HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2001/08/13M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2001\City Council\Council Packets\08-13-2001 Council\Agenda -- August 13, 2001.doc
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNCIL AGENDA
MONDAY, AUGUST 13, 2001
7 p.m.
Revised
1. CALL 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. Creative Kids Day Care Lease
6. CONSENT AGENDA
a. Approve Just and Correct Claims
b. Licenses for Approval – None submitted
c. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, August 27, 2001, at 7:05 pm, to Consider
the Re-Approval of the Preliminary Plat for the Mermaid Addition Major
Subdivision – Jim Ericson (No Report)
d. Resolution 5597, Renewal of Police Prosecution Service Contract with
Hughes & Costello
e. Acceptance of Improvements, Walgreens Development, per Development
Agreement 00-123 – Jim Ericson
f. Approving and Awarding Bid for 2001-8 Seal Coat Project – Kathleen Miller
g. Cancel Public Hearing for Mounds View Drive – Kathleen Miller
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS
7:05pm a. Continuation of Public Hearing to Consider the Intoxicating Liquor
and Sunday Sales License Applications for Topa Corporation dba
Donatelle’s
7:10pm b. Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of Planning Commission
Resolution 660-01, a Resolution Denying a Variance Request. – Jim
Atkinson
7:15pm c. Public Hearing to Consider a Conditional Use Permit for an Over-
Sized Garage at 8368 Groveland Road – Jim Atkinson.
M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2001\City Council\Council Packets\08-13-2001 Council\Agenda -- August 13, 2001.doc
City Council Meeting
August 13, 2001
Page -2-
7:20pm d. Public Hearing to Consider a Conditional Use Permit for Mounds View
Animal Hospital to Operate an Animal Hospital at 2625 County
Highway 10 – Jim Atkinson
7:25pm e. Public Hearing and First Reading (Introduction) of Ordinance 685, an
Ordinance Amending Title 1100 (the Zoning Code) of the Mounds
View Municipal Code to Allow the Commercial Boarding of Animals
within the B-2, Limited Business District – Jim Atkinson
f. Resolution 5601, Appointing Tim Brennan as Interim Chief of Police
g. Resolution 5602, Resolution Approving Business Licenses for Topa
Corporation dba Knotty Pine for 2001-2002
8. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
A. Presentation of Plaque to Bill Clark
9. REPORTS
A. Schedule Special Budget Work Session
B. Discussion of Human Rights Commission
C. Requests for Authorization to Fill Positions
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. June 4, 2001
B. June 6, 2001
C. June 11, 2001
D. June 25, 2001
E. July 9, 2001 (will be e-mailed on Friday, August 10, 2001)
F. July 23, 2001
11. CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING/THREATENED LITIGATION
AND RELATED MATTERS
12. Next Council Work Session September 4, 2001 (TUESDAY)
Next Council Meeting: August 27, 2001
13. ADJOURNMENT
Item No: 6e
Meeting Date: August 13, 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: Conditional Acceptance of Improvements, Walgreens
Development, per Development Agreement 00-123
Date of Report: August 9, 2001
Background:
The Contract for Private Development (the “Agreement”), which the City entered into with
Meridian Properties Real Estate Development, LLC, doing business as TOLD
Development Company, requires that the developer construct certain improvements
including grading, drainage, landscaping, trailways and other public improvements as part
of the project. Section 2.09 of the agreement indicates that upon completion of the
improvements, representatives of the City and the developer will make a final inspection
of the work. The City has no obligation to accept the improvements if they are not
consistent with the approved plans or not in compliance with all City ordinances and
standards related thereto. Final approval and acceptance of the improvements shall be
by a resolution duly adopted by the City Council.
Resolution No. 5600 conditionally accepting the public improvements is attached for City
Council consideration.
Discussion:
Staff performed an inspection of the first phase of the approved Planned Unit Development
(“PUD”) associated with the Walgreens project. (The second phase of the development
has not yet been started.) For the most part, the development meets and satisfies all of
the requirements of the PUD Document, the final plans and the Agreement. The utilities
were inspected throughout their installation by public works staff and all elements were
found acceptable. City Forester Rick Wriskey inspected the landscaping on the site and
found it to conform with the approved landscape plan, although there are minor restorative
and revegetative issues that need to be addressed.
As far as the site itself, everything is in conformance with the approved plans with the
exception of the trailway along County Highway 10, which was supposed to bend slightly
for safety purposes as it approached the County Highway 10 driveway. The trail crosses
the driveway without any bend, however the adjoining leg on the south side of the drive
access does bend according to plans. In addition, it was noted that there is no “crosswalk”
striping on the access drive where the trail crosses. Staff has spoken with the developer
and the developer has made arrangements to add the striping as required. Because of the
Walgreens Report
August 13, 2001
Page 2
restricted area within which the trail is located, staff would recommend acceptance of the
trail configuration without the bend as long as some trail markings are added to “announce”
or warn of the driveway crossing, either by a sign or pavement markings.
Rice Creek Watershed District: Attached is a letter from Rice Creek to the developer
regarding the stormwater pond south of the development as well as the overall surface
water management on the site. Staff spoke with the developer and is making
arrangements to address and correct these issues.
Trash: Staff noticed scattered debris around the site and within the stormwater
depressions. Given its highly visible location and proximity to public buildings, the building
grounds will need to be picked up and be free of debris on a daily basis.
Wetland Restoration: The developer was given permission to disturb the wetland in order
to install the storm sewer that connects the development to the stormwater pond south of
the site. While the area has been seeded, more plantings are needed to help blend the
area in with the adjoining ground cover. (The area now looks as though it is a natural
pathway through the wetland to the trail on the other side.) Native trees and shrubs that
are conducive to hydric soils should be planted on either side of the disturbed wetland so
long as the long-term integrity of the underlying stormsewer is not compromised.
As Builts: According to the Agreement, upon completion of the Improvements, the
Developer shall provide the City with a full set of Mylar as-built plans for the City’s
records.
Maintenance Bond: Upon acceptance of the Improvements, the Developer shall provide
a maintenance bond for a one-year period to guarantee the improvements. (The
landscaping shall be warranted for the life of the project.) Staff recommends release of
the original letter of credit ($435,000) upon provision of the maintenance bond in the
amount of $43,500.
Miscellaneous: Staff noted a few minor issues regarding the landscaping and site
maintenance that will need to be address presently as well as into the future. While the
second phase of the project, which is guided as a restaurant use, is not a part of this phase
of the development, the vacant lot will need to be seeded and maintained to prevent tall
grass and weed growth. The lot should be maintained to the same degree and with the
same care as the Walgreens site, with the exception that sod or irrigation is not required.
Furthermore, the right of way between Highway 10 and Walgreens will need to be
maintained in the same manner as the Walgreens grounds. The property manager shall
ensure that the right of way alongside the trail and sidewalk is restored with sod or seed,
then included with the normal mowing and maintenance.
Walgreens Report
August 13, 2001
Page 3
Certificate of Completion: Upon completion of the improvements, the City will execute a
Certificate of Completion, an example of which is included for the Council’s reference. All
issues pointed out herein and those addressed by Rice Creek will need to be satisfied
before the City executes this document. The resolution included for Council
consideration this evening conditionally accepts the improvements subject to the minor
outstanding issues being resolved. The Certificate of Occupancy for the building will not
be issued until all improvements are completed with the exception of minor landscaping
restoration and revegetative issues addressed in this report.
Recommendation:
Approve Resolution 5600, a resolution accepting the Phase I improvements related to the
Walgreens development, subject to the following:
1. All issues raised by Rice Creek shall be addressed to their satisfaction.
2. The Highway 10 access drive shall be striped where the trailway crosses.
3. Pavement markings or signage shall be installed at the trailway/driveway crossing.
4. Upon completion of the Improvements, the Developer shall provide the City with a
copy of the site and utility as-builts.
5. The Developer shall provide a maintenance bond in the amount of $43,500.
6. Vegetation shall be added in the area of the wetland disturbance to better blend the
disturbed areas in with the existing wetland vegetation as well as to discourage use of
the area as a natural walking path.
7. The Developer or property manager shall maintain and cut the boulevard area along
Highway 10 and shall restore by sod or seed those areas disturbed along the trailway.
8. The vacant lot between the Walgreens building and the Community Center shall be
seeded and maintained to prevent growth of weeds and tall grass.
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
763-717-4021
Attachment:
1. Resolution 5600
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\Development Cases\Pd00-001 (Walgreens PUD)\Walgreens Report - August 13, 2001.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 5600
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH PHASE I OF THE WALGREENS PUD, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT (DA 00-123)
WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View and Meridian Properties Real Estate
Development, doing business as TOLD Development Company, entered into a Contract for
Private Development (the “Agreement”) on November 29, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, the Agreement requires the Developer to construct certain improvements
including grading, drainage, landscaping, lighting, trailway and other Improvements as part of the
project; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement requires City inspection and acceptance of the
Improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Mounds View accepts the
Improvements, subject to the following considerations:
9. All issues raised by Rice Creek shall be addressed to their satisfaction.
10. The Highway 10 access drive shall be striped where it is crossed by the trailway.
11. Pavement markings or signage to warn bikers and pedestrians shall be installed at the
trailway/driveway crossing.
12. Upon completion of the Improvements, the Developer shall provide the City with a copy
of the site and utility as-builts.
13. The Developer shall provide a maintenance bond in the amount of $43,500.
14. Vegetation shall be added in the area of the wetland disturbance to better blend the
disturbed areas in with the existing wetland vegetation as well as to discourage use of the
area as a natural walking path.
15. The Developer or property manager shall maintain and mow the boulevard area along
Highway 10 and shall restore by sod or seed those areas disturbed as a result of the
trailway installation.
16. The vacant lot between the Walgreens building and the Community Center shall be
seeded and maintained to prevent growth of weeds and tall grass.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER ESOLVED, that upon completion of the
above articulated items and acceptance of the Improvements, the City shall execute a Certificate
of Completion in a form substantially similar to the attached Exhibit A and approve the release of
the original $435,000 letter of credit.
Resolution 5600
August 13, 2001
Page 2
Adopted this 13th day of August, 2000.
______________________________________
Mayor Rich Sonterre
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Kathleen Miller, City Clerk/Administrator
(SEAL)
Motion: ________
Second: ________
Sonterre
Stigney:
Quick:
Marty:
Thomas:
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVELOPMENT CASES\PD00-001 (WALGREENS PUD)\RES 5600 -- ACCEPT PHASE I IMPROVEMENTS.DOC
EXHIBIT A
PHASE I CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION
AND RELEASE OF FORFEITURE
WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View (the “Grantor”), by a deed recorded in the office of
the County Recorder in Ramsey County, Minnesota, as Document No. __________, has conveyed to
Meridian Properties Real Estate Development, LLC, d/b/a TOLD Development Company, a
Minnesota limited liability company (the “Grantee”), the land in County of Ramsey and State of
Minnesota legally described as Lot 3, Block 2, Mounds View City Hall Addition, according to the
plat filed for record with the Ramsey County Recorder; and,
WHEREAS, said deed was executed pursuant to that certain Contract for Private
Development by and between the Grantor and the Grantee dated the 29th day of November, 2000,
and recorded in the office of the County Recorder in Ramsey County, Minnesota, as Document No.
__________, which Contract for Private Development contained certain covenants and restrictions
regarding completion of the Improvements; and,
WHEREAS, said Grantee has performed said covenants and conditions in a manner deemed
sufficient by the Grantor to permit the execution and recording of this certification.
NOW, THEREFORE, this is to certify that all construction of the Phase I Improvements
specified to be done and made by the Grantee has been completed and the covenants and conditions
in the Contract for Private Development have been performed by the Grantee therein and that the
provisions for forfeiture of title and right to re-entry for breach of condition subsequent by Grantor is
hereby released absolutely and forever, and the County Recorder in Ramsey County, Minnesota, is
hereby authorized to accept for recording and to record the filing of this instrument, to be a
conclusive determination of the satisfactory termination of the covenants and conditions relating to
completion of the Phase I Improvements associated with the above legally-described property.
DATED: ________________, 2001
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
By
Rich Sonterre, Mayor
And
Kathleen Miller, City Clerk/Administrator
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______________ day of
______________________, 2001 by Rich Sonterre and Kathleen Miller, the Mayor and Clerk-
Administrator, respectively, of the City of Mounds View, under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Notary Public
This instrument was drafted by:
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Item No. 6F
Staff Report No.
Meeting Date: August 13, 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 and City Council
From: Tracy Juell, Administrative Assistant for the Public Works Dept
Item Title/Subject: Consider Approving and Awarding Bid for the
2001-8 Seal Coat Project
Date of Report: August 29, 2018
On August 9, 2001, bids were opened regarding the 2001-8 Seal Coat project. Three bids were
received and the amounts are as follows:
Astech Corp $87,202.65
Allied Blacktop Co. $83,882.20
Pearson Bros. Inc. $74,501.50
Pearson Bros. Inc. meets the specifications and Staff is recommending acceptance of their bid at
$74,501.50. Staff is also recommending that the Public Works Foreman, Tim Pittman, be
authorized to sign all change orders up to fifteen per cent (15%) of the total bid.
_________________________________
Tracy Juell, Public Works Administrative Assistant
RECOMMENDATION: Approve and award the 2001-8 Seal Coating Project to Pearson Bros.
Inc. in the amount of $74,501.50 and to authorize the Public Works Foreman, Tim Pittman, to
sign all change orders up to fifteen per cent (15%) of the total bid. This project will be funded
from the Pavement Management Program, account number 100-4470-705.
