HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2001/04/23M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2001\City Council\Council Packets\04-23-2001 Council\Agenda -- April 23, 2001.doc
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNCIL AGENDA
MONDAY, APRIL 23, 2001
7 p.m.
Revised
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Sonterre, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomas
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
4. PUBLIC INPUT:
A. Citizens may speak to issues not on tonight’s agenda. Before speaking please
give your full name and address for the minutes. Also, please limit your
comments to three minutes.
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Request for Environmental Impact Study for Rice Creek.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approve Just and Correct Claims
B. Licenses for Approval
C. Set a Public Hearing for the Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance
679, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code entitled
“Signs and Billboards” for Monday, May 14, 2001 at 7:05 p.m.
D. Receive first quarter 2001 revenues and expense report.
E. Set Public Hearing for 7:10 p.m., May 14, 2001
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS
7:05 pm A. Continuation of Public Hearing, Discussion and Consideration of a
Conditional Use Permit and Development Review Request for Pinewood
Elementary School, 5500 Quincy Drive – Jim Ericson
B. Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 5556, a resolution Authorizing
the Abatement of 2229 Kingsway Lane in Townsedge Manufactured Home
Park – Jeremiah Anderson
C. Resolution No. 5557 Requiring Cable Broadcasting of City Business
Conducted at Open Public Meetings at Mounds View City Hall-Kathleen
Miller
D. Resolution 5558 Approving Golf Course Temporary Positions-Givonna
Reed
M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2001\City Council\Council Packets\04-23-2001 Council\Agenda -- April 23, 2001.doc
City of Mounds View
April 23, 2001
Page –2-
E. Resolution 5559, Approving the Purchase of Computer Software for the
Banquet Center
F. MNDOT Revolving Loan Fund
8. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
A. Tom Skeate, Retired Firefighter from 1971 through 1991.
9. REPORTS
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. April 9, 2001
11. Next Council Work Session: May 7, 2001
Next Council Meeting: May 14, 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.
ASPHALT
Northern Asphalt LLC - Renewal
Northwest Asphalt, Inc. - Renewal
GENERAL (COMMERCIAL)
Centimark Corporation – New
Kastle Roofing - New
HVAC
Air Quality Services – New
St. Paul Plumbing & Heating - New
SIDING
A Plus Exterior - New
Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested.
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Clerk-Administrator and CityCouncil
From: Bruce A. Kessel, Finance Director
Item Title/Subject: Revenue and expense report
Date of Report: April 19, 2001
Attached is a report labeled FM Reports – Period Revenue & Expense report. The report is in the
same format as the report which was previously distributed. The report has dates for the
Calendar Period of 03/2001 to 03/2001; this indicates that the report is for the month of March,
2001. The Fiscal Period is also the same as the Calendar Period.
The report is printed by Fund; on the first page, you should see “General” below the dates. This
indicates that the report is for the General Fund. The report is printed by fund, therefore the name
of the fund will appear in the same place on subsequent pages and reference the “Fund” you are
reviewing.
Revenues always appear next followed by the expenditures/expenses for the related fund. The
left side of the page has Period To Date numbers; stated another way, this is the activity for the
month, which for this report, is March 2001. The Current column relates to the current year of
2001, while the Last Year column relates to last year. The Budget is the 1/12th of the budget for
the current year, with the next column being the current month variance of actual verses 1/12 of
the budget.
The right had side of the page Year To Date relates to the period from January 1st to the end of
the period being printed, which in this case is January to March 2001. The Current column is for
the year to date actual through in this case March 2001. The Last year column is for the same
period for the previous year or in this case January through March 2000. The Budget column is
the budget for the entire year of 2001, with the variance being the actual less 2001 budget. The
Pct is the percent of the actual (current) divided by the budget column.
If you have any questions or comments, please let me know at your convenience.
Item No: 7A
Meeting Date: April 23, 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: Public Hearing and Discussion Regarding the Pinewood
Elementary School Expansion and Consideration of
Resolution 5540; Planning Cases DE01-001 & CU01-001
Date of Report: April 18, 2001
Background:
Perkins & Will has been contracted by Independent School District 621 to coordinate a facility
expansion at Pinewood Elementary, located at the southeast corner of County Road I and Quincy
Street. A development review and conditional use permit are required for this project. There are
three areas of building expansion which will total 10,000 square feet of additional floor area to be
used for classroom, multi use and office space. The plans also call for an expansion of on-site
parking from the existing 68 spaces to 110 spaces.
Originally, this project also included a variance request to expand the parking lot alongside Quincy
Street, which encroaches into the City’s right of way, and for the new auxiliary parking lot at the
southwest corner of the lot. Prior to Planning Commission action on the request, the site plans
were altered to eliminate the need for a variance.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 7, 2001, which was well attended by
neighbors of the school. Residents were also well represented at the March 21, 2001 meeting. The
residents’ concerns were based primarily on parking issues, student safety, cross walks, parking
enforcement, snow accumulations and parking restrictions. No one from the Pinewood School
administration or school district was available for either of these two meetings, although Carl
Colmark, Executive Director of Administrative Support for the school district did attend the
meeting on April 4, 2001. Mr. Colmark addressed the concerns of the residents, apologizing for
the lack of representation at previous meetings. Mr. Colmark provided a letter to the Planning
Commission which he read aloud for the benefit of the residents. He acknowledged that parking
was a problem at the school which was one of the reasons for the expanded on site parking. He
assured the residents that the school district would work with residents and staff to resolve all issues
not directly related to the planning request currently being considered.
Development Review Discussion:
Setbacks: Other than the building expansion on the west side, there will be no change to the
building or parking lot setbacks as a result of this project. All building setbacks comply with City
Code requirements, as do the parking lot setbacks with the exception of the existing angled-parking
along Quincy Street. (As the Council may be aware, the parking lot along Quincy Street actually
extends into the right of way by seven feet.) There would be no expansion of the parking lot in this
Pinewood Report
April 23, 2001
Page 2
location, thus no variance was required. However, because there is the existing encroachment with
no evident approval, the City Attorney has advised that a Limited Use Agreement should be
executed which would protect the City’s interests and hold us harmless from any potential
liabilities, however remote they may be. The Limited Use Agreement is attached for the Council’s
review.
The parking lot proposed for the southwest corner of the lot will replace existing pavement used as
a playground. The playground asphalt is currently 25 feet from the south property line. It is
proposed that the new pavement would be 30 feet from the property line, in keeping with Code
requirements for a parking lot.
Building Materials: The building expansion will become a seamless addition to the existing
facility by matching to the fullest extent possible the existing brick. The rooftop mechanical
equipment will be screened to restrict public view.
Parking Requirements: There are currently 68 parking stalls available at Pinewood Elementary. It
has become evident that either due to poor on-site circulation or limited parking availability,
parking spills onto Quincy Street, a situation which has generated numerous complaints from
residents. The parking requirements for a school are such that one stall per classroom plus one stall
per fifty students shall be provided. Given the 32 classrooms and 660 students, our Code would
only require 46 stalls. Clearly this is not sufficient for Pinewood Elementary, which employs a staff
of 95. The expansion would increase the available parking on the site to 110 stalls, an increase of
42 stalls. It is expected that the parking expansion, if utilized by school staff, would alleviate most
of the parking problems. The administration indicated its intent to form a committee of neighbors,
staff, parents and administration to examine some of these issues in the long term.
Drainage and Utility: The applicant has applied for a Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD)
permit, which is required due to the size and scope of the project area and the extent of impervious
surface being manipulated. The permit has or will be approved by RCWD. The new parking lot to
the south will drain into a vegetative swale to capture runoff and contaminants, a practice
encouraged by RCWD. Because no construction will be occurring within 100 feet of a wetland, no
City buffer permits are required.
Landscaping: Some of the existing landscaping and plantings will be removed and relocated as a
result of the building and parking lot expansion. Given the amount of existing mature landscaping,
the Planning Commission determined that no other landscaping should be required, other than to
restore any disturbed pervious areas. Some residents on Quincy Street indicated a need for
additional screening via shrubs or berming, a possibility that the to-be-formed committee will
investigate. If any landscaping is proposed, the Planning Commission indicated that the City
Forester should review and approve the plantings.
Lighting: A photometric analysis has been submitted for the project area which appears to be in
conformance with City glare and light spillage standards. The applicant will need to indicate which
fixtures are new on the plan, submit the specifications for the new individual fixtures and indicate
the height of the new light standards.
