 Page 5 minutes from 1997 and 1998 to determine if any such assurances had been conveyed to Mr. Winiecki. Staff found no such documentation regarding setbacks, although we did find one passage from the December 8, 1997 meeting minutes regarding Mr. Winiecki’s testimony which is somewhat related: While this is certainly not proof that setbacks weren’t discussed at this meeting, the issue is not documented in this passage or in any other meeting minutes. Furthermore, in response to a comment from Mr. Winiecki about something “less desirable” that might be constructed in the future, Mayor McCarty indicated that the Council has the authority to approve or deny any changes to the PUD and that any changes would need to be brought before the Council for consideration. This is exactly the reason that MIPH has requested a development review for this site, and that the decision to approve or deny the change rests with the Council. For MIPH, it’s an issue of economics. If forced to pull the building back an additional 23 feet, there would be significant expense incurred with soils corrections, fill, earthwork and an engineered retaining wall alongside the stormwater pond. This is not a variance situation, so MIPH does not need to show hardship. The proposed site plan meets and exceeds all zoning and PUD requirements and the applicant has already made concessions to help address Mr. Winiecki’s concerns. MIPH Report to Council March 26, 2001 Page 6 Recommendation: Staff was not able to find any documentation in the minutes to support Mr. Winiecki’s claim for a minimum building setback of 73 feet. However, even if staff had found such assurances, the Council always retains the ability to approve or deny requested changes to a PUD. The proposed MIPH plans are consistent with the approved PUD but deviates from the original site plans reviewed and approved by the Council. For that reason, the developer is seeking a reapproval from the City. Staff recognizes that the proposed building setback of 50 feet will reduce the visibility of Mr. Winiecki’s building and fully appreciates his concerns, but staff feels that even a 73-foot setback would greatly diminish the visibility to the Winiecki building, which currently enjoys completely unobstructed sight lines to Highway 10. The practical difference between a 50-foot and 73-foot setback to a motorist traveling 50 miles per hour is negligible. Staff supports the site plans as proposed and recommends approval of Resolution 5541, a Resolution approving a development review request for the Minnesota Institute for Public Health, with stipulations. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director 763-717-4021 Attachments: 1. Planning Application 2. Site Plans, Date-stamped March 22, 2001 3. Zoning Map 4. Architectural Rendering 5. Sightline Scenarios 6. Letter from George Winiecki, dated Feb 19, 2001 7. Letter from Gary Dahle, dated March 21, 2001 8. Silverview Estates PUD Document, approved Dec 8, 1997 9. Silverview Estates site plan, approved Dec 8, 1997 10. Planning Commission Resolution 650-01 11. City Council resolution 5541 N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\De01-002 - MIPH\MIPH (CC) - Mar 26, 2001.doc Zoning Map MIPH Site Holiday Realife Coop Winiecki Building Undeveloped Office Lot Wetland MIPH Architectural Rendering RESOLUTION NO. 5541 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUEST FOR AN OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED AT 2720 HIGHWAY 10; PLANNING CASE NO. DE01-002. WHEREAS, Minnesota Institute of Public Health has applied for a development review to construct a 16,912 square foot office building at 2720 Highway 10; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned PUD, Planed Unit Development, is designated as a “Mixed Use PUD” use on the Comprehensive Plan and is legally described as follows: Lot 2, Block 1, Silverview Estates Ramsey County, State of Minnesota WHEREAS, according to Section 1006.06 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, any new construction or expansion of existing facilities requires the approval of a development review; and, WHEREAS, according to the adopted Development Agreement pertaining to the Silverview Estates Planned Unit Development, a maximum 25,000 square feet of commercial office is a permitted use on this lot; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Site Plans, Date-stamped March 22, 2001 3. Zoning Map 4. Architectural Rendering 5. Sightline Scenarios 6. Letter from George Winiecki, dated Feb 19, 2001 7. Letter from Gary Dahle, dated March 21, 2001 8. Silverview Estates PUD Document, approved Dec 8, 1997 9. Silverview Estates site plan, approved Dec 8, 1997 10. Planning Commission Resolution 650-01 11. Staff Report WHEREAS, the proposed development satisfies the requirements of Zoning Code as well as the adopted Planned Unit Development Document agreement approved on December 8, 1997; and, Resolution 5541 March 26, 2001 Page 2 WHEREAS, the site plans date-stamped 3/22/01 indicate that the proposed office building will be set back 50 