Item No. 6G
Staff Report No.
Meeting Date: August 13, 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 and City Council
From: Tracy Juell, Administrative Assistant for the Public Works Dept
Item Title/Subject: Mounds View Drive, Pavement Deterioration
Date of Report: August 29, 2018
On July 16, 2001, a staff report was presented reflecting estimated costs regarding the mill and
overlay project of Mounds View Drive; at this time, Resolution 5595 was approved to set a
Public Hearing date of August 27, 2001.
Staff proceeded with the necessary steps stated in Chapter 202 regarding assessment procedures.
It was discovered that due to the 60 day waiting period, see Improvement Petition Procedures,
202.07 Subd. 4 (a) and (b), the date that the project would commence would approximately be on
October 27, 2001. Due to the lateness of the season and possible weather
conditions/temperatures, Ramsey County Public Works would not be able to perform this
project.
It is staffs’ recommendation to cancel the Public Hearing set for August 27, 2001 and revisit this
proposed project in 2002. For this interim period, the Public Works Department will temporarily
repair the road to make it drivable until a permanent repair can be made.
_________________________________
Tracy Juell, Public Works Administrative Assistant
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends canceling the Public Hearing set for August 27,
2001 regarding the proposed Mill and Overlay Project for Mounds View Drive and revisit this
proposed project in 2002.
RESOLUTION NO. 5601
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPOINTING TIM BRENNAN AS INTERIM CHIEF OF POLICE
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council accepted Bill Clark’s letter of
resignation at its July 23rd City Council meeting; and
WHEREAS, the City Council directed staff to prepare a resolution appointing an
interim Chief of Police; and
WHEREAS, the City Administrator is recommending that the City Council appoint
Deputy Chief Tim Brennan to serve as the interim Chief of Police, effective August 21,
2001 until the City Council fills the vacancy; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mounds View City Council
does hereby appoint Tim Brennan to serve as the Interim Chief of Police, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT for this interim period Tim Brennan will be
compensated at his normal rate of pay plus an additional 15% per Resolution 5427.
Adopted this 13th day of August, 2001.
ATTEST
________________________________
Richard Sonterre, Mayor
________________________________
Kathleen F. Miller, City Administrator
(SEAL)
Motion:
Second:
Sonterre:
Stigney:
Quick:
Marty:
Thomas:
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Special Meeting
June 4, 2001
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
5:10 P.M.
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Sonterre, Quick, Marty, Stigney, and Thomas.
City Attorney Riggs explained that the City needed some additional time to collect
documentation.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Continue the Meeting to June 6, 2001, at 7:00 p.m.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Marty) Motion carried
3. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Sonterre adjourned the meeting at 5:30 p.m.
Transcribed and recorded by:
Joan Lenzmeier
Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Special Meeting
June 6, 2001
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
7:10 P.M.
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Sonterre, Quick, Marty, Stigney, and Thomas.
Mayor Sonterre noted that this meeting was continued from Monday night.
Council Member Marty inquired as to whether this was an official meeting of the Mounds View
City Council continued from Monday, June 4, 2001.
City Attorney Riggs indicated that Council Member Marty was correct.
Council Member Marty inquired as to why there was no recording secretary, court reporter,
stenographer or video recording of the meeting on June 4, 2001, by which to produce minutes as
required by City Code.
City Attorney Riggs indicated that the only information legally required for the minutes is the
information indicating that Council recessed until today’s meeting. He then noted that the City
Administrator will produce minutes from the meeting held on June 4, 2001 for approval at the
next Council Meeting.
Council Member Marty noted that he feels the City is in violation of its own code Section 105.4,
Subd. 7(b) governing the information to be contained in the minutes of Council Meetings. He
then asked for a full explanation as to why the meeting was not properly recorded.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty. To Turn all of the Information Concerning the Issues That Are
Facing Council At This Meeting Over to an Independent Third Party For a Full and Complete
Investigation.
The Motion died for lack of a second.
City Attorney Riggs reiterated that the City is not required to record meetings and noted that the
City Clerk Administrator would provide minutes for approval at the next Council Meeting.
Mounds View City Council June 6, 2001
Special Meeting Page 2
Council Member Marty noted that, by making wrong judgments or premature decisions, the City
may, in fact, cost the taxpayers tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. He then noted, as
presented in the media, that the defendants have asked for an independent investigation rather
than resorting to handling the matter in the court system.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A. Wednesday, June 6, 2001 City Council Agenda.
City Attorney Riggs requested that Council Business Item 6C be moved to Item 6A and that
Items 6A and B be renumbered to 6B and 6C.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Move Council Business Item 6C to Item 6A and
Renumber the other Items to 6B and 6C.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney. To Approve the June 6, 2001, City Council Agenda as
amended.
Ayes - 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
5. CONSENT AGENDA
None.
6. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. Closed Session to discuss pending litigation.
City Attorney Riggs indicated that the closed session would be to discuss information received
from legal counsel for the two individuals involved in the matters before Council this evening.
The City Council recessed to the closed session at 7:16 p.m.
The City Council reconvened at 7:55 p.m.
Mayor Sonterre indicated a request had been received for a recess to review protected personnel
information of a non-public nature and noted that Council would declare a recess not to exceed
the time of 8:15 p.m.
Mounds View City Council June 6, 2001
Special Meeting Page 3
City Attorney Riggs indicated there had been a request from a couple of the Council Members to
be allowed to review documentation that is non-public personnel data.
The City Council recessed at 7:58 p.m.
The City Council reconvened at 8:17 p.m.
B. Personnel Issues. Preliminary Consideration of Allegations or Charges
against an Individual Subject to City Authority.
City Attorney Riggs noted that per Minnesota Statute Section 13D.05, Subd. 3(b) Council was
required to close the session to evaluate and impose discipline. He noted he had received a
request from legal counsel for the individual against whom the charges are alleged that requested
the issue be handled in an open session rather than a closed session. He then asked Bruce Kessel
if he still wished the matter to be handled in an open session.
Mr. Kessel indicated that he did wish the matter to be heard in an open session.
City Attorney Riggs reviewed the procedure that would be followed indicating that the
allegations were distributed to Mr. Kessel on May 31, 2001 in a letter dated May 30, 2001. He
then indicated that the City Administrator would provide a summary recommendation to Council
based on the allegations.
City Attorney Riggs noted that Mr. Kessel would be given an opportunity to respond to the
allegations contained in the May 30, 2001 letter and the summary recommendation of the City
Administrator. City Attorney Riggs indicated that the due process right of Mr. Kessel was to
respond to the allegations contained in the May 30, 2001 letter and the summary
recommendation of the City Administrator and explained that anything else should not be
discussed.
City Attorney Riggs indicated he had received notice from legal counsel for Mr. Kessel
indicating Mr. Kessel would not be responding but noted that Council needed to offer the right to
respond to Mr. Kessel.
City Administrator Miller read a summary recommendation that recommended termination of the
employment of Bruce Kessel effective June 7, 2001.
City Attorney Riggs asked whether Mr. Kessel wished to respond to the allegations contained in
the May 30, 2001 letter or the summary recommendation of City Administrator Miller.
Mr. Kessel indicated that he did wish to respond and then began to read a letter from his legal
counsel that had been previously sent to City Attorney Riggs.
City Attorney Riggs interrupted Mr. Kessel and indicated he would not recommend reading the
letter as there were items contained in the letter that could be considered privileged and subject to
Mounds View City Council June 6, 2001
Special Meeting Page 4
litigation. He then asked Council if they wished to accept the letter into evidence and advised
Council that the letter has threatened litigation against the City and advised Council not to make
any comments concerning the letter.
City Attorney Riggs noted that Mr. Kessel could read the letter if he wished but noted the second
to the last paragraph of the letter was inflammatory and asked that it not be read. He then noted
that he had sent a letter to Mr. Kessel’s legal counsel to refute the information contained in the
letter and had not received a response back from her.
Mr. Kessel finished reading the letter. Mr. Kessel then noted that the letter had stated that the
meeting should be open, taped and televised and asked whether the investigation conducted by
the City was completed.
City Administrator Miller indicated there was a review of Mr. Kessel’s performance and that was
completed.
Mr. Kessel asked when the review was conducted.
City Administrator Miller indicated that a review is an ongoing process and noted that she and
Mr. Kessel had discussed his performance numerous times. She then noted that the supporting
documentation had been put together after the review.
Mr. Kessel asked for a copy of his review.
City Administrator Miller explained that the review was his letter of suspension.
Mr. Kessel asked who the witnesses to the investigation were.
City Administrator Miller indicated there was no investigation or witnesses as it was a personnel
review.
Mr. Kessel asked if City Administrator Miller had questioned him, the auditor or his Staff
concerning the matter.
City Administrator Miller indicated she had discussed the matter with the auditor.
Mr. Kessel asked when the discussion with the auditor took place.
City Attorney Riggs indicated the official record remains with the City Clerk Administrator and
noted Council had a summary of the charges. He then noted that he had not received a response
from Mr. Kessel’s legal counsel to his letter sent in response to the letter Mr. Kessel read a loud
to Council.
Mr. Kessel asked when the response was sent to his legal counsel.
Mounds View City Council June 6, 2001
Special Meeting Page 5
City Attorney Riggs indicated that Mr. Kessel had been notified of the allegations with a letter
dated May 30, 2001 received on May 31, 2001 and noted that there had been no change at all in
those allegations. He then noted that the only information that had been obtained is supporting
documentation for those allegations.
Mr. Kessel asked for a copy of the summary recommendation.
City Attorney Riggs indicated Mr. Kessel was entitled to a copy but noted that he could not give
him a copy as Mr. Kessel is represented by legal counsel. He then noted that City Administrator
Miller could provide a copy to him. He further noted that in his correspondence to Mr. Kessel’s
legal counsel he had offered to provide a copy of the summary recommendation.
Mr. Kessel asked if there were supporting documents.
City Attorney Riggs indicated there were supporting documents.
Mr. Kessel asked when those documents were provided to Council.
City Administrator Riggs indicated the documents were provided to Council just before the
meeting started, approximately between 6:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Kessel stated he would support and cooperate with a third-party investigation and then said
he feels he would be exonerated by the investigation.
City Attorney Riggs noted that he had responded to counsel for the defendants and noted that his
response was sent between 4:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. He noted his response does contradict the
positions raised by Mr. Kessel’s legal counsel in the letter and does directly site language from
the May 30, 2001 letter which is in error in the letter from Mr. Kessel’s counsel but correct in his
letter to her.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 2001-
5700, a Resolution Terminating the Employment of Bruce Kessel as Finance Director for the
City of Mounds View Effective June 7, 2001.
City Attorney Riggs noted the Resolution would require a revision as the Resolution was drafted
based on the statement from Mr. Kessel’s legal counsel that he would not be responding to the
allegations or the summary recommendation.
Mr. Kessel asked if he could make a comment.
City Attorney Riggs indicated that Mr. Kessel’s due process right was closed but allowed him to
make his comment.
Mounds View City Council June 6, 2001
Special Meeting Page 6
Mr. Kessel stated that, if his attorney were present at the meeting, there would be a more
complete response and then stated that he was advised by City Attorney Riggs that no action
would be taken at this meeting.
City Attorney Riggs indicated that he had never indicated to Mr. Kessel that no action would be
taken at this meeting as that is not something he could advise.
Mr. Kessel indicated he was not sure if his legal counsel responded or would have had time to
respond to the letter sent by City Attorney Riggs between 4:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. and indicated
that it would be nice to keep the matter out of the court system.
Council Member Thomas suggested a friendly amendment to the motion to omit the word “not”
on Page 2, Line 1
Council Member Quick accepted the friendly amendment and Council Member Thomas
seconded the motion.
City Attorney Riggs indicated there must be unanimous consent of Council to waive the reading
or it must be read.
Mayor Sonterre asked if there was consent to waive the reading.
Council asked that City Administrator Miller read Resolution 2001-5700.
City Administrator Miller read Resolution 2001-5700 for the record.
Council Member Marty stated that he felt there should be an independent investigation into the
matter.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1(Marty). Motion carried.
Mayor Sonterre noted there had been a request for a recess to discuss Item 6C and noted the
recess would be limited to 9:05 p.m.
The City Council recessed at 8:45 p.m.
The City Council reconvened at 9:13 p.m.
C. Personnel Issues. Preliminary Consideration of Allegations or Charges
against an Individual Subject to City Authority.
City Attorney Riggs noted that per Minnesota Statute Section 13D.05, Subd. 3(b) Council was
required to close the session to evaluate and impose discipline. He noted he had received a
request from legal counsel for the individual against whom the charges are alleged that requested
Mounds View City Council June 6, 2001
Special Meeting Page 7
the issue be handled in an open session rather than a closed session. He then asked Mr.
Hammerschmidt if he still wished the matter to be handled in an open session.
Mr. Hammerschmidt indicated he wished the matter to be handled in an open session.
City Attorney Riggs indicated that the process would be the same for Mr. Hammerschmidt and
indicated that he had received a letter from Mr. Hammerschmidt’s legal counsel indicating that
Mr. Hammerschmidt would not be responding to the allegations against him.
City Attorney Riggs indicated that Mr. Hammerschmidt would be provided with an opportunity
to respond to the allegations contained in the May 30, 2001 letter received by Mr.
Hammerschmidt on May 31, 2001 and to the summary recommendation of the City
Administrator.
City Administrator Miller read a summary recommendation that recommended termination of the
employment agreement and termination of Mr. Hammerschmidt’s employment with the City
effective thirty (30) days after notice is provided to Mr. Hammerschmidt.