Pinewood Report
April 23, 2001
Page 3
Access: Vehicle traffic entering the property can exit onto Quincy Street or continue on to County
Road I. The drive aisle along Quincy will be restricted to one-way traffic while the accesses and
drive aisle adjacent to County Road I will allow two-way traffic. Staff contacted the Ramsey
County Traffic Engineer regarding this development, who had no comment or concerns about the
proposed expansion.
Conditional Use Permit Discussion:
Schools and religious institutions located within a residential district require a conditional use
permit. Because many of these uses predate the current Zoning Code, some do not have a CUP. It
has been the City’s policy to require a CUP in the event of any expansions so as to bring the facility
into conformance with the Code. While CUP approval is typically assured, it does provide the
opportunity to review such issues as parking, traffic, lighting and other factors which may impact
the residential neighborhood. In this situation, the neighbors have made it very clear that there are
issues which need to be reviewed, specific to on-street parking, crosswalks, student safety and
parking enforcement.
From Section 1106.04, Subd.1 of the Zoning Code relating to conditional uses within the R-1
district, the following specific requirements shall be met in order to approve a CUP:
Requirement Met?
a. Front yard depths shall be a minimum of thirty-five feet (35'). Yes
b. Side yards shall be no less than thirty feet (30'). Yes
c. Minimum lot area shall be no less than one (1) acre, or as provided in Section
1104.02
Yes
d. Adequate screening from abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided in
compliance with Section 1103.08 of this Title.
Yes
e. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided on the site or on lots directly
abutting or directly across a public street to the principal use in compliance with Chapter
1121 of this Title and that such parking is adequately screened and landscaped from
surrounding and abutting residential uses in compliance with Section 1103.08 of this
Title.
Yes
f. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided and regulated where
applicable by Chapter 1122 of this Title.
Yes
g. The provisions of Section 1125.01, subdivision 1e of this Title are considered and
satisfactorily met.
See
Below
Section 1125.01, Subd.1e of the Zoning Code indicates that the Planning Commission shall consider
possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. The Planning Commission’s judgment shall
be based upon (but not limited to) the following factors:
(1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan.
(2) The geographical area involved.
Pinewood Report
April 23, 2001
Page 4
(3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
(4) The character of the surrounding area.
(5) The demonstrated need for such use.
The Comprehensive Plan for the City of Mounds View identifies this land as “School”, which
would be appropriate given its current use. The school is located at the corner of Quincy Street and
County Road I and is bordered to the north, south and west by single-family residential properties.
Interstate 35W is located to the east of the school. Geographically speaking, the school is ideally
located. It is not known whether the school has had any historic depreciative effect upon the
neighborhood or on property values, although some neighbors on Quincy Street frequently deal with
parking problems in front of their homes. Last, it is believed that there is a need for a school at the
subject location given that 660 children congregate there on a daily basis. The planning
Commission has summarized its findings with regard to this request in the attached Resolution 649-
01.
General CUP Requirements: In addition to the recommendation and advice of the Planning
Commission, Section 1125.01, Subd. 3b of the City Code requires that the City Council shall
consider some more general conditional use permit requirements and other factors and make its own
relevant findings pertaining to the following:
(1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other
public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area.
It is not anticipated that the use and proposed expansion would create an excessive burden on
parks, schools and other public utilities. It is anticipated that the expansion will result in
improved on-site traffic circulation and reduced on-street parking problems.
(2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent
residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there
will be no deterrence to development of vacant land.
The school property is bordered to the west by Quincy Street, to the north by County Road I
and to the east by I-35 W. Residential dwellings border the school property to the south, as
well as across the street to the west and north. The expansion of the school facility would not
adversely affect adjoining property values.
(3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon
adjacent residential properties.
The existing facility is well-maintained and projects a typical educational/ institutional
appearance The school building expansion will blend in with the existing building design,
materials and architecture. which will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential
properties.
(4) The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the
City and to the existing land use.
Pinewood Report
April 23, 2001
Page 5
As stated above, more than 600 children already attend this school, which is evidence of the
“need” the school satisfies.
(5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning
district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use.
Schools and other institutional uses are conditionally permitted within the R-1, Single-family
residential district.
(6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as “School” which is appropriate for this use.
(7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion.
If anything, the granting of this conditional use permit and the approval of the associated
development review request for the Pinewood facility expansion will improve traffic
circulation and reduce on street parking adjacent to the site.
All of the findings appear to support the granting of a CUP for the Pinewood Elementary School at
5500 Quincy Street.
Recommendation:
Continue the public hearing originally scheduled for March 26, 2001 and take testimony from the
residents, from representatives of Perkins and Will and from the school district executive director.
The Planning Commission has adopted resolution 649-01, which recommends to the City Council
approval of the conditional use permit and development review request associated with their
submitted expansion plans, date stamped April 18, 2001. Staff supports this recommendation of
approval.
Resolution 5540, a resolution approving the development review and conditional use permit with
certain stipulations, has been prepared and is attached to this report for the Council’s consideration.
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
763-171-4021
Pinewood Report
April 23, 2001
Page 6
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\Development Cases\VR01-001, CU01-001, DE01-001 (Pinewood School)\Pinewood (CC) - Apr 23, 2001.doc
Pinewood Report
April 23, 2001
Page 7
RESOLUTION NO. 5540
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR PINEWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, 5500 QUINCY STREET;
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASES DE01-001 AND CU01-001
WHEREAS, The applicant, Pinewood Elementary School (Mounds View Independent
School District 621), has applied for a development review to construct a 10,000 square foot
building expansion and parking lot expansion; and,
WHEREAS, Pinewood Elementary School is located at 5500 Quincy Street, property
zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential and is legally-described as shown on attached Exhibit A;
and,
WHEREAS, according to Section 1006.06 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, any new
construction or expansion of existing facilities requires the approval of a development review; and,
WHEREAS, according to Section 1106.04 of the Mounds View Zoning Code, schools
are conditionally permitted in the R-1, Single-Family Residential district; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a set of plans pertaining to the expansion which
included a Site Plan, Removals Plan, Site Layout and Paving Plan, Grading and Drainage Plan,
Site Detail Plan, Exterior Elevations, Interior Floor Plan and a Photometric Analysis, all of which
shall collectively be referred to as the “Site Plans;” and,
WHEREAS, the expansion will add 10,000 square feet of multi-purpose space,
classrooms, offices and new entryways to the school as shown on the reduced site plan attached
as Exhibit A; and,
WHEREAS, the expansion will add 42 parking stalls to the existing 68 stalls for a total
of 110 parking stalls, which satisfies the City’s parking code requirements for a school with 32
classrooms and 660 students; and,
WHEREAS, The Public Works Director, Community Development Director, Engineering
Technician, Fire Marshal and Water Works Supervisor have reviewed the submitted site plans; and,
WHEREAS, Rice Creek Watershed District has reviewed the submitted grading and
drainage plans and tabled action on a required watershed permit with authorization for
administrative approval pending the receipt of a $1,500 cash surety to be paid to the watershed
district; and,
Pinewood Report
April 23, 2001
Page 8
WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer has reviewed the Site Plans for the
proposed facility expansion and is approving of the proposed expansion; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council held a public hearing on April 23, 2001 and
reviewed the following information:
1. Planning Application
2. Zoning Map
3. Location Map
4. Public Hearing Notice
5. Site Plans, date stamped 4/18/01
6. Letter to Dan Soler, dated 2/20/01
7. Letter from Carl Colmark, dated 4/4/01
8. Memo from Rice Creek Watershed District re: Permit Application
9. Limited Use Agreement
10. Planning Commission Resolution 649-01
11. Staff Report
WHEREAS, in the course of reviewing the documents associated with this property, it
was determined that the school was operating without a conditional use permit, a requirement for
schools, churches and other institutional uses located within a residential district; and,
WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.01, Subdivision 3b of the Mounds View Zoning
Code, the City Council is to consider the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 7,
2001 and approved Resolution 649-01 on April 4, 2001 which recommended approval of the
development review and conditional use permit subject to certain stipulations contained therein;
and,
WHEREAS, also according to Section 1125.01, Subdivision 3b of the Mounds View
Zoning Code, the City Council is to make findings of fact related to the health, safety and general
welfare of the occupants of surrounding lands.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as required by the Section 1125.01 of the
Mounds View Zoning Code, the Mounds View City Council makes the following findings of fact
related to the development review and conditional use permit request:
1. The Pinewood School property is zoned R-1, single family residential, within which
district schools are conditionally allowed.