feet from the property line fronting Highway 10, will be 13,912 square feet with a 3,000 square foot first level expansion and a 6,000 square foot second story expansion; and, WHEREAS, the number of parking stalls required for full build out (22,912 square feet) is 92 stalls, of which 70 will be constructed immediately, the remaining 22 marked as proof of parking to be constructed in conjunction with the second building expansion; and, WHEREAS, the City Forester has reviewed and approved the Landscape Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Fire Marshal has reviewed and approved the site plans in terms of access, drive aisle width and other Fire Department requirements and considerations; and, WHEREAS, the photometric analysis, date stamped 2/2/01, complies with the City Code Section 1103.09 pertaining to lighting and glare. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council, finding that all of the requirements of the Zoning Code and PUD Document have been met, approves the development review request for the construction of a 13,912 square foot office building with a possible first-story expansion of 3,000 square feet and a possible 6,000 square foot second story expansion at 2720 Highway 10, subject to the following stipulations: 1. Barrier curbing (B 6-12) shall be installed around the perimeter of the parking lot, islands and access drive. 2. All utilities to the building shall be installed underground. 3. One monument sign shall be allowed not to exceed eight (8) feet in height or one hundred (100) square feet in area. The base of such sign shall be constructed of masonry or stone materials to match the building. A pole or pylon type sign is prohibited. 4. All architectural features and building treatments shall be consistent along all elevations of the building. 5. The site plan shall be revised to show a 30-foot wide access to Highway 10 and to show detail for the proposed garbage dumpster enclosure. The enclosure shall be solidly constructed and shall be finished with masonry materials to match the building. The gate to the enclosure shall have a latching or locking mechanism and shall completely shield from view the interior contents of the enclosure. 6. The Grading, Drainage and Utility Plan shall be revised to show a swale running between the building and the southeast property line to ensure that stormwater runoff does not flow onto the adjoining property. 7. The applicant shall submit to the City a cash payment of $14,125 in lieu of constructing Resolution 5541 March 26, 2001 Page 3 and installing required trailway and lighting corridor improvements. 8. A development agreement which sets forth all of the terms, conditions, requirements, guarantees and plans for the orderly development of the land shall be executed and recorded with Ramsey County as required by Section 1006.06, Subd. 4 of the City Code. 9. The applicant shall execute and record with Ramsey County a utility easement document which conveys to Five D Limited (the Holiday Stationstore) a non-exclusive right to maintain and repair if necessary the water and sanitary lines servicing their property. A copy of this recorded document shall be kept on file with the City. 10. The applicant shall execute and record with Ramsey County a parking easement agreement in the favor of Realife Cooperative of Mounds View which conveys to Realife the non-exclusive right to park in the MIPH lot during weekends and specified holidays. A copy of this recorded document shall be kept on file with the City. 11. The applicant shall obtain a permit from Ramsey County for any and all work to be performed within the Highway 10 right of way, including but not limited to the proposed access drive onto Highway 10. Adopted this 26th day of March, 2001. _________________________________ Richard Sonterre, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Kathleen Miller, City Administrator (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\DE01-002 - MIPH\RESOLUTION 5541.DOC Item No. 10C-1 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: Givonna Reed, Assistant to the City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Resolution 5546 Adopting Procedures for Hiring Seasonal Employees and Resolution 5547 Clarifying the Definition of Seasonal Employee in the Personnel Manual Date of Report: March 26, 2001 Background As the Council is aware, recently circumstances have arisen that have required that the City review its procedures for hiring and retaining seasonal employees. At the February 26, 2001 HR Committee meeting and in my March 9, 2001 memo to the Council I indicated that at tonight’s Council meeting I would present recommendations from the City Attorney regarding how the City can better manage its employment relationship with seasonal employees. To ensure that the City maintains control over hiring and retaining seasonal employees, the City Attorney recommends that the City take the following steps: • Ensure that each applicant for seasonal employment completes and submits an employment application and supporting