City Attorney Riggs indicated that Council needed to offer Mr. Hammerschmidt his due process
right to a direct response to the allegations contained in the May 30, 2001 letter and the summary
recommendation of City Administrator Miller.
Mr. Hammerschmidt indicated he would not read the letter from his legal counsel as Mr. Kessel
had previously done so.
City Attorney Riggs asked if Mr. Hammerschmidt would like the letter entered into record by
Council.
Mr. Hammerschmidt indicated that he would like the letter entered into record.
Mr. Hammerschmidt then noted he would read the paragraph not read by Mr. Kessel.
City Attorney Riggs indicated that, if Mr. Hammerschmidt read the paragraph of the letter, his
due process would end and he would not be allowed further comment.
Mr. Hammerschmidt then asked for a copy of the charges.
City Attorney Riggs noted that Mr. Hammerschmidt had received a copy of the charges and
noted, if Mr. Hammerschmidt wished to have a copy of the charges, a copy could be provided to
him but stated that Council would need to recess to make a copy for him.
Mr. Hammerschmidt indicated he had a copy but did not bring it with him and then withdrew his
request for a copy. He then asked City Administrator Miller to read the allegation in the
summary recommendation that indicated he had not taken care of the golf course.
Mounds View City Council June 6, 2001
Special Meeting Page 8
City Administrator Miller re-read the allegation Mr. Hammerschmidt had requested.
Mr. Hammerschmidt asked if there would be any facts presented with the charges.
City Attorney Riggs noted that Mr. Hammerschmidt had the right to respond to the allegations
only.
Mr. Hammerschmidt inquired as to whether an investigation was conducted.
City Attorney Riggs indicated that Mr. Hammerschmidt could address Council but noted that
Council did not need to answer questions.
Mr. Hammerschmidt indicated that Mr. Kessel had asked the same question and his question was
not answered completely. He then inquired as to whether the charges were presented to Council
at a 6:30 p.m. meeting.
City Attorney Riggs indicated there had been no Council meeting until this meeting which started
at 7:10 p.m.
Mr. Hammerschmidt indicated that he was under the impression that reams of material would be
given to him along with additional charges at this meeting and noted that his attorney did not
want to respond to the charges until all of the information had been received. He then noted he
was at the meeting Monday night to defend the charges and noted there were no additional
charges at this meeting.
Mr. Hammerschmidt indicated that he feels that it belies any common sense that the Council and
the City would not want to clean this mess up with a third-party investigation rather than
litigation. He then noted that both he and Mr. Kessel have asked for an independent
investigation and feel that it would save the taxpayers of the City money rather than paying
attorney’s fees.
Mr. Hammerschmidt thanked the people of Mounds View who have supported him and Mr.
Kessel and told the audience that he feels he has done “a hell of a job at the Bridges” and that
Mr. Kessel did “a hell of a job” as Finance Director. He then stated that he feels he and Mr.
Kessel are being railroaded out of the City.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 2001-
5701, a Resolution Terminating the Employment Contract and Employment of Mr.
Hammerschmidt Effective Thirty (30) Days from the Date of the Resolution.
Mayor Sonterre inquired if it was the consent of Council to waive the reading.
Council Member Marty indicated he would like the Resolution read.
Mounds View City Council June 6, 2001
Special Meeting Page 9
City Administrator Miller read Resolution 2001-5701 for the record.
Council Member Marty stated he is still curious as to why Mr. Hammerschmidt’s grievance to
the letter of reprimand was not answered. He then noted that he would like a third-party
investigation into the matter and stated he has questions concerning some of the allegations and
would like to receive verification of the allegations.
Council Member Stigney commented that he thought the recess was given to allow Council to
review documents supporting the allegations.
Council Member Marty indicated he had asked for verification and received verbal verification
but stated he would like to see actual numbers or spreadsheets. He then noted he also had other
requests for verification he would like to receive.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1(Marty) Motion carried.
7. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
None.
8. REPORTS
None.
9. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None.
10. Next Council Work Session: Monday, July 2, 2001
Next Council Meeting: Monday, June 11, 2001
11. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Sonterre adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m.
Transcribed and recorded by:
Joan Lenzmeier
Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
June 11, 2001
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
7:00 P.M.
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Sonterre, Quick, Marty, Stigney, and Thomas.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A. Monday, June 11, 2001 City Council Agenda.
Council Member Thomas indicated that Item 5B was not unfinished business and asked that it be
moved to Council Business Item 7A.
Mayor Sonterre indicated that Community Development Director Ericson had asked that a
Resolution concerning Item 7A be added for consideration.
Mayor Sonterre noted that all necessary participants have given or intend to give approval for
participation in the Housing Resource Center program.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Thomas. To Approve the June 11, 2001, City Council Agenda as
amended.
Ayes - 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
4. PUBLIC INPUT
David Jahnke of 8428 Eastwood Road told Council he had reviewed work sessions from a few
years back and stated that Council Member Stigney had raised concerns for permitting incentives
to be paid on gross income instead of profit and that no one had listened to him.
Mr. Jahnke asked Council to read the article in the Star Tribune concerning TIF and the Target
project. He then stated that TIF was set up for blighted properties or properties in really bad
shape that no one would invest in. He further stated that TIF has been turned into corporate rape
of citizens and he then asked Council to be very careful with TIF in the City.
Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 2
Mr. Jahnke stated he appreciated the way City Administrator Miller has been handling the affairs
of the City and noted that he feels badly that she has been left to deal with the mess made by
former City employees.
Mike Szczepanski of 2385 Laporte Drive thanked the City Council and the City Administrator
for making the difficult decisions in the past week and for trying to make right with what has
happened. He then stated that there are people who will not stand up and voice their opinion to
Council but have stopped him and said they are happy with how the matter was handled.
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Consider Resolution 5567 Approving Plans and Specifications, Advertising
and Bid Date for Project 01-06, Edgewood Middle School Regional Pond.
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated that Resolution 5567 would approve plans
and specifications for the Mermaid/Edgewood Middle School regional pond. He noted the pond
would be located on property owned by the Metropolitan Council and deeded to the City as well
as property owned by Edgewood Middle School.
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated he had gathered the information Council
had requested and asked if Council had any questions. He also noted that Dan Hall from the
Mermaid was present to discuss additional financial participation by the developer. He further
noted that Mr. Hall had indicated that the finances for the project were spread thin and that it was
not necessarily possible to pick up any additional costs. Economic Development Coordinator
Parrish then reminded Council that the redevelopment grant was acquired in conjunction with the
developer.
Council Member Marty thanked Economic Development Coordinator Parrish for responding to
Council’s requests. He then told Mr. Jahnke he had seen the article and some other articles
concerning TIF and had been in touch with Economic Development Coordinator Parrish
concerning the matter.
Council Member Marty stated he is also very concerned about the possible changes in the state
legislature which may redirect TIF funds by changing some of the laws and the way businesses
are taxed. He then asked Economic Development Coordinator Parrish to address the issue and
suggested tabling this matter to the work session for further discussion and possible decision by
the state legislature.
Council Member Thomas indicated there is very little information as far as answers to what the
state legislature might do and noted that as soon as a decision is made she would provide the
information to Economic Development Coordinator Parrish.
Council Member Marty suggested that Economic Development Coordinator Parrish give a brief
explanation of the possible changes for those citizens who have not been following the action of
the legislature.
Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 3
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated that, while nothing is known at this point,
the state legislature is considering property tax reform that would affect TIF and the overall
financing structure of the City. He indicated that the two major considerations are the
compression of the commercial/industrial property tax rate yielding lower taxes and a takeover of
general education funding by the state. He then indicated that the school district is the largest
component of the property tax bill and taking that away takes away from TIF revenue.
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated the City is hitting its big years in terms of
TIF general obligation bonds. He noted that in 2001 TIF bonds are at $1.4 million and stay that
way out to 2003. He then noted that if, due to legislative changes, revenue does not cover the
obligations there are grants that can be applied for.
Council Member Thomas indicated she had read the article in the Star Tribune and was not
impressed by the author’s interpretation of the TIF situation. She then noted that while she
would not call the article flat out false there were scare tactics and the article was not really
gripping to the actual situation.
Council Member Marty stated that in an effort to look out for the City’s general obligations and
before pledging more or spending more he thinks the City should put a moratorium on TIF
expenditures and wait for a decision from the legislature. He then noted that if there was a
decision from the legislature by the time of the next work session the matter could be on the
work session agenda.
Council Member Thomas clarified that the agreement between the House and the Governor has a
grant pool to keep all cities at an even balance in all current TIF districts and the ones to be set up
would be funded through 2005 or 2007 meaning the City would not lose that as grant money.
She then noted that if the changes go through it will be much harder to set up a new TIF district.
She further commented that the Senate has not yet made a decision on the matter.
It was the consent of Council to wait until there is a decision from the Senate before further
expending TIF funds.
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated that any changes that are made by the
legislature will not have implications on the City’s overall structure as any revenue generated on
those parcels with go to repay the obligation as it is a pay as you go note. He then noted that, to
the extent bond obligations are not repaid, the existing pay as you go obligations have funds that
are pledged to repay the debt prior to any disbursements being made on the general obligation
debts. He further noted that pay as you go versus general obligation debt is fairly secure and the
City has no risk up front.
Council Member Stigney commented that he feels if tax compression is approved developers
may have a limit as to what can be done on projects and the amount of development that the
developers can afford.
Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 4
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated that while TIF funds are not generated the
developer would not pay as much property tax so the two should balance out.
Council Member Stigney indicated if they are paying less TIF then there would be fewer dollars
for the pay as you go plan and therefore, developers can do less.
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish explained that since the developer would not be
paying as much in the developer would have more money in pocket due to reduced taxes and that
money could be used for the project.
Dan Hall from the Mermaid commented that if taxes are compressed it means the legislature has
given him his own TIF. He then noted it may not be a perfect balance but stated reducing
property tax would mean he has more equity left in his company to pay down debt.
Council Member Stigney asked if Mr. Hall intended to scale his project back at all in light of
potential legislative changes.
Mr. Hall indicated he is not planning on scaling back the project.
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish noted that, as his staff report had indicated, he had
discussions with the Mermaid and was told that project finances are spread fairly thin with soil
corrections and other issues. He noted he did not speak with the other benefiting property
owners but did speak with Public Works Director Ulrich who indicated that the maximum
amount that could be assessed to each property owner is $3,600 which is tied to acreage. He then
noted that, based on that scenario, the most the City could generate with assessments would be
$11,000. He further noted, however, that the City would need to determine benefit and that in
determining benefit the costs could out weigh the potential gain.
Council Member Thomas indicated that the amount Council is being asked to approve has gone
up to $150,000 which is nearly three times the original amount. She then asked why the amount
has increased so much.
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated that the estimate initially received was an
engineer’s estimate and it was received a year and a half ago. He then noted that, in the interim,
several issues arose which added to the cost of the project. He then noted that the estimate is an
engineer’s estimate and that if sent out for bids the amount could be lower.
Council Member Thomas inquired as to why the project could not be scaled back to reduce costs.
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated he is not sure how much would be saved
by scaling back the size of the pond.
Council Member Thomas stated she felt there needed to be research done on the amount of
increase to explain how costs went up that much.
Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 5
Mayor Sonterre stated that he would like to see a breakdown of the costs associated and a better
explanation of why the amount increased so much.
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated that there were a couple of major issues
that came into play. He noted that one is that there are Type 2 wetlands in the area so the project
needed additional engineering work and construction around the wetland for buffering to keep
the wetland separated. He noted the second issue is traffic concerns. Originally the project
indicated the storm sewer would be located to the north side of County H and now it has been
switched for ease of getting the water into Rice Creek. Economic Development Coordinator
Parrish indicated that there were engineering fees and fees for acquiring the land and noted that
there had been many governmental agencies at work to approve the pond.
Council Member Marty thanked Economic Development Coordinator Parrish for his efforts to
answer the previous questions of Council and then apologized because more questions are being
raised. He then noted that he feels that more investigation in to the costs needs to be done in
order for Council to be comfortable explaining to residents the costs of the pond.
Mayor Sonterre indicated he would like to know if there is a minimum size of pond that would
handle the runoff for the proposed area.
Council Member Thomas commented that the amount has increased every time Council has
heard the matter and then stated she feels the need to re-evaluate and determine what is needed
and whether the City can afford it.
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish clarified that the price for the City’s share had not
gone up since the last meeting as it was estimated at $150,000 with all costs included.
Council Member Quick asked if the pond could be expanded.
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated that the pond would be located on
property that was owned by the Metropolitan Council and the School District. He also noted that
a trail system will need to be rerouted and that there was no extra room for an expanded pond.
Council Member Quick clarified that the City would be adding four (4) more acres of storage to
what is already there. He then noted that the only way knowing for certain what the cost of all
the services would be is to go out to bids.
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated that going out for bids on the project
would give market costs.
Council Member Quick stated the only way to know for sure is to approve the Resolution to go
out for bids and noted that if the City was not happy with the bid then it could deny the project.
Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 6
City Attorney Riggs indicated that it may be difficult to deny approval of a bid if it came in at the
estimated amount.
Council Member Thomas stated that if Council does not like the estimate the project itself is
shaky enough that it is not appropriate to put the matter out for bids. She then noted that there is
money involved in preparing estimates and stated the estimate has some value but said she feels
the need to look into it further and get a closer estimate before putting it out for bids.
Council Member Quick asked if there were other moneys available for building the pond and
suggested perhaps the Metropolitan Council could be asked to contribute.