2. The Pinewood school property is designated as a “School” in the City Comprehensive
Plan and as such is consistent with the Plan.
Pinewood Report
April 23, 2001
Page 9
3. Given its location at the corner of County Road I and Quincy Street, the school is
conveniently located and has access to primary corridors through the City.
4. The School property is bordered on three sides by street and highway right of way and
is sufficiently screened from adjoining residential uses.
5. The setback and zoning requirements as indicated in Sections 1104.02 and 1106.04 of
the Mounds View Zoning Code are satisfied with this expansion.
6. The parking requirement for a school with 32 classrooms and 660 students is 46
stalls. The expansion plans indicate a total of 110 stalls being provided.
7. The Photometric Analysis has been reviewed and has been determined to be in
compliance with Section 1103.09 of the Zoning Code.
8. Permitting the expansion will not depreciate the neighborhood nor will it cause
additional traffic congestion or reduce airflow or light to adjoining properties.
9. Permitting the expansion will improve on-site vehicular circulation and provide for
substantially more off-street parking.
10. There is a demonstrated need for the expansion given the number of students and
expressed conditions of overcrowding and limited parking availability.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View City
Council, based upon its above-stated findings of fact, does hereby approve the development
review and conditional use permit requests for the Pinewood Elementary School, located at 5500
Quincy Street, subject to the following:
1. The Site Plan shall be revised to show the driveway north of the existing parking lot
encroachment to be completely on the subject property.
2. The building expansions shall match to whatever extent possible the existing brick
architecture, style and colors.
3. All roof top mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view.
4. The applicant shall provide detailed specifications regarding the light fixtures to be used
with the expansion and so mark on the Photometric Analysis which fixtures are proposed
and which are existing.
5. The applicant shall obtain a permit from Ramsey County prior to performing any work
within the County Road I right of way.
Pinewood Report
April 23, 2001
Page 10
6. The applicant shall execute and record with Ramsey County a Limited Use Agreement to
allow for the parking lot encroachment onto City right of way.
7. The applicant shall provide proof of obtaining a RCWD Permit prior to any City permits
being issued.
8. All disturbed pervious areas shall be restored with sod or landscaping materials.
9. The applicant shall arrange to record this City Council resolution of approval with
Ramsey County.
10. Any trees or plantings removed as a result of the expansion shall be transplanted
elsewhere on the site of replaced with similar types of plantings elsewhere on the site.
11. Landscape plans and planting schedules shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Forester.
12. The school district shall continue to work with the neighbors and staff to address and
resolve some of the ongoing issues concerns regarding the operation of the school.
Adopted this 23rd day of April, 2001.
__________________________________________
Richard Sonterre, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________________
Kathleen Miller, City Clerk/Administrator
(SEAL)
Motion: __________
Second: __________
Sonterre:
Stigney:
Quick:
Marty:
Thomas:
Pinewood Report
April 23, 2001
Page 11
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\DE01-001\RESOLUTION 649-01.DOC
ZONING MAP
1
City of Mounds View
Code Enforcement Memo
To: File
From: Jeremiah Anderson, Housing /Code Enforcement Inspector
CC:
Date: April 3, 2001
Re: 2229 Kingsway Lane
Today Tuesday April 3, 2001 I, Jeremiah Anderson, performed a follow up inspection of the
manufactured home located at 2229 Kingsway Lane in Townsedge Terrace Manufactured Home
Park. This inspection was conducted in accordance with the notice of violation sent to the property
dated March 15, 2001. I knocked on the door of the home and a male party appeared and granted
me access to the inside of the home. He identified himself as Jerry Blegen.
I questioned Mr. Blegen about the conditions inside of the home and he stated that he did not know
about any previous inspection or any code violations identified. I then personally served Mr. Blegen
a copy of notice of violation 01-1 dated March 15, 2001 and explained the serious violations that
were previously identified and that were required to have been fixed on April 3, 2001. Mr. Blegen
stated that he had bought the trailer from Richard Christofferson recently and did not know about
any code violations.
I identified the severe five code violation items on the cover sheet of notice of violation 01-1 and
informed Mr. Blegen that they along with the other cited code violations needed to be repaired
immediately, and until they were the home would be deemed unsafe for occupancy. Mr. Blegen
said he could get the five severe code violations fixed within a couple of days. I suggested that I
would return in 48 hours to verify that this was accomplished and Mr. Blegen said that was fine.
Page 2
City of Mounds View
Code Enforcement Memo
To: File
From: Jeremiah Anderson, Housing /Code Enforcement Inspector
CC: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director
Date: 4/5/01
Re: 2229 Kingsway Lane
Page 3
Today Thursday April 5, 2001 I, Jeremiah Anderson, performed a reinspection of the manufactured
home located at 2229 Kingsway Lane in Townsedge Terrace Manufactured Home Park. This
reinspection was conducted in accordance with Notice of Violation 01-1 dated March 15, 2001 sent
to the subject property and served personally on March 22, 2001. I knocked on the door of the
home and a male party, who identified himself as Jerry Blegen, appeared and consented to my entry
to the home. Mr. Blegen stated that he had been working on the listed items and had finished one.
He led me to the back bedroom of the home and showed me that he had jacked up the sagging
ceiling and then installed a post to hold up the weakened ceiling and roof assembly (photo
documentation was obtained)
I then informed Mr. Blegen that since none of the other violations, including but not limited to; the
missing smoke detectors, inoperable fire extinguisher, leaky waste water line under the kitchen sink,
the missing cover on the main electrical service, and other violations cited in Notice of Violation
01-1, I was declaring that the home was substandard and therefore unsafe for human occupancy and
I would be posting a placard on the home. Photo documentation of many of the violations was
obtained
I then left the home and walked across the street to City vehicle #503 to prepare the necessary
information to be posted on the home. Mr. Blegen became very irate. He followed me outside and
walked back and fourth from vehicle #503 to the front porch of the home, several times coming
directly to the window of the vehicle. Mr. Blegen stated that he thought it was unfair that the City
was throwing him out on the street. I responded that he would have 24 hours to vacate the premises
and his or any one else’s occupancy of the premises after that time would constitute a misdemeanor.
Mr. Blegen then became very upset and shouted across the street that he was not laughing and
didn’t think this was very funny. At that point, I radioed for a Mounds View police officer to
respond to the subject address and assist me in this situation.
When Mounds View police officer D. Anderson arrived, I explained the situation to him and
stated that I would be posting the home to prevent its occupancy due to numerous outstanding
code violations. I then asked officer Anderson to I.D the suspect while I walked to the home
and posted a copy of Notice of Violation 01-1 and a red placard on the front door of the home.
The suspect was identified as JERRY STEVEN BLEGEN DOB 07/05/51. His address was
listed as 401 Ironton Street, Fridley, MN 55432 (763) 795-0072.
I informed Mr. Blegen that he and the other occupants of the home had 24 hours to vacate the
premises and after that time no one was to occupy the premises at any time. Additionally, Mr.
Blegen would be allowed to occupy the home only to make repairs. Furthermore, anyone
occupying the premises after the 24-hour period could be charged with a misdemeanor, and
anyone removing the placard and notice of violation could be charged with a misdemeanor.
Mr. Blegen stated that he understood this and he would call me to schedule a reinspection
when the repairs on the home had been completed. I then left the scene.
Page 4
STATE OF MINNESOTA Code Compliance Program
COUNTY OF RAMSEY Community
Development Department
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW -NOTICE OF
VIOLATION-
Premises in Violation: 2229 Kingsway Lane Violation Notice
No.: 01-1
Date:
March 15, 2001
Responsible Party: Richard Christopherson, 209 3rd Street S.W Little Falls, MN 56345
Danelle Archibald, 2229 Kingsway Lane Mounds View, MN 55112
Jerry Blegen, 2229 Kingsway Lane Mounds View, MN 55112
An inspection of the above premises revealed violation(s) of the Mounds View City Code as listed
below.
These violations must be corrected no later than April 3, 2001 at 10:00a.m.
Code Section
Cited
Violation/Corrective Action Required to Meet Compliance
1005.07 Subd. 7
1005.06 Subd.
1d
1005.04 Subd. 1
1005.06 Subd.
3b (3)
1005.08 Subd.
12b
1005.07 Subd. 7
Interior walls, floors, ceilings and associated woodwork or trim shall be maintained clean,
sanitary, in sound condition and in workmanlike repair. Peeling paint, cracked or loose
plaster, decayed wood, or other defective surface conditions shall be corrected. Replace
torn flooring in front of front door.