documentation each season prior to being offered a position or being put on the City’s payroll system; • Have each seasonal employee sign a letter of hire indicating their start and end dates immediately after the individual is selected to fill a position and before the individual is put on the payroll system; • Clarify the definition of seasonal employee in the Personnel Manual; • Advertise seasonal positions; • Designate all employees (seasonal and regular) as “terminated” on the payroll system when their employment period with the City ends. In addition, the City Attorney has advised that, in keeping with the City Charter, all recommendations for hiring seasonal employees should be brought to the City Council for approval. As a result I am proposing a hiring process whereby the Council would approve positions, employment dates and wages. The Public Works Director and Golf Manager would then select applicants to fill the seasonal positions approved by the City Council. If a need to modify pay or length of employment arises, the issue would return to the Council for approval. RECOMMENDATIONS • Approve Resolution 5546 Adopting Procedures for Hiring Seasonal Employees • Approve Resolution 5547 Clarifying the Definition of Seasonal Employee in the Personnel Manual Respectfully Submitted, Givonna Reed Assistant to the City Administrator RESOLUTION 5546 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA A Resolution Adopting Procedures for Hiring Seasonal Employees WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View does annually have a need to hire seasonal employees in various City departments; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney has recommended that the City Council approve all seasonal and regular hires per the City Charter, and WHEREAS, there is a need to standardize the hiring process for seasonal employees NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that when there is a need to hire seasonal employees in the future the following steps will be followed: 1. Six weeks before the need to hire seasonal employees the Mounds View City Council will approve seasonal positions, employment dates and wages prior to any seasonal applicants being offered positions with the City; 2. The Assistant to the City Administrator will advertise the approved positions; 3. The respective Department Head will select applicants to fill the seasonal positions approved by the City Council; 4. Completed application materials along with a signed letter of hire indicating start and end dates for each seasonal new hire will be submitted to the Personnel Office for review; 5. Upon receipt of the completed hiring documentation, the Assistant to the City Administrator will forward the appropriate information to the Finance Department for input into the payroll system; 6. Seasonal employees will be designated as “terminated” on the payroll system when their seasonal employment relationship with the City ends; and 7. Payouts to seasonal employees other than the wages approved by the City Council must be brought back to the City Council by the Assistant to the City Administrator for approval; and 8. If there is a need to add a position or modify employment dates, the Assistant to the City Administrator shall bring the issue back to the City Council for consideration. Adopted this 26th day of March, 2001. (ATTEST) Richard Sonterre, Mayor SEAL Kathleen Miller, City Administrator RESOLUTION 5547 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA A Resolution Clarifying the Definition of Seasonal Employee in the City of Mounds View Personnel Manual WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Attorney has recommended that the City clarify its definition of seasonal employee; and WHEREAS, amendments to the City of Mounds View Personnel Manual must be made by resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the definition of Seasonal Employee in the Personnel Manual shall be clarified to read as follows: Seasonal Employees shall be hired only for seasonal positions approved by the Mounds View City Council and shall be retained for a specific period of time as indicated in the letter of hire. A letter of hire will be signed by each Seasonal Employee and respective Department Head at the beginning of the employment relationship. The start and end dates shall be based on the department’s staffing needs and the seasonal employment relationship may be terminated prior to the end date if necessary. Seasonal Employees may be full- or part-time and are not entitled to City benefits, a regular employment relationship with the City, or a seasonal or regular position with the City in subsequent years. Seasonal Employees must reapply for any seasonal positions for which they wish to be considered in subsequent years. Adopted this 26th day of March, 2001. (ATTEST) Richard Sonterre, Mayor SEAL Kathleen Miller, City Administrator Item No. 10C-2 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: Givonna Reed, Assistant to the City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Resolutions 