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated that the pond would need to be bigger for
the Metropolitan Council to call it a regional pond.
Council Member Quick asked where the money to fund the City’s $150,000 portion would come
from.
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated the funds would come from the existing
TIF pool dollars as the pond is considered public infrastructure to support redevelopment.
Council Member Quick asked if there was money available for the pond.
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated there should be money in the pool for the
pond.
Council Member Stigney stated that he personally believes that private developers should share
in some of the costs and that is why he asked Staff to talk to the benefiting businesses. He then
stated that it is interesting to note that Rice Creek, who has the Type 2 wetlands has backed off
from contributing as they do not use their funds for private development.
Council Member Stigney noted that Mr. Hall had said he would have more money if the tax rate
were compressed but is not willing to contribute further toward the pond. He then stated he is
not prepared to commit the residents of Mounds View to picking up the remaining amounts with
TIF funds if the developer is unwilling to contribute.
Council Member Stigney asked if the excess funds in the TIF funds pool are the funds of
different tax districts or if they were pre-existing interest money.
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated that the interest earnings prior to July 1,
1997 were determined by the auditor not to be subject to the restrictions of TIF. He then noted,
however, that the expenditures for the Community Center were taken out of that account and it is
the auditor’s interpretation that all the pre-July 1, 1997 funds have been expended. He further
noted that the matter is being reviewed at this time.
Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 7
Council Member Stigney indicated he had not heard before that the pre-July 1, 1997 funds had
been expended.
Council Member Thomas stated she was not against the project but is against the fact that the
costs were raised by so much. She then indicated she would like to have the project re-evaluated
to determine if the project can be done less expensively as she feels $150,000 is too much to ask
the City to pay.
Council Member Marty asked how much of a delay the project could handle and still be
completed this construction year.
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated he would pose the questions to the
engineer and see what, if anything, can be done. He then indicated that the only way to cut
money on the project as far as he was concerned is to make the project smaller but noted the City
would need to reduce the benefiting area and indicated making the pond smaller may not save
much money at all.
Community Development Director Ericson indicated that reducing the size of the pond may
actually increase the costs because there would be a need to go back through the engineering
process and a need for new documents. He then indicated he would be willing to bet that making
the pond smaller would increase the costs because of the extra engineering fees involved.
Council Member Thomas indicated that her question is not how to make the pond smaller but
how to make the pond fit the budget and whether that is possible.
Community Development Director Ericson indicated he was not sure if it could fit the budget.
Council Member Quick questioned what the funds would be used for if not for the pond. He
then stated that he thought the idea behind having TIF monies was to reinvest in the community
to enhance the City and make things work better rather than amassing a large sum of money in
the TIF fund. He further stated that he feels the TIF funds should be used rather than be left to sit
in the account and the City risk losing the funds.
Council Member Marty asked if there were any other uses for the land designated for the pond.
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated the land needed to be used for a storm
water pond as the reason the Metropolitan Council deeded the land to the City was for a pond.
He also indicated the same was true for the School District. He further indicated that the clock
began running on the grant money in 1999 and the grant will expire on 12/31/01 which means the
funds need to be spent by then. He also noted that the City has made certain representations to
the School District that the construction of the pond would not have an impact on classes starting
this fall.
Council Member Marty indicated the $333,333 in grant monies needed to be spent or they would
be lost. He then indicated that if the City does not build the pond now it may be required to do so
Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 8
in the future and there may not be a grant available at that time which would mean the City’s
expense would be dramatically increased over the proposed $150,000.
Council Member Stigney asked what percentage of the City’s tax base was in TIF districts.
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated the latest estimate is at 20%. He noted
that when the districts were first certified the tax base was approximately $280,923 and now the
tax base is nearly $2.2 million which indicates to him that TIF has been successful.
Council Member Stigney noted that if the City has 20% of its tax base tied up in TIF all property
tax payers are contributing funds to that because that much is pulled off the tax roles and they are
in essence backing some of the TIF.
Council Member Stigney stated that the funds could be used for any TIF approved project and do
not need to be used for the proposed pond. He then stated that he questions whether the City
should bear the entire increase in costs as he feels the developer should contribute funds to help
offset the increase.
Council Member Quick indicated that Council Member Stigney is assuming that the
development would have happened without TIF funds. He then indicated that the area in
question was vacant land and the City could not get anyone to do anything with it. He further
indicated that none of that development would have happened without a TIF district.
Council Member Stigney indicated that the City still has that much of its tax base tied up in TIF
districts. He then indicated that if the City closed out some of those districts it would give some
direct benefit to the taxpayers.
Council Member Quick commented that if the TIF districts had not been so successful the 20%
would not be there meaning the City has done a good job with TIF.
Council Member Stigney indicated Council Member Quick was correct but stated he felt it was
time to look at the districts to see if any could be closed out.
Council Member Quick indicated the City had made deals and needed to let the districts run out.
Council Member Stigney stated he felt the private developer should share in the increased costs
for the pond project.
Council Member Thomas noted that all of the information being discussed was speculative and
indicated she would be more comfortable if the project were re-evaluated to determine if the
project could be built for less.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Table Resolution 5567 and Direct Staff to
Investigate Whether the Project Could be Changed to Keep on Budget.
Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 9
Ayes – 2 Nays – 3 (Sonterre, Marty, Quick). Motion failed.
Council Member Marty indicated he was not in total disagreement with the other Council
Members but stated he would like some specifics as far as a time table for the tabling. He then
indicated the Halls had been working on this matter long before he got on the Council and have
jumped through a lot of hoops trying to comply with the wishes of the City.
Council Member Marty asked if Staff would have time to gather information for the next Council
Meeting.
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish explained that the engineers were at the last meeting
and he would have thought that if there were items that could be cut they would have said so. He
then indicated it may be possible to obtain information prior to the next Council Meeting.
Council Member Quick asked City Attorney Riggs if Council were to pass the Resolution and the
bids came in the same as the estimate if Council could reject the bids.
City Attorney Riggs indicated he would need to research the matter.
City Administrator Miller indicated that, if the bids came in at the estimated amount or less, it
would be difficult for Council to reject the bids.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Marty. To Table Resolution 5567 Until the First Opportunity
Staff Has to Obtain Information from the Engineers Concerning the Project.
Ayes 3 Nays – 2(Sonterre/Quick) Motion carried.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approve Just and Correct Claims
B. Licenses for Approval
C. Set a Public Hearing for 7:15 p.m., Monday, June 25, 2001, to Review the
Proposed Comprehensive Plan
D. Set a Public Hearing for 7:20 p.m., Monday, June 25, 2001, to Consider the
Rezoning Request of Earnest Gustafson, 2525 County Road I, to R-2, Single and
Two Family Residential
E. Set a Public Hearing for 7:25 p.m., Monday, June 25, 2001, to Consider the
Rezoning Request of the Mounds View Animal Hospital to Rezone the Property
Located at 2625 County Highway 10 from R-3, Medium Density Residential, to
B-2, Limited
F. Approve Just and Correct Claims
Council Member Stigney requested that Item A be removed for discussion.
Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 10
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Approve Consent Agenda Items B through F as
Presented.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Council Member Stigney indicated there were four items he had questions on. He then indicated
the first was the corporate presentations for $8,337.52. The second is PGA of America for
$306.00. The third is Springsted Incorporated for $13,309. He noted he did not think the City
was done with the Springsted review and noted he is concerned with paying them at this time.
The fourth item is Verizon Wireless for the golf course in the amount of $192.97. He noted he
was concerned for the time period the bill covers and asked City Administrator Miller to
determine whether it was for a one month period.
City Administrator Miller indicated that she had spoken to Council Member Stigney late in the
day and was able to answer a couple of his questions but did not have information on the four
items mentioned. She then noted that she would check into the matters and provide information
to Council.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Approve Consent Agenda Item A Without Check
Numbers 105794, 105828, 105837, and 105844.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. Presentation by Marie Malrick, Program Coordinator for the Housing
Resource Center.
Community Development Director Ericson introduced representatives from the Housing
Resource Center whom were in attendance to answer questions concerning the City’s
participation with the Housing Resource Center.
Carolyn Olson gave a brief overview of the Housing Resource Center and its program and then
had Ms. Malrick, the Program Coordinator hand out reports and brochures for Council to review.
Council Member Thomas indicated she felt the plan was great.
Council Member Quick questioned why some rebates are approximately 10% and others were
not.
Ms. Olson indicated that the rebate was based on a sliding scale which is based on income.
Council Member Thomas asked what the typical turnaround was on a project and for having the
Construction Manger come out.
Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 11
Ms. Olson indicated that the Construction Manager typically needs at least a one-day notice and
noted he sets his own appointments. She further noted he usually will return calls within 24
hours.
Council Member Stigney questioned how the interest rate was determined.
Ms. Olson indicated that the program they manage in Roseville created a four percent (4%)
revolving loan fund.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5571, a
Resolution Authorizing Participation in the I-35 W Corridor Housing Resource Center Program.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
B. Public Hearing to Consider an Intoxicating Liquor License and Sunday Sales
License for Topa Corporation at 2400 Highway 10 (the Donatelle’s site).
City Administrator Miller indicated that some of the required documentation had not been
received and then asked that Council open the public hearing and continue it to the next Council
Meeting.
Mayor Sonterre opened the public hearing at 8:33 p.m.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Continue the Public Hearing to June 25, 2001.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
C. Consideration of Authorization to Solicit for Bids for an Internal Audit.
City Administrator Miller indicated this item was on the agenda as a result of the terminations
last week. She then asked for Council approval to seek bids for an internal audit on various City
funds.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Authorize Staff to Solicit Bids for an Internal Audit.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
D. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 682, an Ordinance Adding
Chapter 204 to the Mounds View Municipal Code, Entitled “Local Lodging
Tax.”
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish noted this was the second reading of Ordinance
682, an Ordinance Adding Chapter 204 to the Mounds View Municipal Code. He then indicated
that the City had been approached by the new owners of the Days Inn and asked to establish a
Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 12
three (3%) local lodging tax to allow for participation in the Minneapolis North Convention and
Visitors Bureau.
Council Member Stigney asked if three percent (3%) was the maximum allowed by state.
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated that three percent (3%) was the maximum
allowed by state.
Council Member Stigney asked what the actual projected revenue would be from the rooms that
will be available at the Mermaid and Days Inn.
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated he did not have good figures but
speculated approximately $30,000 for every $1 million in revenue.
Council Member Stigney asked how much grant money would be put into the project.
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated that no grant money would be used but
noted that the Ordinance would establish a tax to be levied by the City.
Council Member Stigney indicated he would prefer to know actual dollar amounts rather than
percentages.
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated that the Ordinance would establish the
three percent (3%) tax and noted the other issues would be resolved with the use agreement.
Council Member Stigney inquired as to how much the business contributes.
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated the business does not contribute anything
but acts as a conduit for paying the tax. He then noted that a lodging tax is fairly common.
Council Member Stigney asked if the City could implement its own local lodging tax and put the
funds in the general fund.
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated that the law says that 95% of the funds
need to be used for Convention and Visitor’s Bureau or local marketing efforts. He then noted
that Staff could do it in house but noted the advantage of joining the Convention and Visitor’s
Bureau would be their expertise in marketing the area to tourists.
Council Member Marty indicated that the lodging tax would not generate much revenue for the
City but indicated it would be a good tool for marketing the City to tourists which, in turn,
benefits the community.
Council Member Thomas indicated that the pool dollars are based on revenue and noted that if
people are not using the lodging then the City is not paying anything.
Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 13
Mayor Sonterre clarified that every other suburb that borders Mounds View is participating in the
Convention and Visitor’s Bureau with the exception of New Brighton who does not have a hotel
to market.
Council Member Stigney indicated that the agreement had indicated that the City would receive
$2000 per year towards a festival to assist with marketing and it noted that the funds should be
used in a forum to attract out of town visitors. He then asked if the City could use the funds for
the Festival in the Park.
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated the intent is to tie into a local festival to
be decided by Council. He then noted that he had assumed it would be used for the Festival in
the Park.
Council Member Marty made a point of order that the agreement was Item 7G and asked if the
questions could focus on the Ordinance.
Council Member Stigney indicated he thought the Festival in the Park was for residents not for
the purpose of attracting out of town visitors.
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated there were some typographical changes
made to the Ordinance to clean it up.
City Attorney Riggs reviewed the changes that were made to the language of the Ordinance. He
then indicated that the changes were typographical in nature and did not change the intent of the
Ordinance.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Marty. To Waive the Reading, Approve the Second Reading and
Adopt Ordinance 682, an Ordinance Adding Chapter 204 to the Mounds View Municipal Code,
Entitled “Local Lodging Tax.”
ROLL CALL: Thomas, Quick, Stigney, Marty, Sonterre.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
E. Consider Renewal of Insurance Policies for the Period from July 1, 2001 to
June 30, 2002.
Chuck Clysdale from the Maquire Agency made the annual presentation for renewal of insurance
policies to Council.
Council Member Thomas asked what the percentage of increase the $4,000.00 amounted to.
Mr. Clysdale indicated he did no have a percentage calculation with him.
Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 14
Council Member Stigney noted that Mr. Clysdale had complimented the City on losses of only
$5,000 and then asked if the City had a $10,000 deductible per event.
Mr. Clysdale indicated that all of the policies with the exception of workers compensation have a
$10,000 deductible. He indicated that City Administrator Miller had asked him to run an
analysis for premium savings in relation to the amount the City is asked to pay back in
deductibles. He then indicated he would compile the information and get it to City Administrator
Miller by the end of the week. He further indicated that there may be instances where the City
pays directly rather than involving insurance but noted he would not have information on those
matters.