The roof and flashing shall be sound, tight, and have no defects which admit water. Roof
drainage shall be adequate to prevent dampness, water, or deterioration in the walls or
interior portions. Repair roof to ensure that it does not leak or admit water.
All equipment, fixtures and all building space shall be maintained in a workmanlike state of
repair so as to properly and safely perform their intended function. Replace the required
cover on the main electrical service panel.
Every window, other than a fixed window, shall be supplied and fitted with properly fitting
screens that are without holes or tears. Provide screens on all windows that do not
have them.
Every stack, waste, and sewer line shall be so installed and maintained as to function
properly and shall be kept free from obstructions, leaks, and defects to prevent structural
deterioration or a health hazard. Repair leaky p trap under kinchen sink in an
approved manner.
All interior walls, floors, ceilings and associated woodwork or trim shall be maintained
clean, sanitary, in sound condition and in workmanlike repair. Peeling paint, cracked or
loose plaster, decayed wood, or other defective surface conditions shall be corrected.
Replace kitchen floor covering, exposed plywood not permitted.
All interior walls, floors, ceilings and associated woodwork or trim shall be maintained
clean, sanitary, in sound condition and in workmanlike repair. Peeling paint, cracked or
loose plaster, decayed wood, or other defective surface conditions shall be corrected.
Page 5
1005.07 Subd. 7
1005.10 Subd.
4a(1)
1005.04 Subd. 1.
1005.06 Subd.
1d
1005.08 Subd.
12a
1005.08 Subd.
12a
1005.08 Subd.
12a
1005.04 Subd. 1
1005.04 Subd. 1
Replace hallway floor covering, exposed plywood not permitted.
In each dwelling unit, there shall be provided and installed at least one fire extinguisher
with a rating of not less than 1A-10BC. Current fire extinguisher shows recharge,
needs to be replaced or serviced.
All equipment, fixtures and all building space shall be maintained in a workmanlike state of
repair so as to properly and safely perform their intended function. Provide an electrical
switch cover in the front bedroom, electrical outlet in entryway addition is
ungrounded, provide an electrical outlet cover plate in ½ bath, provide an electrical
outlet cover plate in living room outlet by door.
The roof and flashing shall be sound, tight, and have no defects which admit water. Roof
drainage shall be adequate to prevent dampness, water, or deterioration in the walls or
interior portions. Roof shows evidence of leaking in back bedroom, ceiling sagging.
Every water line, plumbing fixture and drain shall be properly installed, connected, and
maintained in working order and must be kept free from obstructions, leaks and defects
and capable of performing the function for which is was designed. Toilet in main
watercloset runs water constantly, ballcock assembly needs repair.
Every water line, plumbing fixture and drain shall be properly installed, connected, and
maintained in working order and must be kept free from obstructions, leaks and defects
and capable of performing the function for which is was designed. Bathtub in main
watercloset has an unapproved discharge below the spill level of the tub/ cross
connection to potable water supply. Replace or relocate discharge to above the
spill level of the tub.
Every water line, plumbing fixture and drain shall be properly installed, connected, and
maintained in working order and must be kept free from obstructions, leaks and defects
and capable of performing the function for which is was designed. Sink in ½ bath is not
anchored to wall, plastic handles missing on sink.
All equipment, fixtures and all building space shall be maintained in a workmanlike state of
repair so as to properly and safely perform their intended function. Ventilation fan in main
watercloset is inoperable, replace fan.
All equipment, fixtures and all building space shall be maintained in a workmanlike state of
repair so as to properly and safely perform their intended function. Exhaust for clothes
dryer is disconnected. The clothes dryer must be connected to the exhaust vent in
an approved manner, no duct tape or screws will be permitted.
The supporting structural members shall be maintained structurally sound, showing no
evidence of deterioration and being capable of bearing imposed loads in accordance with
the building code. Structural members of entryway addition are sagging, ceiling is
deteriorated in the livingroom and back bedroom due to roof leak, structural
integrity may be compromised.
The outside accumulation of old machinery, junk, household furnishings or appliances,
rusting metal, inoperable/unusable equipment or other debris is prohibited. Remove
outside storage of animal cages, inoperable/unusable equipment, aquarium and
other debris present.
Page 6
1005.07 Subd. 1
607.03 Subd.3c
Minn. Stat. § 327C.01
Subd. 8
Minn. Stat § 327C.01
Subd. 8
Minn. Stat § 327C.01
Subd. 8
Install smoke detectors and an operable fire extinguisher in the home.
Window in front bedroom does not meet ANSI 1972 standard A119.1 Remove air
conditoner from window and install a window meeting this standard within one
year.
Gypsum wall-board or other fire-resistive lining must be installed in the furnace room
compartment and the water heater compartment. Install gypsum wall-board or other
fire resistive lining in these areas within 3 years.
You may request a hearing regarding these violations. Your request must be filed
within seven (7) days of the time of issuance of the notice, to be heard by the City
Administrator/Hearing Officer who shall hear and determine the grievance. If you fail
to correct the violations within the time specified above or request a hearing within
seven (7) days, you will be subject to further legal action and abatement procedures.
If you wish to have a hearing on this matter, contact the City Administrator/Hearing
Officer at (763) 717-4001
If you have questions concerning these violations, contact me promptly at (763) 717-
4023
Page 7
Jeremiah Anderson
Housing/Code
Enforcement Inspector
City of Mounds View ● 2401 County Rd. 10 ● Mounds View ● MN 55112-
1499 ● (763) 717-4000
Page 8
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 5556
ORDERING THE ABATEMENT OF HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS EXISTING AT 2229 KINGSWAY LANE IN THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
WHEREAS, the Housing Inspector of the City of Mounds View has
determined that the building at 2229 Kingsway Lane in the City of Mounds View
constitutes a hazardous building within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section
463.15, Subd. 3; and
WHEREAS, based on the investigation of the Housing Inspector it is
recommended that the hazardous building be razed and removed; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 463.161 authorizes the governing
body of any City or town to correct or remove the hazardous condition of any
hazardous building or property;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mounds View as follows:
1. The City of Mounds View finds that the building located at 2229
Kingsway Lane in the City of Mounds View legally described in the attached
Abatement Order is a hazardous building within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes,
Section 463.15, Subd. 3.
2. The hazardous building at the foregoing address also constitutes a
public nuisance within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 561.01, 562.01.
3. An Abatement Order substantially similar to that attached hereto shall
be served upon all required parties in order to effectuate this resolution and remove
the hazardous building on the property.
4. The City Attorney is authorized to take all necessary legal steps to
secure compliance with the Order and to obtain authority to remove the hazardous
building by court order or consent and assess the costs thereof against the property.
Adopted this 23rd day of April 2001, by the City Council of the City of Mounds View.
ATTEST: __________________________________
Rich Sonterre, Mayor
Page 9
(SEAL) __________________________________
Kathleen Miller, City Clerk/Administrator
Page 10
2229 Kingsway Empty cages, West Side
Deteriorated fascia and trim, West Side
Page 11
Waste P trap leaking under Kitchen Sink Flooring torn by front door, outlet cover off
Flooring in hallway torn up, subfloor exposed
Page 12
Ceiling in livingroom shows evidence of leaking Exposed subfloor in kitchen
Missing cover plate on switch in bedroom
Page 13
Electrical outlet in ½ bathroom Missing panel on main electrical service
Sagging roof in back bedroom is held up
with a wood post
Page 14
Toilet in ½ Bath
Discharge is below spill level of tub, cross connection
Page 15
Back of 2229 Kingsway Lane, North side.
Accumulation of junk/inoperable equipment
Item No: 7B
Meeting Date: 4/23/01
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: Jeremiah Anderson, Housing/Code Enforcement Inspector
Item Title/Subject: Discussion of resolution 5556, Ordering the abatement of
hazardous conditions existing at 2229 Kingsway Lane.
Date of Report: April 16, 2001
Background:
Currently the manufactured home located at 2229 Kingsway Lane in Townsedge
Terrace Manufactured Home Park is in a hazardous condition due to inadequate
maintenance, dilapidation, and physical damage. An inspection of the home on
March 14, 2001 revealed numerous housing code violations as well as life safety
hazards. Additional inspections on March 22, 2001, April 3, 2001 and again on April
5, 2001 revealed numerous outstanding code violations. As such, the home is
unsafe for human occupancy and was posted to prevent its occupancy on April 5,
2001.