5548 and 5549 Approving Golf Course and Public Works Seasonal Positions Date of Report: March 26, 2001 Per Resolution 5546 the City Council has adopted procedures for hiring seasonal employees. We are approaching the summer months and the Golf Course and Public Works Department are ready to begin hiring seasonal employees over the next several weeks. Attached you will find Resolutions 5548 and 5549 listing the positions each department would like to have approved along with corresponding wages and employment dates. As indicated in Resolution 5546, should the respective department need to keep any seasonal employees on staff longer than approved by the Council or increase the wage of any seasonal employee, the item will be brought back to the City Council for consideration. RECOMMENDATION Consider Resolutions 5548 and 5549 approving seasonal positions for the Golf Course and Public Works Department. Respectfully Submitted, ___________________________ Givonna Reed Assistant to the City Administrator RESOLUTION NO. 5548 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA Approving Golf Course 2001 Seasonal Positions WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View Golf Course does have a need to hire seasonal employees, 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 the seasonal positions, wages and employment dates for the Golf Course as listed in Exhibit A. Adopted this 26th day of March 2001. ATTEST: Richard Sonterre, Mayor SEAL Kathleen Miller, City Administrator RESOLUTION 5548 Approving Golf Course Seasonal Positions EXHIBIT A Position Hourly rate 2001 Start Date End Date Hours per Week Equipment Manager $10.75 1-Mar 1-Nov 32 Tech 1 $9.50 15-Mar 1-Dec 30-40 Tech 1 $8.50 1-Apr 1-Dec 25-35 Irrigation Tech $13.00 15-Mar 15-Dec 40 Tech 1 $8.50 1-May 1-Dec 15 Tech 2 $7.50 15-Mar 1-Dec 30-40 Tech 1 Clubhouse $8.50 Mar-8 to Mar15 and May 15 to Sept 15 15-Oct 40 Clubhouse/ Beverage Cart $7.75 15-Apr 1-Dec 24 Tech 2/Range $7.00 1-Apr 1-Dec 10 to 40 Beverage Cart $6.50 15-Apr 30-Sept 16 to 20 Beverage Cart $6.50 1-Apr 30-Sept 16 to 20 Beverage Cart $6.50 1-Apr 30-Sept 16 to 20 Beverage Cart $6.50 1-Apr 30-Sept 16 to 20 Lessons $0.00 1-May 1-Sep Lessons Lessons $0.00 1-May 1-Oct Lessons Tech 2 $9.25 1-Apr 1-Oct 5 to 39 Clubhouse/ Beverage Cart $7.75 1-Jun 1-Sep 20 to 39 Clubhouse/ Beverage Cart/Range $6.75 1-Apr 1-Nov 10 to 39 Range Clubhouse $7.25 1-Apr 1-Nov 10 to 39 Ranger Picker (3) $7.50 1-Apr 1-Dec 16 to 40 Clubhouse Supervisor (2) $10.00 1-Apr 1-Dec 20 to 40 RESOLUTION NO. 5549 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA Approving Public Works 2001 Seasonal Positions WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View Public Works Department does have a need to hire seasonal employees, 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 the seasonal positions, wages and employment dates for the Public Works Department as listed in Exhibit A. Adopted this 26th day of March 2001. ATTEST: Richard Sonterre, Mayor SEAL Kathleen Miller, City Administrator RESOLUTION 5549 Approving Public Works 2001 Seasonal Positions EXHIBIT A Public Works/Parks Seasonal Workers will perform manual labor that includes skilled and unskilled tasks. Employees will operate equipment such as mowers, line trimmers, dragging equipment and rollers. The starting wage for the 10 seasonal positions will be $9.50/hr with a $.50/hour performance bonus at the end of employment. Each of these positions will work 40 hours per week with the possibility of 50 hours of overtime for the entire season. Eight seasonal positions will remain on staff for not more than six months and two seasonal positions will remain on staff for not more than eight months. Item No. 10C-3 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: Givonna Reed, Assistant to the City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Golf Course Personnel Date of Report: March 26, 2001 Background As was reported at the February 26, 2001 HR Committee meeting and in my March 9, 2001 memo to the City Council, we currently have a situation where a seasonal Golf Course employee may legally be considered a regular City employee. In late January of this year the Golf Course Manager asked the City Attorney, City Administrator, I to consider bringing back the individual in question or pay unemployment until he returned as a seasonal Golf Course employee for the 2001 season. After some discussion it was determined that legally this individual may be considered a regular employee based on a number of factors including the following: the individual was reappointed to the same position for a number of years without having to reapply; the individual has stayed on for approximately 9 months each year; the individual was never “terminated” from the payroll system; and the individual was never notified in writing at the beginning of the employment relationship of the exact start and end dates for his term of employment. Discussion Establishing and following the approved procedures and parameters for hiring seasonal employees ensures that in the