Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2001/04/09M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2001\City Council\Council Packets\04-09-2001 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 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 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 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.