Discussion:
Minnesota Statute § 463.16 authorizes the governing body of any City or Town to
order the owner of any hazardous building or property within the municipality to
correct or remove the hazardous condition of the building or property, or raze or
remove the building. Additionally, Minnesota Statute § 463.161 authorizes the
governing body of any City or Town to correct or remove the hazardous condition of
any hazardous building or property.
Minnesota Statute § 463.15 Subd. 3 defines a hazardous building or hazardous
property as any building or property which because of inadequate maintenance,
dilapidation, physical damage, unsanitary condition, or abandonment, constitutes a
fire hazard or hazard to public safety or health. The manufactured home located at
2229 Kingsway lane meets these definitions and as such, is considered a hazardous
building.
Section 1005.16 Subd. 4 of the City Housing Code provides the City the authority to
abate, remove or otherwise remedy the violation and take any action permissible
under State law to specially assess or otherwise charge the cost of such abatement,
removal, or remedy against the premises where the violation was located.
Additionally, Section 1005.17 Subd. 2 of the Housing Code allows the City to enforce
the provisions in the Housing Code by an appropriate form of civil action. Lastly, this
section allows the abatement of everything existing in violation thereof and cause
the premises to be vacated.
Resolution 5556 satisfies the appropriate provisions of the City Housing Code and
Minnesota Statutes.
Recommendation:
Consideration and approval of resolution 5556 ordering the abatement of hazardous
conditions existing at 2229 Kingsway lane.
Jeremiah Anderson
Housing/Code Enforcement Inspector
Attachment 1: Resolution 5556
Attachment 2: Notice of violation 01-1
Attachment 3: Photo documentation of premises
Attachment 4: Memo dated 4/5/01
Attachment 5: Memo dated 4/3/01
SJR-196226v1
MU125-11
RESOLUTION NO. 5557
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION REQUIRING CABLE BROADCASTING OF CITY BUSINESS
CONDUCTED AT OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS AT MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL
WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View desires its citizens to be fully apprised of all city
business conducted on their behalf; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 471.705, Subdivision 1, the Minnesota Open
Meeting Law, requires that “[e]xcept as otherwise expressly provided by statute, all meetings,
including executive sessions, of . . . the governing body of a . . . statutory or home rule city . . . or
other public body, and of any committee, subcommittee, board, department, or commission of a
public body must be open to the public;” and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires that, except for meetings of the Human Resources
Committee, meetings determined to be exempt from this policy by the City Council, and as
otherwise expressly provided by statute, meetings of the City held at Mounds View City Hall
subject to the above-referenced Open Meeting Law are also subject to the requirement, in
furtherance of keeping the citizens of the City of Mounds View informed, of cable broadcasting
when staff members are available; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5501, which set forth as a policy
of the City the cable broadcasting requirements for open meetings of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to modify and replace the provisions of Resolution
No. 5501 as to the cable broadcasting requirements for open meetings of the City held at Mounds
View City Hall, and as such, desires to rescind Resolution No. 5501 in its entirety; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires that the cable broadcasting requirements for open
meetings of the City held at Mounds View City Hall, except for meetings of the Human
Resources Committee, meetings determined to be exempt from this policy by the City Council,
and as otherwise expressly provided by statute, apply to all entities of the City and that such
desire be set forth as a policy of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the City Council of the City of
Mounds View rescinds Resolution No. 5501 in its entirety.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, the City Council of
the City of Mounds View establishes the policy that all meetings held at Mounds View City Hall
by the City or any of its committees, subcommittees, boards, departments, or commissions which
are subject to the Open Meeting Law, except for meetings of the Human Resources Committee,
meetings determined to be exempt from this policy by the City Council, and as otherwise
expressly provided by statute, are also subject to the requirement that the meeting be broadcast
via cable television, when sufficient staff is available to facilitate the cable broadcasting of the
meeting.
Adopted this 23rd day of April, 2001.
Attest: _____________________________________
Richard Sonterre, Mayor
(SEAL) _____________________________________
Kathleen Miller, City Clerk-Administrator
Motion by:
Second by:
Sonterre:
Quick:
Stigney:
Marty:
Thomas:
Item No.7D
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 5558 Approving Golf Course
Temporary Positions
Date of Report: April 23, 2001
At the April 16, 2001 Council meeting the City Administrator reported to the
Council that the Golf Course Manager submitted a request to hire additional staff
on a temporary basis for the 2001 season.
It was the Council’s desire that a resolution be presented indicating that these
temporary positions would be on an “as needed” basis and that employees hired
to fill these temporary positions would work when seasonal employees are
unavailable and within the hours allotted for the same positions per Resolution
5548 (attached for your reference).
Recommendation
Review and take action on Resolution 5558
Respectfully Submitted
Givonna Reed
Assistant to the City Administrator
RESOLUTION NO. 5558
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Approving Additional Golf Course 2001 Temporary Positions
WHEREAS, the Golf Course Manager has expressed a need to hire
temporary employees in addition to the seasonal employees currently on staff,
and
WHEREAS, the need for additional personnel is based on the
unavailability of current seasonal golf course employees to work certain hours,
and
WHEREAS, these temporary employees will fill in when seasonal
employees are not available to work, and
WHEREAS, the total number of hours worked by temporary employees
and seasonal employees in the same positions will not exceed the hours
approved per Resolution 5548 for those positions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City
Council does hereby approve the following temporary golf course positions on an
as needed basis:
• Range Pickers (3) $6.50-$7.00/hr
• Beverage Cart (2) $6.50/hr
• Range Picker/Flower Garden $7.50-$8.00/hr
Adopted this 23rd day of April 2001.
ATTEST:
Richard Sonterre, Mayor
SEAL Kathleen Miller, City Administrator
Motion:
Second:
Sonterre: Aye No
Quick: Aye No
Thomas: Aye No
Marty: Aye No
Stigney: Aye No
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
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: Givonna Reed, Assistant to the City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 5559 Approving the Purchase of
Accounting and Room Reservation Software for
the Mounds View Conference and Banquet Center
Date of Report: April 23, 2001
Attached you will find a brief report from Elegant Thymes Management Company
requesting approval to purchase accounting and room reservation software for
the Mounds View Conference and Banquet Center. Funds for this purchase
would be taken from the Banquet Center budget (Other Professional Services).
Twelve hundred dollars was originally allocated to refinish the dance floor,
however, Elegant Thymes has worked with a cleaning company and determined
that the dance floor requires less expensive maintenance than budgeted for.
Upon approval from the Council to purchase software, Elegant Thymes
Management Company will work with the City’s Information Services Technician
to ensure compatibility with the City’s computer hardware.
Recommendation
Approve Resolution 5559
Respectfully Submitted
Givonna Reed
Assistant to the City Administrator
RESOLUTION NO. 5559
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Approving the Purchase of Accounting and Room Reservation Software for the
Mounds View Conference and Banquet Center
WHEREAS, Elegant Thymes Management Company is managing the
Mounds View Conference and Banquet Center on an interim basis, and
WHEREAS, Elegant Thymes Management Company has reported a need
for computer software to assist in efficiently managing the Banquet Center, and
WHEREAS, there are currently funds in the Banquet Center budget to
cover this purchase.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City
Council does approve the purchase of accounting and reservations software not
to exceed $1200.00.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this purchase will use the funds
originally allocated for refinishing the dance floor.
Adopted this 23rd day of April 2001.
ATTEST:
Richard Sonterre, Mayor
SEAL Kathleen Miller, City Administrator
Motion: Barbara Thomas
Second: Roger Stigney
Sonterre: Aye
Quick: Aye
Thomas: Aye
Marty: Aye
Stigney: Aye
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
April 9, 2001
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
7:05 P.M.
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Sonterre, Quick, Marty, Stigney, and Thomas.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A. Monday, April 9, 2001 City Council Agenda.
City Administrator Miller requested that Resolution 5555, a Resolution reaffirming the
relationship between the City Council and the City Clerk Administrator be added as Item 7C.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Approve the April 9, 2001, City Council Agenda as
amended.
Ayes - 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
4. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR
David Jahnke of 8428 Eastwood Road addressed Council and stated that Terry Augustine never
had anything to do with the comments in the newspaper and the only thing he agreed with was
the Bell Rae Ballroom comment.
Dan Lamb of 2305 Sherwood Road asked Council if any of them had reviewed the tape of the
meeting with the Rice Creek Watershed District and residents.
Mayor Sonterre and Council Member Marty indicated they had reviewed the tape.