Council Member Stigney stated there seems to be a substantial amount of money going out for
claims before going to insurance. He then asked if it would make sense to have a $5,000
deductible.
City Administrator Miller indicated she had talked with Mr. Clysdale after being drawn into the
insurance issue and had asked for an analysis.
Mr. Clysdale indicated the underwriter could provide an estimate for the difference between a
$5,000 and $10,000 deductible.
Mayor Sonterre asked for Staff’s recommendation on the matter.
City Administrator Miller indicated there is a piece of information missing and recommended
tabling the matter until the June 25, 2001 Council Meeting.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Table this Matter Until the June 25, 2001 City Council
Meeting.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
F. Consider Authorizing the Substitution of $110,000 Oskaloosa, Iowa G.O.
Bond for $110,000 Lake Geneva, Wisconsin G.O. Municipal Bonds as
Requested by Western Bank as a Result of the Oskaloosa, Iowa G.O. Bond
Being Called.
City Administrator Miller indicated this matter had been brought to her attention late last week
and stated that Assistant to the Administrator Reed had been told by Western Bank that it is
merely a housekeeping matter.
City Administrator Miller indicated that Council Member Stigney had contacted her with
questions so she had contacted Western Bank for clarification as there is no documentation
available for this matter. She then noted that Western Bank had indicated that it was a
housekeeping issue.
Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 15
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Authorize the Substitution of the Lake Geneva,
Wisconsin G.O. Municipal Bond for the Oskaloosa, Iowa G.O. Bond.
Council Member Stigney noted the agenda and the letter from Western Bank were not consistent
and asked which bond was being substituted.
City Administrator Miller indicated that the correct substitution was listed in the letter from
Western Bank.
Council Member Stigney stated he felt the City could go to any bank and get $100,000 FDIC
insurance.
City Attorney Riggs indicated he did not have much information on the matter but stated he
would look into it.
Council Member Stigney inquired as to whether this was the maximum interest rate and what the
term was.
City Administrator Miller indicated she was not sure of the interest rate or term. She then noted
that the matter needed to be acknowledged as it had already occurred on June 1, 2001.
Council Member Stigney asked whether Western Bank had the authorization to invest City funds
to another place.
City Administrator Miller indicated that the bank does have the authorization to invest City funds
to another place.
Council Member Stigney indicated the City might want to consider using any bank for FDIC
insured deposits.
City Administrator Miller noted that this matter is beyond the $100,000 FDIC limit.
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated that, at any given time, the City has
significant money invested and noted the City could use different banks but stated from a
management standpoint working with so many different accounts would be difficult.
Council Member Stigney indicated this ties up the money until 2005 and questioned whether the
City would have other options.
City Administrator Miller indicated she did not have all of the answers but noted she would look
into it and provide information at the next Council Meeting.
Council Member Marty asked if waiting would put the funds in jeopardy.
City Administrator Miller noted it was past the deadline and so should not make a difference.
Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 16
Council Member Stigney indicated he had no problem proceeding but stated that in the future he
would like to look at other avenues.
Council Member Marty stated he believes the matter comes up once per year and Council makes
a decision as to what bank is the official bank of the City and then noted that Western Bank has
done a good job for a number of years for the City. He further stated he would rely on the Bank’s
judgment and could find no argument with that judgment.
Council Member Stigney stated it was not Western Bank’s judgment to tie up City money.
Council Member Thomas indicated Council was discussing two separate issues. She then noted
the bond had been called and needed to be dealt with. She further noted that what do with City
money is a separate discussion from this issue.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
G. Consider Resolution 5569 Authorizing the Execution of an Agreement
Between the City of Mounds View and the Minneapolis Metro North
Convention and Visitors Bureau.
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated this agreement would govern the terms
and conditions between the City and the Convention and Visitors Bureau. He then indicated that
there were a few changes made to the agreement and listed them for Council. The first is the term
will be August 1, 2001 not December 31, 2001 and the second is an added phrase that reads:
“nothing in this paragraph shall be deemed to be a waiver by the City of any limitations on or
immunities from liability set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466, or otherwise.”
Council Member Marty noted the City would receive a $4,000 contribution.
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated the City would receive $2,000 for the
Chamber of Commerce and $2,000 for a City festival.
City Attorney Riggs noted that the agreement may be terminated by providing notice and shall be
effective December 31 of the calendar year following that notice.
John Connelly noted that the City can terminate the agreement after one year if they are no
satisfied with the relationship. He then noted that the reason termination becomes effective on
December 31 of the following calendar year after the initial trial year is due to the fact that the
Convention and Visitors Bureau makes a significant investment in printed materials that will be
out in the market long beyond termination of the agreement.
Council Member Stigney noted that if the City wished to terminate the agreement on January 1,
2002 it would not be effective until December 31, 2003. He then questioned how that would
benefit the City.
Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 17
John Connelly noted that Council is given the opportunity every September when budgets are
prepared to review the plan and determine whether the City likes where things are going. He
then noted that the process protects the City by allowing them input into the marketing plan.
Council Member Stigney questioned whether the City had adequate protection.
City Attorney Riggs indicated that if Council was not comfortable with the time frame it was a
policy decision to be made.
Mayor Sonterre noted that because the Convention and Visitors Bureau would be presenting
information in September of the previous year Council will be able to determine if it likes the
direction they are taking.
Council Member Thomas clarified that the City has the right to terminate after the first year and
stated that the second time frame is an 18-month period.
Council Member Stigney asked if the Convention and Visitors Bureau was using grant money for
printing of publications.
John Connelly indicated they do not use grant money as grant money is usually for out of state
marketing.
Council Member Stigney asked if the City’s hotels would be going into the Explore Minnesota
Guide.
John Connelly indicated that the Explore Minnesota Guide is distributed nationally but noted that
the Convention and Visitors Bureau did have the ability to be consistent with exposure through
the website and with other printed material.
Council Member Marty asked when the $4,000 would be first realized by the City.
John Connelly indicated it is the practice to allocate the funds in the calendar year following the
execution of the agreement.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Quick. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5569, a
Resolution Authorizing the Execution of an Agreement Between the City of Mounds View and
the Minneapolis North Convention and Visitors Bureau.
Council Member Stigney asked whether the brochures would have the Explore Minnesota logo
on the cover.
John Connelly indicated that Council would see the logo in printed adds and noted that if there is
a match of dollars they would be able to use it.
Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 18
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
8. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
None.
9. REPORTS
Council Member Thomas noted she would provide an update from the legislature as soon as the
information is available.
Council Member Stigney noted that the City’s Charter specifically states that directors should be
brought before Council on a quarterly basis. He then noted, in light of recent events, that he is
asking that Council begin requiring this in an attempt to avoid problems in the future.
Council Member Marty noted he was in agreement and felt that all department heads should
come before Council on a quarterly basis.
Mayor Sonterre stated he would like the Charter Commission to discuss the intent of how the
matter was originally intended in the Charter. For example, is one time per quarter required for
an update of the department, or does making a presentation once each quarter on any agenda item
fulfill the requirement.
Council Member Stigney stated he felt the Charter clearly states Council should get a quarterly
report. He then noted he would check with the Charter Commission and report back to Council.
Council Member Thomas noted that Council had agreed to an internal audit which should get the
City back on track. She then noted that now is the time to decide whether or not quarterly
updates from the department directors should be required.
Council Member Quick noted that the City is facing almost probable litigation in the future and it
seems the public is bombarded with numerous written accounts and stories and there seems to be
a rather large amount of inaccurate information circulating. He then noted he would like to
suggest that the City start doing press releases. He noted that in doing so, he would ask that the
Administrator and the Mayor draft those press releases with approval of the City Attorney. He
further noted he would like any Council Members’ contacts with the press to be run through the
City Administrator’s office in order to protect the City’s position on the matter.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Direct the City Administrator and the Mayor to Begin
Issuing Press Releases with the Authorization from the City Attorney Concerning any Litigation
Issues and to Direct that Council Members’ Contacts with the Press be run Through the City
Administrator’s Office in an Attempt to Protect the City’s Position.
City Attorney Riggs noted that Council Member Quick’s comments were appropriate and noted
the Council should speak with one voice especially in light of recent events. He then indicated it
Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 19
is not a situation where Council Members are precluded from making comments but stated the
City should follow the Charter which states that the Mayor, who can direct the City
Administrator to assist him, should be making the official comment.
Council Member Stigney questioned whether the motion would cover all communications or just
press releases of a written nature.
Council Member Quick noted that one other time Council instituted a gag order on itself when
there was a very large lawsuit pending which controlled the flow of communication from
Council. He then noted that, if a Council Member were to misstate something, it could be used
against the City.
Council Member Thomas noted she assumed the motion to govern all issues regarding pending
litigation and not necessarily other communications. She then noted it would be very easy to say
things that perhaps should not be said concerning litigation issues and stated she felt this would
allow Council the opportunity to run everything through the City Attorney.
Council Member Marty stated he understood where caution would be advised with pending
litigation but noted there is also a consideration of freedom of speech. He then stated that he
believes in freedom of speech and stated that, if a Council Member would need to, want to or
chose to make a statement or be questioned by the press they should be allowed to get permission
from the City Attorney to comment. He then suggested the above comments as a friendly
amendment to the motion.
Council Member Quick did not accept the friendly amendment.
Council Member Thomas noted it was not necessary to add Council Member Marty’s comments
to the motion as there is already a system in place that requires communication with the City
Attorney be run through the City Administrator. She then noted that Council Members do not
directly contact the Attorney. She further noted that freedom of speech is for one person and that
Council is not one person but the voice of the entire Council and the City and communications
from Council need to come from the table as a whole.
Council Member Stigney questioned whether the communication would come from the City
Administrator with or without Council approval before being sent out.
City Administrator Miller indicated it would depend on the nature and severity of the questions.
She then noted that some questions could be handled by the City Attorney and that some may
need to be run by Council for approval.
City Attorney Riggs indicated that the City Administrator could take care of a lot of the issues.
He then noted that, if a general statement as to the City’s position is being made, the five
members speak for the City and those are the issues that Council Member Quick is addressing
with the motion.
Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 20
Council Member Thomas noted that, due to the nature of lawsuits, the most common answer is
that due do pending litigation Council Members are unable to comment. She noted that without
the motion “no comment” would be the answer to all questions. She then noted that it may be
possible to answer some questions with better detail if they are run through the City Attorney.
Council Member Marty stated he understood the motion but stated he believes there have been a
number of statements released to the press that he personally questions and those were never
brought before Council. He then indicated he received telephone calls on some of the newspaper
articles that appeared to have comments as coming from the Council as one body that he was
unaware of. He further noted that he feels some of the information was printed simply to inflame
residents and try certain people in the press which he takes great issue with.
Council Member Thomas noted that the motion would not solve that issue as the City cannot
control what other people release to the press. She noted that most or the majority of those
articles were not released by Council and stated that the motion would allow for some control of
what the City represents as its answer.
Council Member Marty stated he agreed that the City could not do anything about articles
released by other people but stated the articles were not released by other people they were
released by or directly quoted the Mayor. He noted Council Member Stigney and former mayor
McCarty were also quoted and he found their comments to be reasoned and factual and had no
exception with them at all. He further noted that he realizes that the City is in the position of
possible litigation and recognizes the consequences a Council Member’s comments could have
but noted he still stands on freedom of speech for anyone and everyone.
Council Member Thomas indicated that freedom of speech does not take away the consequences.
She further noted the motion would control the responses that go out to the questions that come
in.
Council Member Quick noted that, when misinformation is printed, the City can respond in a
single voice.
Council Member Stigney asked for clarification as to the motion. He then stated he wanted to
make sure that communications will come back to Council for approval and input before being
sent out rather than just being approved by the Mayor.
City Attorney Riggs stated that, in all honestly, in a situation of imminent pending litigation the
comment of Council will be “no comment” and the matter will be handled either by his office or
an attorney with the League of Minnesota Cities.
Council Member Marty asked if the City Attorney was aware of any litigation on the matter at
this point.
City Attorney Riggs indicated that, based on correspondence received a week a go Wednesday,
there is a threat of imminent litigation but noted he had not received anything at this point.
Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 21
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Quick. To Call the Question.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1(Marty) Motion carried.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1(Marty) Motion carried.
City Administrator Miller reported she has been working on filling the finance director vacancy
and noted that, on an interim basis, she may be able to buy up to two days of time from a
neighboring city. She then asked for the authority to work out the details noting the salary would
be $300 to $600 per day which includes benefits. She further noted the salary would not exceed
two fifths of the approved salary for the finance director position.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney. To Authorize Staff to Fill the Vacancy of the Finance
Director by Using an Employee from a Neighboring City on an Interim Basis with a Salary Not
to Exceed $600.00 per Day.
Council Member Stigney questioned why the City would need to pay benefits as the person
would have benefits from the other city.
City Administrator Miller indicated the City need to pay its share of the employee’s benefits to
offset the other city losing the employee’s services for the two days per week.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
City Administrator Miller requested authorization from Council to advertise to fill the vacancy
for the finance director.
Council Member Stigney asked if it was appropriate to fill the position in light of the possible
litigation.
City Attorney Riggs indicated the City could advertise but was under no obligation to hire
someone at this point.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Thomas. To Authorize Staff to Advertise to Fill the Finance
Director Vacancy.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Marty) Motion carried.
City Administrator Miller reported that Elegant Times had sent an invitation to Council and Staff
to participate in a food tasting on Tuesday, June 19, 2001 at 6:00 p.m.