future the City will not be in this position. The City Attorney has met with the City Administrator, Public Works Director, Golf Course Manager and myself to explain the procedures that should be followed in the future when hiring seasonal employees. Those procedures are described in Resolution 5546 (Adopting Procedures for Hiring Seasonal Employees). The next step is for the Council to classify the individual in question. I have inquired of the Golf Course Manager regarding whether this individual could be hired for the Assistant Superintendent position that is currently vacant. I was advised that the Assistant Superintendent position is a groundskeeper position and the individual in question serves the Golf Course as an Assistant Professional and Clubhouse Clerk. The Golf Course Manager has indicated that the skills required for these two positions are very different. The City received 30% of the fees this individual generated from giving golf lessons totaling $2885 in 2000 and $1807 in 1999. These revenues go to support Golf Course operations. In 2000 and 1999 the City paid wages totaling $31,445 and $24,121 respectively. If hired as a regular employee, this individual would be paid at the same rate as the other Assistant PGA Professional, $21,854.40 annually. RECOMMENDATION Hire this individual as a full-time regular City employee for the position of Assistant PGA Professional at the rate of $21,854.40 annually. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Givonna Reed Assistant to the City Administrator Item No. 10D Staff Report No. Meeting Date: March 26, 2001 Type of Business: C.B. 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: Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Mower Purchase Date of Report: August 29, 2018 The large capacity mower purchased in1989 is due for replacement. Staff has demonstrated and inspected several brands of mowers last season. The brand and model of mower recommended is listed on the State Cooperative Purchasing Plan, of which the City is a member. Steve Dazenski, Parks Foreman has spoken with the dealer of the brand staff recommends purchasing, regarding the trade-in value of the current equipment. The dealer has offered a trade-in reduction of $3,500.00 off the purchase price of a new mower. Staff would like to advertise this mower in the league bulletin and seek at least this amount or more. If a higher bid amount were received, staff would obviously recommend the sale of the mower to that entity. This will require the equipment to be declared surplus. The 2001 budget amount is $70,000.00 for a mower replacement. This was an estimated price from several vendors and costs have increased since the initial estimate and trade-in value has decreased. The following is a breakdown of the mower costs including the trade-in of the Howard Price: TORO 580D Groundmaster $64,534.00 OSHA approved all steel cab w/ROPS 5,875.00 OSHA approved air handling system 5,980.00 Trade-in for Howard Price (3,500.00) Subtotal $72,889.00 MN State Sales Tax 4,738.00 TOTAL COST $77,627.00 Since this piece of equipment was bid with the State Cooperative Purchasing Program and the City of Mounds View is a member of the Cooperative, we may purchase from this bid. All advertising and bonding has taken place through this program. The additional funding required, which is $7,627.00, would be received from the Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fund. I have attached two memos from Steve Dazenski for Council’s review. RECOMMENDATION: Council declares the 1989 Howard Price, surplus equipment and advertise it for sale to the highest bidder over $3,500.00, award the purchase to Toro for a 580D Groundmaster for a purchase price of $77,627.00, to be funded from the Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fund. _________________________________ Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works City of Mounds View Staff Report August 29, 2018 Page 2 Memoramdum Date: 3/20/01 To: Mike Ulrich From: Steve Dazenski RE: Mower Replacement In 1989 the City of Mounds View purchased a Howard Price rotary mower for mowing the parks. It was scheduled to be replaced in 1996. It has become too costly and unsafe to continue to repair this unit. I have looked into several different brands of mowers to replace the Howard Price with. Eleven cities I have contacted are using and highly recommend the Toro 580 for their mowing needs. I have included the mowers specifications as well as the cost of the mower on the state bid in this packet. I will recap the unique features that I think are important to be considered in this purchase. • Breakaway decks for both safety and saving on repairs • Data log system for automated control and electronic diagnostic system for forecasting problems. • Unique hydraulic hose reduction system for fewer repairs. • Triflex cutting unit with quick access feature for servicing • Complete safety system with safety shutoffs for high heat, low fluid sensors. • OSHA approved air handling and cab system For all weather operation and to prevent