Mr. Lamb then stated that with all the melting snow and rain the flow rates that the study came
up with seem significantly different than his flow rates. Mr. Lamb stated that, in his opinion, the
modeling for the pond involved a lot of supposition as to how much JD5 contributed to the flow
assuming 60%. He stated he estimates that the vast majority is coming from the golf course area
to the north.
Mounds View City Council April 9, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 2
Mr. Lamb stated that previous Mayor Coughlin, Mayor Sonterre, and Council Member Marty had
commented that the reason they had gotten into government is because they did not like things
being railroaded into their neighborhoods. He asked that they consider how this ponding project
will affect his neighborhood. He then asked if Council Member Marty was turning over on the
environment by supporting the billboards.
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approve Just and Correct Claims
B. Licenses for Approval
C. Acceptance of Revised Planning Commission Bylaws
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Thomas. To Approve the Consent Agenda as Presented.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. Continued Review of Golf Course Feasibility Study – Springsted
Council Member Thomas asked how it would affect Springsted’s recommendations and
conclusions if the City is able to readjust the numbers within the spending and budgets to include
all expenses. She then asked if that would affect the conclusion to go ahead with the additional
nine holes.
The Springsted representative stated that scenario would strengthen the argument for the nine
holes as it would be positive cash flow for the City.
Council Member Stigney commented that there are statements in the study that he questions the
validity of. He explained that while watching the masters on television he heard a statement
indicating that golf has lost two million players and the industry is not expecting any new
replacements for those lost.
Council Member Stigney questioned the statement “golf is becoming increasingly more popular
every year” as it seems to conflict with what he had heard concerning golf losing players. He
then noted the demographic information seemed to be outdated and questioned why Springsted
did not use more current data.
Council Member Stigney questioned the disclaimer concerning market analysis. He stated he
feels the study is dealing with older information and that he feels the Blaine golf course should
have been considered in the study.
Mounds View City Council April 9, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 3
Council Member Stigney stated he was concerned that not all of the courses within the eight-mile
radius responded to the survey by Springsted and that Springsted did not solicit the information
from them but instead used only the information returned to them.
The Springsted Representative indicated the disclaimer in the study was correct because
Springsted is not a marketing firm. He stated they have used some standard numbers that are
used within the industry and, if there is a consensus at the Council level to look at market
numbers, then Council should do that. He noted there is a comparison on costs to build and
operate golf courses on the market side and, although they have looked at it, they do not submit
this as an exhaustive study as it was never intended to be. He stated he would not speculate on
the Blaine course because it is targeting a totally different market share and, unless the City is
going into a different market share, then they would not consider it. He then explained that the
target market for Mounds View’s course is substantially different and the difference is income
level, beginning golfer and the golfer that wants a quick nine-hole game. The Blaine course is
marketing itself as a regional course to the youth market to get them interested in golf.
Council Member Stigney stated he is concerned that Springsted knew about the course in Blaine
and did not include it in the study. He then stated he is concerned that Springsted did not attempt
to get information from those courses that did not return the survey.
The Springsted Representative stated he felt they had enough history and data and does not think
it would substantially change the information for the study so they did not feel it was necessary.
He then stated they have a list and have a very strong feel that the operating cost ranges listed are
accurate and they are comfortable with them or they would not have given them.
Council Member Marty asked Mr. Hammerschmidt what the target areas were for the golf
course.
Mr. Hammerschmidt stated he does not consider Blaine a risk and one reason is Blaine is
marketing themselves to the high school player which would take high school play away from
Mounds View’s course and free it up for adult play. He stated Blaine has been working on the
funding for the course for four years and during that time they have allowed him to sit on the
advisory board and he has learned the course is to be a championship course with 18 holes where
youth will pay their age and adults will pay $40.00. He stated that since Mounds View is a
$15.00 course Blaine is nowhere near the same target market. He then explained the target
market for Mounds View is the beginning golfer, the inexperienced golfer and people who want a
short course. He further stated there is not much competition in the executive course market. He
also indicated the growth and interest in golf is increasing at lower priced courses and decreasing
at the $50.00 and higher courses.
Mayor Sonterre questioned whether the study by the National Golf Foundation specified
regionalized numbers that were different in this state than in other states and wondered if
Minnesota was losing or gaining at the same rate.
Mounds View City Council April 9, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 4
Mr. Hammerschmidt stated he did have a regional breakout that he receives on a yearly basis but
noted the numbers were all within a couple of percentage points of each other and that the
national averages apply with very small differences.
Mr. Hammerschmidt stated Mounds View is competing with seven or eight courses and the rest
of the 100 plus courses in the metro area are in a different market.
Mayor Sonterre questioned whether Mr. Hammerschmidt felt Mounds View was competing with
some of the courses in the study that are quite a distance from the City.
Mr. Hammerschmidt indicated he was referring to those courses that are closer to the City.
Council Member Stigney noted he was able to get information at the National Golf Federation
website on the internet and he found that the bigger problem is keeping people interested in golf
and returning to the course once you have attracted them to it.
Mr. Hammerschmidt agreed that the retention factor is an issue. He stated leaders in the industry
are trying to warn people that they need to make it comfortable for golfers in order to retain them.
He then explained Mounds View has been ahead for a while as the pros in the pro shop are
accessible and there is a teaching facility at the course to help make golfers more comfortable.
Council Member Thomas questioned how comfortable Springsted was with limiting the study to
the eight-mile radius.
The Springsted Representative explained the study was kept to the eight-mile radius because the
first study used that radius and they wanted to stay as close as possible to the first study for
comparison purposes. He then stated they had tried to use the areas that showed the same
potential growth in golfers based on demographics that were the same or similar to Mounds
View.
Council Member Thomas stated she had difficulty with that example due to the cities on the
north having much more capability for growth than Mounds View. She then stated she
understood the need for the apples to apples comparison but asked if given the opportunity,
would Springsted have expanded beyond the eight-mile radius.
The Springsted Representative stated that when they did a survey follow up of the golfers it
substantiated that most golfers are coming from within the eight-mile radius.
Mr. Hammerschmidt explained that the golf course keeps track via telephone numbers of who
plays golf in Mounds View. He indicated there were 8,000 separate telephone numbers that
called for tee times last year. He then stated if you assign a value of two people per phone call
you end up with 16,000 golfers who used the facility to play 42,000 rounds meaning the average
person played about four rounds of golf. He then stated the National Golf Foundation feels you
need 2,000 to 3,000 golfers to support a public golf course using the national average to make up
the 42,000 rounds. He further stated that if you could get each current golfer to play two more
Mounds View City Council April 9, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 5
rounds each you would have the 30,000 rounds needed for the additional nine holes. He also
stated the phone calls break down to the eight-mile area.
The Springsted Representative stated that normally the golf course studies that they do would
involve a little greater area than the eight miles but he stated he feels comfortable that the eight
miles is a wide enough sample of cities.
Council Member Stigney referred to the statistics for average weekly pay that indicated an
increase of 30.24% over the last six years and asked if that was factored in.
The Springsted Representative indicated that if you use 3% over 20 years you would get that
number but that they did not factor in the 30.24% figure. He then stated they used the national
CPI which they confirmed with the state before using.
Council Member Stigney noted Tiger Woods is attracting people to golf but indicated that he
feels the economy is slowing down and people may not have as much money for golfing. He
stated his main concern is the financial projections are based on using the course the City has
now and doing another nine holes. He then stated Mr. Hammerschmidt had a list of items that
the City would need if it added an additional nine holes and questioned whether those items were
figured into the cost factors for the additional nine holes.
The Springsted Representative explained the cost list drafted by Mr. Hammerschmidt was not
submitted to them and the costs were not used. He stated those improvements would need to be
taken into consideration based on the success of the course. He suggested Council and the public
should decide if the course could support those improvements. He further stated that this is not a
high end facility but is a low end one that people will want to back up to if they cannot afford
$50.00 courses due to slower economic times.
Council Member Stigney stated he is concerned that if the City does not look at the up front
projected costs to make the course viable and practical then the City is missing a big chunk of the
actual costs. He then stated that to go ahead with the project and look at costs later is how the
City got into trouble last time.
Council Member Marty stated Springsted was contracted to look at the black and white hard
figures and those hard figures included the prospective or proposed possibility of another nine
holes to determine the cost effectiveness and what the possible outlay against the income would
be. He then explained Mr. Hammerschmidt developed a plan in the event the billboards did not
go through. He then requested that the discussion be kept to what the City has asked Springsted
to do.