Council Member Quick noted that Council Members should notify City Administrator Miller if
they planned to attend so the event could be published if need be.
Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 22
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Monday, May 29, 2001 City Council Minutes.
Council Member Thomas requested the following changes: On Page 5 change the word “south”
to “north”. On the same page change the word “error” to “misrepresentation.” On Page 7,
second to last paragraph add that the plan was not approved because “the removals were not
approved.”
Mayor Sonterre requested the following changes: On Page 5 correct the spelling of “Sapanski”
to “Szczepanski”. On Page 4 indicate that “Mayor Sonterre answered no” to Mr. Szczepanski’s
question concerning whether the City received a part of the proceeds from the golf pros.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Approve the Monday, May 29, 2001, City Council
Minutes with the Requested Changes.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
11. Next Council Work Session: Monday, July 18, 2001
Next Council Meeting: Monday, June 25, 2001
12. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Sonterre adjourned the meeting at 9:46 p.m.
Transcribed and recorded by:
Joan Lenzmeier
Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
June 25, 2001
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
7:00 P.M.
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Sonterre, Quick, Marty, Stigney, and Thomas.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
City Administrator Miller requested to add under Council Business the following: H. Letter of
Resignation from the Public Works Director.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Quick. To Approve the June 25, 2001, City Council Agenda as
amended.
Ayes - 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
4. PUBLIC INPUT
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, questioned the pay scale for the finance person, noting the
pay is higher for that position than it is in Blaine, and Mounds View is smaller. He questioned if
that is out of order. He also asked the status of the signs on the golf course.
City Attorney Riggs indicated it is before the DOT for a decision. He explained the assistant
commissioner had a hearing in the last month, and the letter that was received in the last 10 days
said a decision may not be made due to the budget crunch with the state. They are sending out
letters.
Mr. Jahnke asked if we will see an answer this summer. City Attorney Riggs responded he didn’t
know; it depends on the budget crunch with the state.
Jerry Linke, 2319 Knollwood Drive, stated he has served the city for 8 years in various
commissions. He served 12 years on the City Council, 10 of which as Mayor. He said the city
has always had the reputation of being a good place to live and work but in the last six months it
has become a laughing stock of the metro area. He stated he opened a local newspaper and
found that a resident of New Brighton is commenting about the stench that is being gener ated by
the actions of the City Council and by others that have no roots in the community. He added
that he wanted to make that point and is disappointed with the actions of the Council.
Mounds View City Council June 25, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 2
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approve Just and Correct Claims
B. Licenses for Approval-None for approval
C. Resolution 5578 Approving a Charitable Gambling Application for Festival in the
Park –Givonna Reed
D. Resolution 5579 Approving Business Licenses for 2001-2002
E. Resolution 5576 Appointing Mike Ulrich as the Interim Golf Course
Manager/Superintendent – Givonna Reed
F. Resolution 5574 Approving Application and Acceptance for Sage and Sober
Grant – Tim Brennan
G. Consideration of Community Center Commissioning Proposal – Mike Ulrich
H. Mike Ulrich’s Letter of Resignation
Council Member Stigney requested that item A. be removed from consideration.
Council Member Marty questioned item 6E: resolution appointing of Mike Ulrich as the Interim
Golf Course Manager/Superintendent. City Administrator Miller responded that as long as he is
an employee of the city, he will continue to be the Interim Golf Course Manager.
Council Member Marty mentioned that he received a call from the recording secretary
informing him that she was enroute to the hospital and, therefore, would not be present for
minutes. The minutes would be transcribed from video tape. The Council Members wished her
well.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Approve Consent Agenda Items B through G as
Presented.
Council Member Marty questioned Lieutenant Brennan whether he applied for this grant or if
the Police Chief did. Lieutenant Brennan explained they sent an officer to a grant workshop
about the time they applied for a Safe and Sober grant. They were not granted the award.
Lieutenant Brennan and Offi cer Nelson put the grant together. He explained that Officer
Nelson attended the grant workshop.
Council Member Quick questioned whether we are doing this in a timely fashion, as we’ve
missed out on some grants in the past. Lieutenant Brennan stated t he deadline is July 13 and they
are ready for it. All that needs to be done is to attach the resolution authorizing acceptance if it
is awarded and that’s the only bridge to cross.
Mounds View City Council June 25, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 3
Assistant to the Administrator Reed commented on item 6E. She would like to note and be it
further resolved that this interim position would begin June 7, 2001.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Council Member Stigney requested a discussion on 6A Approve Just and Correct Claims from
the League of Minnesota City Insuran ce through the Maquire Agency. His concern was that the
Council is approving payment before they’ve dealt with renegotiating the insurance contract
with the Council, which is item 7C on this agenda. He did speak with Mr. Clysdale in the hall
who implied that the League of Minnesota City Insurance requires a monetary one-ninth down
payment by July 1. Though he understands the requirement, he felt this was being conducted out
of order.
Council Member Stigney also questioned #4901 for $663.00 to the Minnesota Golf Association
memberships and inquired what the breakdown is for that total amount.
City Administrator Miller responded that the Council could pull this item and treat it separate
after reviewing the insurance issue.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Remove One Item: $663.00 paid to Minnesota Golf
Association Memberships.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Approve Item 6A with the exception of Item: $663.00
paid to Minnesota Golf Association Memberships.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 5575 to Establish Sunday
Liquor Sales Fee
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed referred to the Staff report that indicates a separate
license b e issued by state statute for intoxicating establishments that wish to sell alcohol on
Sundays. The City has issued licenses of this type in the past. Staff cannot determine whether a
fee is included in the cost of a nonsale license.
City Attorney Riggs recommended the Council hold a public hearing and explained the statute is
vague whether this is necessary, but it is a precautionary measure. The request is that the
Council determine what that fee will be for a Sunday sales license. The statue indicat es the
maximum amount is $200.
Mounds View City Council June 25, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 4
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed stated she contacted other cities and they all charge
$200 in addition to whatever their onsale fee is. That fee is based on square footage for the
onsale fee.
Council Member Mart y inquired if that $200 fee was per Sunday or per year. Assistant to the
City Administrator Reed responded it is per year.
Council Member Stigney commented on the level of policing at certain establishments. The
license fees are the same but some proper ties need to be policed more than others.
Mayor Sonterre said the $200 is a maximum set by statute for Sunday sales. He asked if police
calls have gone up a lot this year.
Council Member Stigney expressed concern with the numbers from 1994. He asked i f we issue a
license every year and why we don’t look at the numbers of police calls annually. Assistant to
the City Administrator Reed responded we do.
Mayor Sonterre asked that since we’ re specifically dealing with the Sunday sales which gives us
a $2 00 maximum, can we direct the Staff to bring us a report as to the policy for setting the fee
formula.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed referred to the Staff Report where it is stated that the
Mermaid pays $10,000 annually for their fee. That is the maximum based on the formula
adopted by the Council.
City Administrator Miller explained that to change the fee structure it would have to be
discussed in a work session.
The public hearing was opened.
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, inquired whether this fee is for a certain event. Mayor
Sonterre explained the fee is just for the license to serve liquor on a Sunday.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed stated that she gathered Staff reports from 1994 and
the number of police calls that year was taken into consideration for figuring the fee. The
formula was very complicated. The fee schedule only makes reference to square footage so the
number of police calls is included in the formula but is not necessarily taken into consideration
this year. The police are working with the Mermaid and felt the concerns have been resolved.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed explained that she asked the police department whether
they have any concerns that would be a basis for denying a license. She referenced the year
1994 because that was the year the Council came up with this fee formula.
Gretchen Wallbridge, 8072 Long Lake Road, clarified whether the Mermaid is already paying
$10,000 and the $200 additional is just to sell liquor on a Sunday. She didn’t see the problem.
Mounds View City Council June 25, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 5
The public hearing was closed.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Thomas. To Approve Resolution 5575 to Establish Sunday
Liquor Sales Licenses Based On a Cost of $200 Annually to the Applicant.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Council Member Quick asked if this would be discussed in a work session. Mayor Sonterre
stated the Council referred to the policy for the formula for the Monday through Saturday
portion of the fee.
B. Public Hearing to Consider Intoxicating Liquor and Sunday Sales Licenses.
1. Update regarding On Sale Intoxicating Liquor and Sunday Sales
License Application for Topa Corporation dba Donatelle’s
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed asked the Council to continue the hearing for the Topa
Corporation to the July 9 Council meeting.
The public hearing was opened.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed stated that additional paperwork needs to be submitted.
Also, Mr. Stuart is still in negotiations with Mr. Donatelli regarding the purchase.
The public hear ing was closed.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Continue Item 7. B. 1. To the Regular Council meeting
on July 9, 2001.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
2. Consideration of Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Liquor
Monkey, Inc dba Network Liquor on 10 for 2001-2002.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed summarized the Staff report. She stated she is still
waiting for a floor plan and the applicant has indicated he will furnish that. She’s asked for
reports from the police department, util ity billing, and the Department of Revenue. Each
organization has suggested the license be approved. The applicant is present.
The public hearing was opened.
John Hascome, Vice President of Liquor Monkey, Inc., was present and invited questions from
the Council.
Council Member Marty inquired what the delay is with respect to the floor plan. Assistant to the
City Administrator Reed responded there is no floor plan yet, and the applicant needed to find
Mounds View City Council June 25, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 6
someone to draw it. He has now found someone to do it in CAD and it will be furnished to the
Council by the end of the week.
Council Member Marty asked if this item should be continued until the floor plan is delivered.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed stated that the Council could approve the item,
contingent upon receipt of the floor plan by Friday.
City Attorney Riggs confirmed that the Council has that authority.
The public hearing was closed.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Approve Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for
Liquor Monkey, Inc. dba Network Liquor on 10 for 2001-2002 Contingent Upon Approval of
the Floor Plan.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Mr. Hascome asked if this is approved as of July 1. He explained that he wants to negotiate with
the current owner and purchase the property effective July 1, and open business on July 2.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed explained it would be effective July 1 if the floor plan is
approved.
B. Public Hearing to Consider Intoxicating Liquor and Sunday Sales Licenses
3. Consideration of Intoxicating Liquor License Renewals for 2001-2002.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed referred to the Staff report. Both the Mermaid and
Roberts Off 10 want to sell alcohol on Sundays. Budget Liquor and ABC Liquor would also like
their licenses renewed. Their licenses expire on June 30. She noted that the Staff report
indicates the license for Roberts Off 10 is pending on fire abatements. She received a phone call
that day stating those orders have been satisfied.
The public hearing was opened.
The public hearing was closed.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Approve the Applications for Intoxicating Liquor and
Sunday Sales Licenses as Presented.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried
C. Insurance Premiums
City Administrator Miller stated this item was on the agenda last month, but she had requested
that Mr. Clysdale further research the issue and bring it back to this meeting.
Mounds View City Council June 25, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 7
Mr. Clysdale stated he delivered the renewal last week. The Council had asked him to provide
more in formation with respect to the deductible. He explained that the deductible for the
coverage is $10,000 per loss with a $50,000 annual aggregate, which means the most the City will
pay out is $50,000. These deductibles apply to the City’s property and liability claims. The
property is the property the City owns, and from a liability standpoint it is the city’s
responsibility to the public for any negligent acts. The City has had this program for 13 years. It
started out with a deductible of $5,000 and w as changed in 1993 to a $10,000 deductible. On the
basis of the premium savings the City has had over that time, $336,264 has been the premium
savings; this is roughly $30,000/year. The insurance company has asked back from the city a
deductible recovery of $103,579. The difference is a savings over a period of over 10 years in
excess of $230,000. The program is again being offered to the city and the premium savings is
over $30,100. That is on the schedule Mr. Clysdale provided previously.
Mr . Clysda le further explained that the workers comp deductible has been in place for 8 years
and the deductible is $5,000. This doesn’t apply to medical expenses nor indemnity payments; it
only applies to medical payments. When an injured employee incurs a medical cost which the
insurance pays, there is a deductible on that loss of $5,000. Over the 8 year period that the city
has had that, the premium savings has been $56, 127 and the city has paid back about $53, 067,
which is a difference of about $3,500 in the City’s favor. On the basis of the City’s loss
experience, the City has had an unusual number of large medical claims. The City has had 4
years of fairly high medical claims. An account of this size usually wouldn’t have this
experience. Therefore, the savings would typically be higher. From an insurance analysis, it
seems like it is appropriate to continue this program because of the savings that come to the City.
Council Member Thomas clarified that the $30,100 figure would be our expected savings t his
year and is about the same as it has been. Mr. Clysdale said it has gone down a little and it is a
matter of a rating mechanism and probably a subtle way to raise the price.
Council Member Stigney asked what the difference would be in the premium if the deductible
was changed from $10,000 to $5,000. Mr. Clysdale pointed out this information is on the
schedule and explained that the additional premium would be $13,400 over what the City pays
now. As an alternate to that, if an aggregate was added to the $5,000 at $50,000 the additional
premium would be $14,500. By reducing the deductible from $10,000 to $5,000 the additional
premium would be in the range of $13,000 to $14,0000. He said he is assuming the City is
reporting every liability claim and every workers comp case to him.
City Administrator Miller confirmed the City is reporting all property claims to the insurance
agency that she is aware of.
Council Member Stigney voiced his opinion that the City should stay with the coverage as it is.
Mr. Clysdale recommended that the City continue with the type of deductible program that is in
place.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Thomas. To Renew the Proposal for the Maquire Agency for the
$10,000 Deductible With the $50,000 Aggregate.