dust exposure to operator. • Automatic weight transfer for safety on steep hills and reduces scalping on mounds • Swept back decks that allow operators view to be unimpaired while transporting • Complete road ready package includes lights, flasher, two speed gearing In the 2001 I had budgeted $70,000 for mower replacement. This was an estimated price from several vendors and prices have increased since this estimate. The following is a breakdown of the mower cost and how I plan on paying for it. Cost of 580 D Toro Groundsmaster $64,534 Cost of OSHA approved all steel cab/w ROPS $ 5,875 Cost of OSHA approved air handling system $ 5,980 Trade in for Howard Price $ (3,500) Subtotal $ 72,889 MN State Sales Tax $ 4,738 TOTAL $ 77,627 I recommend that we purchase the Toro 580 system for the following reasons. The Toro has a long history of fewer breakdowns and higher performance than its competitors in all of the cities I surveyed. Not only does it hold its value for possible future trade –in but I would expect to get more years of service out of this unit if we keep it until it is unusable. I have found that it is far more user friendly than other mowers which cuts down on my training time and is actually safer for the seasonals workers to be using. City of Mounds View Staff Report August 29, 2018 Page 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Mike Ulrich, Director of Public Works FROM: Steve Dazenski, Parks Foreman DATE: March 20, 2001 SUBJECT: Mower Replacement In 1989 the City of Mounds View purchased a Howard Price rotary mower, for mowing the parks. This mower was scheduled to be replaced in 1996 but was not; it is now due for replacement. I have looked into several different brands of mowers to replace our current Howard Price. I have contacted eleven (11) cities that are currently using a TORO brand and they all highly recommend the model 580 for their mowing needs. I have included the mowers specifications as well as the cost of the mower on the state bid in this packet. I will recap the unique features that I believe to be important when considering the purchase of this replacement mower. • Break-away decks for both safety and saving on repairs. • Data log system for automated control and electronic diagnostic system for forecasting problems. • Unique hydraulic hose reduction system for fewer repairs. • Triflex cutting unit with quick access feature for servicing. • Complete safety system with safety shutoffs for high heat, low fluid sensors. • OSHA approved air handling and cab system for all weather operation and to prevent dust exposure to the operator. • Automatic weight transfer for safety on steep hills and reduces scalping on mounds. • Swept back decks that allow operators view to be unimpaired while transporting. • Complete road ready package includes lights, flasher, two speed gearing. The 2001 budget amount is $70,000.00 for a mower replacement. This was an estimated price from several vendors and costs have increased since the initial estimate. The following is a breakdown of the mower costs including the trade-in of the Howard Price: TORO 580D Groundmaster $64,534.00 OSHA approved all steel cab w/ROPS 5,875.00 OSHA approved air handling system 5,980.00 Trade-in for Howard Price (3,500.00) Subtotal $72,889.00 MN State Sales Tax 4,738.00 TOTAL COST $77,627.00 My recommendation is for the TORO 580D Groundmaster mower for many reasons. TORO has a long history of fewer breakdowns and higher performance than its competitors in all of the cities I surveyed. TORO holds its value for possible future trade-ins but due to the additional features not available on other brands, I would expect the mower to perform with fewer incidents of repairs. I have also discovered that this mower is user friendly and will reduce the amount of training time necessary and it will be safer for the seasonal employees to operate. Item No: 10F Meeting Date: March 26, 2001 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 & City Council From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Resolution 5537, a Resolution Awarding and Authorizing Execution of a Contract for the Highway 10 Reconstruction and Revitalization Corridor Study Date of Report: March 21, 2001 Background: At the March 12, 2001 meeting, the Council directed staff to obtain additional information from the consultant regarding the costs associated with taking the final product of this study and creating construction grade plans and drawings which would be used to bid out the actual construction of the project. The Council should be aware that the RFP did not include a requirement for the provision of engineered drawings. Discussion: I spoke with two of the final three consultants, both of whom offered similar responses. Generally speaking, the cost to provide engineered specifications for the approved final plan would be based on a percentage of the anticipated total project cost. Thus, if the final plan called for a complete reconstruction of the roadway, replacing it with a more urban type roadway with trailways, street