Mayor Sonterre stated he appreciated Council Member Stigney’s concern for the eventuality but
stated he feels that Springsted was asked to look at specific numbers that did not involve moving
the range, adding a larger parking lot, or a larger clubhouse. He then stated the City does need to
be cognizant of the fact that the second course may not be completely viable if the City does not
Mounds View City Council April 9, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 6
expand. He further stated that, if the time comes to move on a Resolution, the Resolution should
clearly state what the costs involved are.
Council Member Stigney stated that the Mayor’s comments were well spoken but he still feels
the need to look at the whole picture when spending his money as a taxpayer. He then noted the
study mentioned the uncertainty of revenue in the bonds discussion and he stated he feels the
City needs to be very cautious the second time around.
Mr. Hammerschmidt explained the master plan presented almost two years ago was to come up
with revenue producing items and a list of what items would be needed if the changes were
made. He stated it was clearly stated there was at least a two year interval between each step and
the decision was supposed to be made as to whether it was feasible to proceed with the next step.
He then stated he felt the course did not need to compete with bars and restaurants but merely
needed to provide minimal service for the golfers. He further stated he felt the key is to put
money into the golf course and then worry about the amenities.
Council Member Thomas asked if there would be a dedicated revenue stream for the bonds or if
there was a need to use general obligation bonds.
The Springsted Representative stated that based on the numbers they looked at the City could
issue gross revenue bonds for the second course and show positive cash flow. He stated the City
does not have the authority for general obligation bonds and would need a public vote to issue
that type of bond. He stated they used gross revenue bonds because it is the most cost effective
way to do it. He further stated that to do a pure revenue bond would cost considerably more than
a gross revenue bond and due to the nature of the market that would be hard to sell.
Council Member Thomas asked what gross percentage the City is plus or minus on the revenue
percentage in terms of interest rate.
The Springsted Representative stated he believed the City to be +.5% or possibly closer to
+.25%.
Council Member Thomas questioned whether there is the option to gain a little more interest rate
if the City went with a straight general obligation bond.
Council Member Stigney stated that one of the options they were looking at doing if the
community supports it was to do an annual subsidy of residents and expansion of the course. He
noted if the billboards come in that should resolve the debt service issue and the City would not
need anything further. He stated that the study mentioned several options but he has seen only
two options. The first is to loan the course money and the second is to reach the point to
refinance. He then questioned what the other options are.
The Springsted Representative stated he was not sure on the language usage but stated they have
looked at the option of refinancing the existing debt but it has an attractive interest rate noting it
would be something that should be refinanced at the call date but it is not worth struggle right
Mounds View City Council April 9, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 7
now. He then stated another revenue source, which is a third option, is to maintain or control
operating costs and the additional revenue of the new course could subsidize the existing course.
Council Member Stigney questioned why Springsted was using outdated demographic
information.
The Springsted Representative stated it was the most current data they were able to obtain that
they were comfortable with. He stated they would not work with outdated data if there is current
available. He further stated there may be data out there but it is not in the same format.
Council Member Marty thanked Springsted for their time, hard work, and research. He also
apologized for Springsted having to sit through the entire meeting last time and not be heard.
Mr. Hammerschmidt noted the golf course driving range is open and is booked through Friday.
He advised that anyone who wanted a tee time for the weekend should call now.
Council Member Marty asked if Mounds View was the first course to open.
Mr. Hammerschmidt stated Mounds View was the first course to open and that it had nice
reviews on WCCO as someone had called in to the station and said The Bridges is open.
B. Greenfield Park Ponding Proposal
Mayor Sonterre noted Mr. Ulrich was not able to attend the meeting and City Administrator
Miller would present this matter.
City Administrator Miller noted representatives from the Rice Creek Watershed District Staff
were present to ask Council to approve the ponding project reviewed with Council on a number
of occasions and to authorize them to proceed with final plans and specifications.
City Administrator Miller explained there were two options for the pond. Option 1 is a pond
estimated at approximately 5 acres and option two is a pond estimated at approximately 3.7
acres. She then stated Staff recommends approval of the ponding project.
Council Member Marty noted he had been told that approving the ponding project could preclude
the City of Mounds View from being requested or required to provide water quality ponds in the
future. He then asked Mr. Ericson to explain the situation.
Community Development Director Ericson explained there has been an indication from Rice
Creek Watershed that if the ponding were approved and built on the proposed site it could
eliminate the need to create ponding in other locations during street reconstruction.
Council Member Stigney questioned if something was done on Highway 10 how the ponding
would come into play.
Mounds View City Council April 9, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 8
Director Ericson explained it is an issue of the wetland credits and not of actually directing the
water to that pond.
Mayor Sonterre asked if residents wanted to improve streets with curb and gutter how it would
work with the new needs for a place to send the water.
The Rice Creek Watershed representative explained it is the standard policy of the district to
require ponding if streets are reconstructed. The representative then noted the pond would factor
positively into the equation but would not speculate as to whether it would mean absolutely no
ponding or a lesser amount.
Council Member Thomas asked what moving the pond to the north side of Highway 10 would do
to the effectiveness percentage.
The Rice Creek Watershed District representative indicated it would be fairly significant because
the area to the west does not drain through the golf course.
Council Member Marty stated he had a number of comments from residents on the south side of
Highway 10 who indicated they would like to preserve their area as much as possible. He then
questioned whether a smaller pond in the proposed location in conjunction with some ponding on
the north side of Highway 10 would be workable for Rice Creek Watershed.
The Rice Creek Watershed District representative stated they needed to make those decisions
independently due to the planning and budgeting cycle. The representative then noted that if
Council desired to stay with a smaller pond they will move forward this planning and budgeting
cycle and look at the possibility of doing something additional on the golf course during another
budget cycle.
Council Member Thomas stated she had gone to the proposed ponding area to view it. She then
asked residents in attendance to explain the difference in the current water level as compared to a
normal water level.
Mr. Lamb of 2305 Sherwood Road stated that normally after the ground is thawed there is about
one foot of water in JD1 and Junction 5 almost never has any water in it.
Mike Reed of 2208 Lois Drive stated he believes the water appears to be coming out of Highway
10 rather than Sherwood Road. He then stated he did not believe that 60% of the flow is coming
off of Sherwood Road.
The Rice Creek Watershed District representative indicated the feasibility study gives a proposal
for a 12, 9, 6, and 3 acre pond and gives decreases in flow rates of roughly 30 to 35%. He then
noted the two things to keep in mind with flow numbers are there are two branches. One branch
from the north and one branch from the west. He then explained the water flows a lot more
slowly out of the north than from the west. He further explained they are concerned with the
erosion that takes place with the sudden large flows from heavy rains and snow melts.
Mounds View City Council April 9, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 9
Michelle Sanbeck of 2356 Sherwood Road stated she did not understand how Rice Creek could
say the water is coming from the west. She stated there is a pond to the west and there is no
water in that area. She further stated she is concerned that her neighborhood will have to handle
all the water in the area and could possibly be flooded if the pond is not constructed properly.
Council Member Stigney asked if there was a flow rate analysis conducted on water coming
under Highway 10.
The Rice Creek Watershed District representative indicated there was a flow meter placed at
County Road J and one at Quincy Street but not at Highway 10 as the culvert sits dry most of the
time. He stated they have found that during higher flow events the flows at Quincy are
substantially higher than at County Road J.
Council Member Marty stated he had some of the same concerns as Ms. Sanbeck about
controlling water coming from the north and he would like to have a better understanding of the
big picture.
Council Member Thomas stated that at the last work session Rice Creek indicated a liability
clause could be inserted to cover possible flooding.
The Rice Creek Watershed District representative stated she did not mean to indicate Rice Creek
Watershed would enter into a contract with a liability clause for any possible flood and
apologized for any misunderstanding. She then stated she would check with the District’s
attorney about the situation.
Council Member Marty read Resolution 5542 that would require Rice Creek Watershed to
assume liability for flooding based on the design or construction of the pond as determined by a
court of law.
The Rice Creek Watershed District representative stated the way the Resolution is written and
the way it was stated by Council Member Thomas was considerably different and stated she felt
Rice Creek Watershed would not have a problem with the language of the Resolution.
City Attorney Riggs confirmed the language of the Resolution was significantly different than the
statement by Council Member Thomas as Rice Creek would be assuming liability for design
flaws.
Council Member Quick asked if the exit point of the pond would be staying the same as it is.