Mounds View City Council June 25, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 8
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Thomas. To Approve the Payment in the Just and Correct Claims
as Listed in Item 6A in this Agenda.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
D. First Reading (Introduction) of Ordinance 684, an Ordinance Rezoning 2625
Highway 10 from R-3, Medium Density Residential, to B-2, Limited Business
Director of Community Development Ericson stated the Mounds View Animal Hospital has
requested rezoning of this property. They’ve entered into a purchase agreement to purchase the
property from the city. July 9 would be the second reading and public hearing.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Waive the First Reading of Ordinance 684, An
Ordinance Rezoning 2625 Highway 10 From R-3, Medium Density Residential to B-2, Limited
Business.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
E. Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 5572, a Resolution Amending
Resolution 5527 Regarding a Development Review Request for an Office
Building Located at 7664 Greenfield Avenue.
Director of Community Dev elopment Ericson stated that the applicant submitted plans, but did
not meet the state’s accessibility requirements. An elevator needs to be constructed and the first
level needs to be at grade level so it is accessible to everyone. Director of Community
Development Ericson stated he asked about the second story and whether it had to be accessible
and according to the state accessibility codes, as long as it falls below a certain threshold for
occupancy, there is no need to provide access to the second fl oor.
The Planning Commission has held meetings on this issue and the Director of Community
Development Ericson has spoken with the property owner to the south. The Planning
Commission was looking at the issue of how this 4.5 foot addition would impact the neighbors.
They recommended that on the south elevation of the proposed building that no windows would
be allowed on the upper story and that would be the elevation that would be fronting the
neighbor’s yard.
The Planning Commission also recommended there should be no bay windows that would project
out front such as a bay window. Every precaution will be taken to minimize the intrusion this
would cause on the neighbor.
Director of Community Development Ericson stated Mr. Mesenga could not be at this meeting
and sent his apologies.
Mounds View City Council June 25, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 9
Mayor Sonterre clarified that windows to the east side of the building would be no more than
flush with the exterior of the building.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5572.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
F. Golf Professionals’ Compensation for Lessons
City Administrator Miller stated they are trying to research whether the Council had ever given
their authorization for the kind of compensation the pros should get for their lessons. They
found none. She stated she had spoken with the City Attorney and state auditors and they are
recommending that the golf pros position description be evaluated and compensated based on the
position description. They would receive one pay ment for their duties instead of the staggering
payments they are currently receiving. This is the recommendation the City Attorney’s office
made.
Mayor Sonterre asked when the golf pros can expect to see payment for the times they’ ve
missed getting a paycheck. City Administrator Miller said the City withheld payment last time.
She stated she is trying to get checks issued based on the fact that these individuals have worked
under an assumption. She stated the City Attorney felt comfortable in releasing those payments.
She explained that the checks could be released tomorrow with the Council’s approval.
Council Member Marty asked if the checks will be held up from here on. City Administrator
Miller explained they would be held until the City has the position descriptions reworded by
labor relations. This will require two actions by the Council. If the Council directed the City to
release the checks tonight, the new position descriptions would then be passed on to Labor and
Relations. They would then hopefully have them back for the Council’s review at the next
Council meeting.
Council Member Marty asked if the pay would be retroactive. City Administrator Miller said it
would be. There are two position descriptions to reword and she is hopeful t hat the issue will be
ready for the Council’s reconsideration at their next meting.
Council Member Marty asked what the City Attorney’s opinion is on this issue. City Attorney
Riggs stated there have been concerns raised by the state auditor that there w as not an
authorized payment. Proper procedure was not followed nor adopted by the City Council. This
means it calls into question all the other payments that were made to these individuals. He has
assured the state auditor that the Council will work through this as expediently as possible.
Council Member Marty inquired whether this has been covered in the annual budget process.
City Attorney Riggs stated that just by tucking this into the budget procedure does not make it be
approved. There must be a separate adopted policy.
Mounds View City Council June 25, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 10
Council Member Quick asked to clarify if the difference in pay between what they’ re making
now on an hourly basis, less the lessons, and what they’ll be making after they’re reappointed.
City Administrator Miller confirmed this amount.
City Attorney Riggs explained the state auditor’s concern is that it has been claimed that there’s
a 70/30 split which is suspect in the auditor’s eyes. The actual documentation for the year 2000
is showing it is approaching 90 to 95%.
Council M ember Marty asked if it is split the same for all golf personnel or if some derive more
of their income from golf lessons. He also asked if this would jeopardize another individual that
would have a higher base pay.
Assistant to the City Attorney Reed explained that there are more who spend their time giving
lessons. It would be a high percentage, but she cannot say how much the split is.
Council Member Stigney inquired if the reappointing is for seasonal as well as full time
employees. City Administrator Miller responded that currently, the discussion is about the
individuals who give lessons and are employees of the City.
Council Member Stigney questioned how many employees the City has that give lessons.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed answered she wasn’ t sure if there are full job
descriptions in place. She added that there would be two that we would need to come up with.
She added that there are two employees that are Council -approved staff members full time. One
is a seasonal employee who gives lessons in conjunction with some operating responsibilities. The
other is a seasonal employee who only gives lessons.
Council Member Stigney voiced his opinion that the hours should be logged and tracked for
lessons given and the time spent putting in their time for their jobs. City Administrator Miller
responded they have spoken with the golf pros about having better documentation. The City
couldn’t tell from the documentation what hours they were actually giving lessons and which
hours should be compensated by the City from the documentation that was provided.
Council Member Stigney inquired whose golf equipment is used for lessons. Assistant to the City
Administrator Reed answered she didn’t have a response at the moment, but offered to find out.
Council Member Stigney stated he was aware the cost is $5.00 per person, and he wanted to
know how much of that fee is appropriated to the instructor for the lesson, and how long the
lessons are. City Administrator Miller responded it depended on the type of lesson; whether it
was a youth lessons, private lesson, etc.
Council Member Stigney asked if anyone pays differently - -- if, for example, whether the lesson is
given by the PGA pro or non-pro. Assistant to the City Administrator Reed explained we have
two pros on staff who are certified. The other teacher is a PGA pro but is not yet certified. She
added that she doesn’ t believe they are compensated differently.
Council Member Stigney asked if the teacher’ s credentials are identified so t hat when the student
signs up, they would have a choice and possibly choose the teacher with the most credentials. He
Mounds View City Council June 25, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 11
added that he noticed on the list that was handed out to the Council that it four people listed and
he always understood there were three people. He asked how the fourth person was hired
without Council approval.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed answered there is the head pro, the assistant pro, a
seasonal pro, and seasonal personnel who only gives lessons. There was one who was approved
at a Council resolution, and she was unsure of the date of that approval. She further explained
that there was a long list of golf course seasonal employees, and from that list, two individuals
were approved to give lessons only. There was one from that list who is giving lessons.
Council Member Stigney requested that Assistant to the City Administrator Reed identify those
individuals for the next meeting and designate who carries the PGA Pro certification.
Council Member Marty stated he believes they are all PGA certified. He added that we have
three pros and one who is serving his apprenticeship here. His question was whether the
reclassification of the two seasonal employees is the bulk of their salary based on the lessons that
they giv e, and if this is what is putting them in a jeopardy situation.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed responded that for one of the seasonal employees,
everything he is paid is based on lessons.
Council Member Stigney commented that if 100% of his pay is based on lessons, and we’re
holding up the pay for the lessons, we’re holding up his pay. Assistant to the City Administrator
Reed stated she doesn’t’ know how many hours he works for the City, but whatever the City
pays him is based on lessons, and his pay then is help up.
Mayor Sonterre questioned City Administrator Miller if this is on the agenda to get permission to
pay them solely or to pay them and then get permission to run the point system. City
Administrator Miller answered both.
Council Member Marty stated he was concerned if these individuals are paid for the services
they perform, and their pay is held up to establish a point system in the middle of the stream. He
asked if the City is in jeopardy for not paying them for work they’ve done. City Attorney Riggs
replied that technically we don’t have authorization at all, so technically they shouldn’t be paid.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Distribute Back Pay as Soon as Possible and Begin
the Process to Develop a Point System an d Reappoint the Job Descriptions for the Next Council
Meeting on July 9, 2001.
Council Member Stigney questioned whether the reappointing would affect the PGA pro who
has completed the golf course training program, or for the apprentice, or for someone in that
training program, noting the level of training is different.
Council Member Marty stated it seems as though the rest of the City staff has applied for union
membership certification. He was concerned about the union regulations, the City tampering
with their pay, and whether we are putting the City in jeopardy.
Mounds View City Council June 25, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 12
City Attorney Riggs responded that we are in a situation of two evils: unauthorized pay which
puts the City in the position to be sued versus an unfair labor practice. This situation is putting
the City in jeopardy and needs to be rectified as soon as possible.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 Marty Motion carried.
G. Consideration of Agreement Between the City and Festival in the Park
City Administrator Miller apologized for the delay in getting this information to the Council.
She explained there have been small changes to the report which City Attorney Riggs will
present.
City Attorney Riggs stated there hasn’t been authorization to provide compensation to the
nonprofit group entitled Mounds View Festival in the Park. Exhibits A and B in the agreement
need to be completed in order to identify what the duties are for the City and the corporation. If
this isn’t identified, there is a problem with insurance. He explained that when the Council
authorizes the final understanding for this festival with the corporation, the insurance for both
parties can be pieced together so everyone is completely covered.
Council Member Thomas inquired whether the Council can approve this item with the
cont ingency that Staff can fill in the details. City Attorney Riggs responded it can be approved
contingent that there will be minor changes. He pointed to paragraphs 3 and 5 stating they need
to be discussed.
The President of the Festival stated she had received this agreement that day and the rest of the
committee has not been able to discuss it.
Mayor Sonterre asked if she, as the President of the Committee, could work through the
agreement the next day, meet with City Attorney Riggs and address the specific issues at the
Festival meeting the next night. Then on Wednesday, they would be in a position to have the two
of them finalize the issues.
The President of the Festival agreed to this arrangement.
City Attorney Riggs asked how close the written agreement is to what they’ ve had in the past.
The President of the Festival agreed with the contract and said that paragraph 3 is a little
different than it’s been in the past. Previously, the monetary amount was a donation from the
City to the Festival, Inc. It was designated as reimbursement for the public employees who set
up the tents, etc. The Festival has paid that out of pocket in the past, and when the issue of
workman’s comp came up she suggested that instead of the City giving the money to the Festival
as a gift, the City supply the personnel to take care of these things.
City Attorney Riggs stated that this arrangement from an insurance standpoint, would be
preferable. He requested a copy of their insurance.
Mounds View City Council June 25, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 13
The President of the Festival stated she needs to get a copy of the insurance from the fireworks
company which is the same company the Festival has always had. She further explained that
each vehicle in the parade needs to supply her with a copy of their insurance. Sometimes that
information isn’t furnished until the day of the parade and it’s supposed to be in 30 days before
the parade.
Council Member Thomas clarified that they want to reduce the dollar amount given by donating
the staff. She asked if that number can be left blank u ntil the number of employees needed is
determined. The President of the Festival responded it could be left the same each year at
$4,000 and if it goes above and beyond that, they would have to compensate.
City Attorney Riggs inquired whether the level of staff input needed is exactly what she
enumerated in her email. The President of the Festival referred details to Steve Sepenski
because of his tenure.
Council Member Marty asked that the words ‘‘City Staff ’’ be clarified as City Golf Course Staff
sinc e the Golf Course Staff oversee the golf course tournament.
Council Member Stigney wanted to clarify the City providing personnel for this event in lieu of
the $4,000 and suggested that the City pay the actual cost of the City personnel not to exceed
$4,000.
City Attorney Riggs stated that based on the estimates he’s seen, it has been less than $4,000.
Council Member Stigney commented that if it is not stipulated, the City could be surprised.
Mayor Sonterre suggested there be a comfort point and that the President of the Festival and
City Attorney Riggs will work it out. If some of the changes are significant, the Council would
like to discuss with them at the next work session or Council meeting.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/ Marty . To Approve the Agreement Pending the Stipulations.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
H. Letter of Resignation from the Public Works Director
City Administrator Miller said that she needed to share, with mixed emotions, that Mike Ulrich
will be leaving the City. He had planned on working until July 6. In his letter, attached, he says
he’ll stay until August 3 to finish tasks and make recommendations to the Council. He requested
that the Council consider allowing him to use some of his flex time that has accrued.
Council Member Stigney commented that the reason the City is keeping Mr. Ulrich on is to wrap
up these projects. He inquired how much flex time is under consideration. City Administrator
Miller referred to the letter and stated Mr. Ulrich requested to take time off after July 24.
Council Member Stigney clarified that his last day then would be July 24.
Mounds View City Council June 25, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 14
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Accept the Resignation of Public Works Director Mike
Ulrich, as Presented.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Mayo r Sonterre thanked Mr. Ulrich on behalf of the Council and wished him well.
8. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
None.
9. REPORTS
Council Member Thomas stated she learned more than expected in Duluth. She thanked the
Council for convincing her to go and she said she will prepare a report and recommendations to
the Council.
Council Member Marty stated he received an email from City Administrator Miller on June 18
at 10:24 a.m. He explained he left the state on Friday, June 15, and wasn’t clear why City
Admini strator Miller reported at the last Council meeting that she sent an email to him with no
response. He questioned why a meeting was scheduled while he was gone. The
Council/Administrator retreat is to be just that; not a partial administrator or partial Council
retreat because then it is invalid. He noted the Council has known for a number of months that
he couldn’t attend on the date it was scheduled. Council Member Marty pointed out that the
packets were sent out on Friday, June 15 at 4:43 p.m., for t he Monday, June 18 meeting but the
Council packets are to be ready by the end of the Thursday prior to the Monday meeting. He
asked why that packet was sent out past the deadline. He also made a formal request on behalf
of himself and numerous citizens t o be furnished with copies of the contracts for the City
Administrator, the Assistant City Administrator, and the City Attorney, as he does not currently
have copies of these documents.