lighting, pathway lighting, decorative streetscape improvements and landscaping; and if the cost of these improvements were projected to be 5 million dollars, the fee to create the engineered construction drawings could range from 8% to 12% of the 5 million dollars, or, $400,000 to $600,000. That fee is however negotiable to a point, and the City could seek another RFP to do the engineered plans if it were not satisfied with the selected consultant’s estimate. In the last staff report, it was incorrectly reported that one firm did offer to provide engineered drawings, which accounted for their higher fee. I spoke with that consultant who indicated there must have been a miscommunication, in that it was meant that their final plan would have sufficient detail to allow for subsequent engineered construction drawings. Recommendation: Given this information, Staff would still recommend selection of the firm of URS/BRW to perform the work as outlined in the Highway 10 Reconstruction and Revitalization project. Resolution 5537 is attached for the Council’s consideration which authorizes execution of a contract with URS/BRW at a base fee of $75,000 and expected additional expenses Highway 10 Consultant March 26, 2001 Page 2 of $15,000. The actual authorization for expenditure of tax increment funds for this project will be presented at the April 9, 2001 meeting of the Economic Development Authority. If the Council has any questions about this, please feel free to contact me prior to the meeting. _____________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director 763-717-4021 E:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\SPECPROJ\SP086-01 (Highway10 Project)\Consultant Selection - Mar 26, 2001.doc Highway 10 Consultant March 26, 2001 Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 5537 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SELECTION OF THE CONSULTING FIRM URS/BRW TOPERFORM THE WORK AS OUTLINED IN THE HIGHWAY 10 RECONSTRUCTION AND REVITALIZATION PROJECT RFP AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT TO COMMENCE THE PROJECT; SPECIAL PLANNING CASE SP086-01 WHEREAS, on December 11, 2000, the City Council authorized the distribution of a Request For Proposals (RFP) for a design consultant to develop and recommend a Highway 10 reconstruction and revitalization plan, and, WHEREAS, in response to the RFP, the City received six project proposals; and, WHEREAS, after a thorough review and analysis of each proposal, staff selected three consulting firms to interview and obtain additional information; and, WHEREAS, upon conclusion of the interview process, the selection committee individually and collectively determined that URS/BRW was the firm that best demonstrated an ability and the experience to successfully undertake and complete the Highway 10 Reconstruction and Revitalization Corridor Study; and, WHEREAS, the submitted timeline indicates project completion in February, 2002; and, WHEREAS, the base fee for the URS/BRW project is $75,000 with additional fees for electronic media and Internet communications and additional fees for taking a more proactive role in locating and securing outside funding sources to implement the project. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby approve the selection of URS/BRW as the consultant to perform the work as outlined in the Highway 10 Reconstruction and Revitalization plan at a cost to the City of approximately $90,000 but not to exceed $100,000 without subsequent Council approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mounds View authorizes staff to execute a contract with URS/BRW. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Economic Development Authority shall adopt a Highway 10 Consultant March 26, 2001 Page 2 resolution authorizing the expenditure of budgeted tax increment funds to compensate the firm according to this resolution and the executed contract. Adopted this 26th day of March, 2001. _________________________________ Richard Sonterre, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Kathleen F. Miller, City Administrator (SEAL) G:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\SPECPROJ\SP086-01 (HIGHWAY10 PROJECT)\RESOLUTION 5537 - SELECT CONSULTANT.DOC Item No. 10G Staff Report No. Meeting Date: March 26, 2001 Type of Business: C.B. 