The Rice Creek Watershed District representative indicated the exit point of the pond would be
staying the same and the bottom would be lowered. He then explained storm sewers are
designed to handle a ten-year event which is defined as more than 4.2 inches of rain.
Council Member Stigney noted that at the last meeting with residents one of the residents had
asked if an environmental impact study was conducted and the answer was no. Council Member
Mounds View City Council April 9, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 10
Stigney questioned whether Rice Creek Watershed would be conducting an environmental
impact study.
The Rice Creek Watershed District representative stated they have not performed one and could
still do so but stated that decision is left up to the discretion of the board. She then stated that all
of the elements that would be analyzed in an impact statement will be looked at as part of the
design process.
Council Member Stigney asked if the City would receive an acre per acre wetland credit.
The Rice Creek Watershed District representative stated wetland credits are based on how much
wetland is created and there is no discretion.
Council Member Stigney stated that the pond seemed quite large to him and questioned whether
something smaller could be done.
The Rice Creek Watershed District representative explained that at 3.7 acres they would begin
losing the cost effectiveness for the project.
Council Member Quick asked what it would take to remove the pond once it is in place.
The Rice Creek Watershed District representative indicated the pond is filled in with dirt.
Council Member Quick asked if the City wanted to fill in the pond to develop the property if it
was expensive to do so.
The Rice Creek Watershed District representative stated if the District does grant wetland credits
to the City it would be virtually impossible to develop the property as there are restrictions and
covenants that go along with the granting of wetland credits.
Council Member Quick questioned if approving the pond would prevent future development in
that area.
The Rice Creek Watershed District representative stated the wetland area and upland buffer
would not be able to be developed.
Council Member Thomas stated she felt there were so many advantages and disadvantages that
this matter was hard to prioritize. She then stated she felt that a smaller pond may be worth
building but stated she did not feel she could support a large pond.
Mayor Sonterre stated it was his understanding the Resolution is in favor of the proposal based
on Council preference for size of the pond. He then explained there was a beneficial meeting
with MNDOT where it was discovered that there may have been an inappropriate decision made
when it came to determining Mounds View was not eligible for the sound wall. He further stated
that a representative from MNDOT had indicated that if the City were to put in an earthen berm
Mounds View City Council April 9, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 11
in the area it may be of a cost benefit to MNDOT that would make this a more desirable project
for MNDOT and possibly move it up in priority.
Council Member Quick noted that the Silverview pond has functioned very well and there are
expensive homes on one side. He stated the pond is a nice amenity for the City and would say
that the pond rivals and surpasses the proposed pond for Greenfield. He further stated that before
1970 the proposed ponding area was farmed and the trees in that area are cottonwood which
basically grow an inch or two a year in diameter.
Jane Lamb of 2305 Sherwood Road showed an aerial photograph of the area showing it was
designated as a wetland area.
Council Member Quick stated the area had been farmed in the past.
Ms. Lamb stated she would appreciate it if Council could look at other locations for the pond.
Tom Cassell of 8120 Jackson Drive stated he had sent an e-mail to Council prior to the meeting.
He stated he finds himself in a dilemma as it is difficult to make a decision on the pond as he has
found it difficult to get factual information. He stated he is not against the pond or the need for
the pond but is against the location. He stated that Rice Creek has said if Council says no to the
pond they would drop the idea. He then questioned why the pond is so important to Rice Creek
if they will so easily drop the pond if it is not approved by Council.
Mayor Sonterre thanked Mr. Cassell for his objectivity and the e-mails on this matter.
Council Member Marty stated he did not get an e-mail from Mr. Cassell.
Council Member Stigney stated he had seen an article in the paper that stated Roseville had a
separate maintenance contract for ponding. He then questioned whether Rice Creek has
considered doing that in Mounds View.
The Rice Creek Watershed District representative stated the Joint Powers Agreement would
address maintenance for the pond but said the District is assuming it would be doing the
maintenance for the pond.
Council Member Stigney asked Rice Creek Watershed if they were willing to do nothing if the
ponding is not approved by Council.
The Rice Creek Watershed District representative stated they would do nothing at this time if the
pond is not approved. The representative stated the matter would not be completely abandoned
but would be lowered on the priority list.
Council Member Stigney stated he objected to the ponding size due to the negative impact on
future development. He further stated he did not support either plan.
Mounds View City Council April 9, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 12
Council Member Marty agreed with Council Member Quick that the pond at Silverview is a nice
amenity now that the trail is completed.
Council Member Marty stated he can see a possible need for this pond but stated it appears to
him that the steady water flow is from the north. He then asked that Rice Creek put management
of the water flow to the north on its list of priorities to be addressed in the near future.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Sonterre. To Amend Resolution 5542 to Specify that the Size of
the Pond Shall Not Exceed 3.7 Acres.
Council Member Marty stated this may move forward but stated he would like Rice Creek to
work with residents and their concerns as much as possible on the project and make any
adaptations as necessary to accommodate residents without deviating from the 3.7 acres.
Council Member Stigney questioned whether supporting the amendment to the Resolution would
be supporting the Resolution.
Mayor Sonterre indicated it would not.
Council Member Quick made a point of order that the Resolution before Council had a place for
Council to insert the size of the pond.
Council Member Thomas stated the purpose of her motion is to indicate what size pond Council
is approving before the Resolution is approved.
Council Member Quick questioned whether a five acre pond could fit if the pond was elongated
to the east to stay away from the trees.
The Rice Creek Watershed District representative indicated it was possible.
Council Member Quick stated that if the City wanted to put a baseball field in that location there
would be a need to remove one of the fourplexes.
Mayor Sonterre indicated that Park and Recreation wanted to reserve the property for future park
purposes and had thought possibly a soccer field but the school has said they need a baseball
field.
Council Member Quick stated the property did not seem big enough for a soccer field and stated
he did not think Council wanted to use eminent domain for residential property so why not use
the property for the pond.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Quick) Motion carried.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5542 as
Amended.
Mounds View City Council April 9, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 13
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried.
The Rice Creek Watershed District representatives thanked Council and pledged to work with
the City and the community on the pond.
C. Resolution 5555, a Resolution Reaffirming the Relationship Between the City
Council and the City Clerk Administrator
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5555, a
Resolution Reaffirming the Relationship Between the City Council and the City Clerk
Administrator.
Mayor Sonterre noted the Resolution outlined and set forth the role and scope of duties of the
City Clerk Administrator as directed by the Mounds View City Council.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
8. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
None.
9. REPORTS
Mayor Sonterre reported that he, Mr. Ericson, and Ms. Miller had attended a meeting with
representatives from the Department of Transportation to discuss the circumstances relating to
the redevelopment of County Highway 10. He stated the City had been led to believe this was a
turn back situation and has since found out it is not. It was determined that the County is the
decision maker to determine how the program dollars are spent. He explained he made the case
that the City would prefer that the County use as little as possible of the $1.28 million dollars for
bituminous and use most of it for public safety issues. The indication was that the funds are
available for Ramsey County to use as long as they are used for construction and not engineering.
He stated the only reservation expressed by Ramsey County is that there is no firm plan and no
firm funding mechanism in place for the redevelopment. He further stated the City is committed
to working with the County to expedite the schedule and get financing options more defined as
well as an actual formal plan prior to January 1, 2002. If this is done, it should be possible to
save a significant portion of the program funds for the redevelopment.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Reaffirm Resolution 5555.
Council Member Quick asked that Mayor Sonterre read Resolution 5555.
Mayor Sonterre read Resolution 5555 outlining the duties and responsibilities of the City Clerk
Administrator.
Mounds View City Council April 9, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 14
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Park & Recreation Commission Minutes February 27, 2001.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Accept the February 27, 2001, Park & Recreation
Commission Minutes as presented.
Marty questioned the position description and stated he thought it needed to be clarified.
Mayor Sonterre stated that the definition is due to Council asking for a review of the scope and
duties and the request for a position description for the commission members.
Council Member Thomas stated she did not think the description in question was referring to a
member position but to the commission itself.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Marty) Motion carried.
B. Monday, March 26, 2001 City Council Minutes.
Council Member Stigney requested the following changes: On Page 4 change the reference to
“convention center” to “banquet center”. On Page 4 change “Miler” to “Miller”.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Thomas. To Approve the Monday, March 26, 2001, City Council
Minutes with the Requested Changes.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
11. Next Council Work Session: Monday, May 7, 2001
Next Council Meeting: Monday, April 23, 2001
12. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Sonterre adjourned the meeting at 9:43 p.m.
Transcribed and recorded by:
Joan Lenzmeier
Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.