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: Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Well Maintenance Bids Date of Report: August 29, 2018 Staff advertised and received bids for preventative maintenance of Well No. 6. The base bids receive are the following: Traut Wells Inc. $30,200.00 Bergerson-Caswell $21,334.00 Alternate items were also requested to be bid. These items were requested prior to the actual removal of the well for inspection, which in turn provides a cost to either perform additional work or replace parts at a predetermined price. This is a safeguard to the City if items such as a bowel section of the pump or entire pump require replacement. Well No. 6 has also had a history of requiring the removal of sand. The department has also been installing electronic well level monitors, which are programmed with the well control system to monitor the changing static and pumping levels of the well. This equipment will be added to the base bid. The remainder of the items are listed, some of which may or may not be required with the project. Mobilizing operations for sand removal $3,500.00 20 yds. Sand Removal $3,000.00 Wire Brush for televising $1,000.00 Pump Bowl section $ 400.00 New Bowl Assembly $5,700.00 Level Monitor $1,800.00 The City is also required by bid documents to pay for the motor maintenance. It is estimated that this expense will be approximately $1,000.00. The base bid, Level Monitor and Motor Maintenance total which is $24,134.00 is the amount that can be determined at this time, all other associated alternates can only be determined following the removal and inspection of the well. Staff budgeted $28,000.00 for this year’s project. It is anticipated that an additional $4,000.00 may be required if the well does require sand removal. The replacement of the entire pump is not a strong possibility, although a section may be a possibility. The decision to remove sand will not be made until the well has been televised and this decision must be made soon after the inspection to avoid further delays and expenses from the contractor. Therefore staff is requesting Council’s authorization to sign change orders up to a total project cost of $32,000.00. The entire project will be funded from the Water Infrastructure Account # 700-4823-5160, with a transfer of any additional funding which may be required from the Water Department Contingency account. City of Mounds View Staff Report August 29, 2018 Page 2 Staff will also be inspecting the underdrain in the filter while the well is out of service. It is possible a small hole may have developed in the structure. RECOMMENDATION: Council award the 2001-5, Well No. 6 Maintenance base bid to Bergerson-Caswell for $21,334.00 and authorize the Director of Public Works to sign all change orders up to $32,000.00. Project will be funded from the Water Department Budget; Account # 700-4823-5160 ($28,000.00), with a transfer of any additional funding that may be required from the Water Contingency Account. _________________________________ Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works C:\Mike's documents\projects\Well 6 Mntce Bid Recom.doc M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2001\City Council\Council Packets\03-26-2001 Council\Item 10H--Eller Billboard Lease--Kathleen Miller.doc Item No.10H 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: Kathleen Miller, City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Review and Authorize the Execution of the Lease Agreement with Eller Media Company Date of Report: March 26, 2001 Background The Mounds View City Council reviewed this item at its March 27, 2000 City Council Meeting and approved Resolution No.5419 Approving an Interim Use Permit to Allow The Installation of Six Outdoor Advertising Signs on Bridges Golf Course Property in Accordance With the Eller Media Proposal. The City Council also reviewed the Lease Agreement With Eller Media Company and voted “to authorize the Mayor and Acting City Administrator to execute the Lease Agreement, following the insertion of information into the blank spaces contained in the first and eighth paragraphs of the document.” I have attached a copy of: • The lease agreement the City Council considered on March 27, 2000, • The minutes of the March 27, 2000 City Council meeting, and • The lease agreement that is proposed today. This item is before you this evening because the City Attorney and I believe that the changes to the new lease are substantial enough to warrant your reconsideration and approval before execution of the documents can occur. The most noteworthy change results from the submittal of six separate lease agreement rather than one lease agreement. Under number 6. titled Rent on the second page of the lease document that was approved at the March 27, 2000 City Council Meeting, it read, “The base rent for the property shall be $41,000.00 per billboard site, for a total of $246,000 per year.” The new agreements read, “The base rent for the property shall be $41,000.” The former suggests a lump sum of $246,000, annually; the new lease agreement infers that if only one billboard is constructed the rent would be limited to that individual site, resulting in a substantial reduction in rent from the $246,000. If all six billboards are constructed this would of course be a moot point, however the way this agreement currently reads there is no guarantee that six billboards would be constructed. Staff is seeking Council’s review and direction on this matter. Recommendation M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2001\City Council\Council Packets\03-26-2001 Council\Item 10H--Eller Billboard Lease--Kathleen Miller.doc Review and direct staff accordingly. Respectfully Submitted, ___________________________ Kathleen F. Miller City Administrator