Mayor Sonterre stated that Council Member Quick has asked him for t he contracts but there is
no contract for the assistant who is in an assistant position and not a contract position. If there
are people requesting information, they are free to come in to the City Hall and request that
information. Mayor Sonterre suggested that Council Member Quick talk to the Administrator
about the contracts. Mayor Sonterre stated he’s given him that information twice previously and
this is the third time.
City Administrator Miller offered to explain why she sent an email to him at 10:24 a.m. She
explained that often times she has assumed he had his computer with him and hadn’t received
notification that he would be gone.
Council Member Quick said he didn’t have his computer with him. The packet was sent out at
4:43 p.m. and was supposed to be presented the previous day.
Mounds View City Council June 25, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 15
City Administrator Miller said that is correct. However, there are times they are not able to get
all the information together in time.
Director of Community Development Ericson stated that Council Member Sti gney had asked if
Mr. Seward had requested any additional considerations on a case discussed earlier. He did ask
for a 10-foot fence to be constructed in place of the 8-foot fence. This was discussed at the last
Planning Commission meeting and decided that a 10 -foot fence could not be allowed.
City Administrator Miller reminded the Council that the retreat is scheduled for this coming
Wednesday at the Roseville Community Center at 6:00 p.m.
Council Member Quick questioned why this meeting was set up wi thout his input. This meeting
was previously scheduled for July 8th. He added that there doesn’ t seem to be pressing issues at
the moment, therefore, this meeting could be rescheduled so all Council members could attend.
Council Member Thomas answered t hat because this was set up so many times, and the quarterly
meeting is already set, it leaves only three weeks if we wait until July. Her position at the House
is incredibly unpredictable but she has found time to set aside to be at the retreat Wednesday
evening. Council Member Thomas stated if Council Member Quick has suggestions she would
like to hear them.
Council Member Quick questioned when the quarterly meeting is. Council Member Thomas
stated it is in the beginning of August, which was previousl y set.
Mayor Sonterre said this discussion should not be taken as argumentative. It is important to get a
meeting in this quarter as soon as possible prior to the next quarter’s meeting. Unfortunately,
Council Member Quick didn’t get the email in time but the Council had requested possible dates
from City Administrator Miller. Mayor Sonterre noted that there have been significant
problems in getting a date that would work and the meeting for this Wednesday was the one
where at least four people could at tend.
Council Member Quick suggested that previous Council members and staff who have been
around be asked if there have been retreats or meetings. He stated these meetings recently have
been on his insistence Council Member Quick and it has been the consensus of the entire Council
to have a Council/Administrator retreat.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty. To Suspend the Meeting Three Weeks From Now to the Next
Scheduled Meeting.
Motion failed due to no second.
Jerry Linke, 2319 Knollwood Drive, questioned what these meetings are and why they are being
held outside of the City.
Mounds View City Council June 25, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 16
Mayor Sonterre responded they are meetings for the Council and staff to interact. The location
is posted and they are being held locally in case the public would like to attend. H e stated they
are held off site just to get the members off campus.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed mentioned that this Thursday at 3:30 p.m. in the
Council chambers there will be a welcoming reception for new employees. There are two new
police officers, an administrative assistant in the police department, and a new Planning Associate
who will be welcomed.
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. June 4, 2001 Special Council Meeting
B. June 6, 2001 Special Council Meeting
Council Member Thomas suggested approval of the minutes be postponed until the next meeting
when the recording secretary would be present to record them.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Table Items 10A and 10B Until the July 9, 2001,
Council Meeting.
Council Member Stigney stated he under stood the recording secretary gave the notes to City
Attorney Riggs or City Administrative Miller’s secretary and the secretary put them into
minutes.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed explained the recording secretary takes notes from the
meetin g and gives them to the secretary, who then puts them in the minutes.
Council Member Marty stated the minutes from the June 4 meeting are not accurate. He stated
he had recorded that meeting and would like to supply that tape to TimeSaver Secretarial for
their transcription.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Provide the Tape of the June 4 Meeting to TimeSaver
Secretarial to Transcribe Accurate Minutes.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
11. Next Council Work Session: Monday, July 2, 2001
Next Council Meeting: Monday, July 9, 2001
Mounds View City Council June 25, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 17
12. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Sonterre adjourned the meeting at 8:54 p.m.
Transcribed and recorded by:
Christine Moksnes
Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
July 9, 2001
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
7:01 P.M.
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Sonterre, Quick, Marty, and Stigney. Absent: Thomas.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A. Monday, June 11, 2001 City Council Agenda.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Approve the July 9, 2001, City Council Agenda as
presented.
Ayes - 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
4. PUBLIC INPUT
Jerry Linke, 2319 Knollwood Drive stated there are tapes of meetings that are missing. He said
he finds it hard to believe. He commented that there are supposed to be tapes at the library. A
resolution was approved that stated copies were to be sent to the library, and he didn’t see any
there.
Mr. Linke also questioned whether the computers should be confiscated of the Clerk
Administrator, and her assistant.
Mr. Linke read a comment from the bulletin that Council Member Thomas made, which he
thought was inappropriate. The comment was referring to possibly having better discussions
with staff if the residents weren’t at the meetings.
Mr. Linke questioned two items on the presented agenda under ‘‘closed session ’’ which were the
Banquet Center Agreement and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal. He asked if the Council
could explain to the public why those items are on the agenda.
City Attorney Riggs stated that both items satisfy Statute 13.
Council Member Quick stated that when McCarty was Mayor, the policy of sending tapes to the
library was changed due to cost savings. It was easier to keep the tapes at the City Offices.
Mounds View City Council July 9, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 2
Council Member Marty questioned where the tapes would be if they are not at City Hall. He
asked if there is an accounti ng of them. He asked what tapes are missing, the dates and times of
the tapes, and why they would be missing.
City Administrator Miller responded she had asked Patrick to complete an inventory of tapes.
They were kept in cabinets in the community room. The cabinets oftentimes were not locked.
The key that was in Patrick’ s desk was taken.
Council Member Marty said he talked to Patrick on this issue. To Patrick’s knowledge, the
cabinets were locked. City Administrator Miller stated she would often go down to those
cabinets and she found they weren’t always locked.
Jane Stolelamp, 2305 Shorewood Road, stated she is providing the Council with a copy of a
petition that was mailed the previous week to the Environmental Quality Board. The petition
was pr e pared in accordance with Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410. A copy was sent to the Rice
Creek Watershed. The petition is in regard to the Greenfield Park project and is requesting that
an environmental worksheet assessment be completed. There are 43 signatur es on the petition;
only 25 were needed. The petition wasn’t presented at every household due to the July 4
holiday. She explained that in early April or May, the Council voted to have an environmental
impact study completed. She said that Council Member Marty initiated the discussion. Then he
decided that the assessment would be too expensive. The motion to direct that an EIS not be
done carried with one no vote, which was by Council Member Stigney. There was no mention at
the meeting of what the cost would be or how much of the cost the City would bear. The
petition states the concerns, which include the amount of traffic, vehicle emissions, natural
wetland preservation and loss of wildlife and wildlife habitat. She added that an environmental
impact study has been conducted to learn if there is any concern. The residents disagree with the
watershed report.
Mayor Sonterre responded that both Council Members Thomas and he had contacted the DNR
within the last two weeks. He was told the overall process hasn’ t been completed. He asked the
DNR what the additional cost would be for the EIS Study.
Council Member Marty explained he did make the motion, but then understood there was
significant cost involved. He offered to reverse his position if that is what the residents asked of
him.
Mayor Sonterre stated that the DNR indicated they would need a week or so to complete the
study and they will contact the Mayor when it is complete.
Dana Mandosa, 2633 Clearview Avenue observed that Council Member M arty’s computer is
back in the Council Member’s position. City Attorney Riggs stated that the computer was
confiscated for the purpose of specific issues and is still being analyzed.
Mr. Mandosa requested a copy of the contract for the City Administrator . City Attorney Riggs
explained the procedure to request a copy. Mr. Mandosa inquired how much the City
Mounds View City Council July 9, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 3
Administrator makes per year and whether she makes bonuses. City Administrator Miller stated
she does not get bonuses.
Mr. Mandosa asked where City Administrator Miller lives. City Attorney Riggs responded that
Mr. Mandosa can make the request to learn where the City Administrator lives, though it will
most likely be denied.
Mr. Mandosa inquired whether the City Attorney is under contract. City At torney Riggs stated
he is not under contract at this time. Mr. Mandosa asked who hires the City Attorney. City
Attorney Riggs responded the Council hires the City Attorney.
Mr. Mandosa stated he would like to know what the City has paid in legal fees this year to date,
and what the fees are for.
Mayor Sonterre asked the City Attorney if that information is available under the Data Practice
Act, and City Attorney Riggs confirmed it is.
Mr. Mandosa asked if the Bridges Golf Course has profited each year based on golfers and fees.
City Administrator Miller replied that Mr. Mandosa could formally request that information.
Mr. Mandosa commented that by letting Mr. Hammerschmidt and Mr. Kessel go, he felt the city
was opened up for the possibility of law suits. He questioned why a third party investigation
wasn’t decided on.
Council Member Quick stated the Council does the hiring and firing for the City.
Mayor Sonterre explained it is a job of the City Administrator to govern the people working
under her and to keep track of personnel. Her recommendation was simply a recommendation.
It was an action of the Council to accept the recommendation. Council Member Marty did
mention the option of a third party investigation. It was the other four members of the Council
that rejected that request. The decision was made on the information available at the time.
Council Member Stigney added that this was an internal matter, investigated by the City and
reviewed and acted upon by the Council.
Dan Lamb, 2305 Shorewood Road, felt the question on the environmental impact study was not
adequately answered. He asked if Council Member Marty had some type of cost structure in
mind. He said the residents left the Rice Creek Watershed meeting under the impression that the
study would be completed. After the meeting, Council Member Marty stated it would be too
expensive and voted against it. Mr. Lamb thought that left a sour message for the residents in
that area. Council Member Marty stated the cost was too high fo r the EIS Study.
Council Member Quick wished to correct Mr. Lamb’s statement and said that the Council could
ask for a study if they wished, but no promises were made.
Mounds View City Council July 9, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 4
Mr. Lamb thanked Council Member Quick for that clarification. Mr. Lamb commented that the
land use has grown by 74 acres for industrial use. He thought that was a strenuous growth on the
City.
Mayor Sonterre stated that issue is on the agenda for this meeting.
Doris Holman, 3034 Ardimore Ave. questioned the availability of information off the web site.
She said the agenda is not on the web site for this meeting, and that has happened repeatedly.
Also, when the web page was relocated, minutes from the year 2000 disappeared. She stated that
if the City is going to promote the use of the web site for city information, then it should be kept
up.
Mayor Sonterre explained that the City has joined forces with Roseville several months ago.
Our city is using their server. Mounds View doesn’t have a dedicated web maintenance
individual at the time. Mr. Ericson has spent some time maintaining the web page, but his duties
have overtaken the time he could volunteer on the web page. The City is looking for someone to
take that job over. Mayor Sonterre offered to check with Patrick about the cabl e portion of the
meetings being put on the web site, and suggested Ms. Holman request the agenda be emailed to
her for each meeting.
Ms. Holman stated she was here four months ago on the one-year anniversary of her stepson’ s
death on Highway 10 in front of the City Hall. She was told Highway 10 would be changed. She
understood the issue of lowering the speed limit in this area would be on an upcoming agenda and
she hasn’ t seen it yet.
Mayor Sonterre replied that there is a public open house on that study and other items coming
up. Ramsey County completed a study and determined the speed limit of 55 was appropriate.
Council Member Marty mentioned that he saw in the City schedule that on Wed., July 11 the
Highway 10 Team will meet, and next Monday from 6:00 to 10:00 p.m. an open house in the
Council Chambers will be held on this issue. There is also a work session planned for Monday,
July 16, and suggested Ms. Holman attend the Highway 10 corridor study as well.
Steven Berg, 2316 Louisa Ave. asked what exactly is a retreat and what the difference is
between that and a study session.
Council Member Marty explained a retreat is for the entire Council to meet and discuss how the
Council has been performing and how to improve their performance
Mr. Berg asked if the City Attorney attended the retreat and if the City paid for his presence.
Mayor Sonterre stated an attorney was there.
Mr. Berg commented that he agreed that the meetings should always be held at the City Hall and
also agreed that Council M ember Thomas’ comments as mentioned earlier were inappropriate.
Mounds View City Council July 9, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 5
David Jahnke of 8428 Eastwood Road commented that TIF funding is the subject of an article in
that day’s USA Today. He offered to copy the article and distribute it to the Council Members.
Mr. Jahnke stated he is present at each meeting and is noticing a larger crowd. He also attended
the meeting in Roseville and observed an attorney from the League of Minnesota Cities was
present and informed people how to get information on the City.
Mr. Jahnke remarked that his pet peeve is on the golf course. He was told residents wouldn’t
have to pay to play golf. When he went to play golf, he was told to pay. He also mentioned that
there seems to be a group of residents that are interested in how Mr. Hammerschmidt was let go.
Mr. Jahnke also stated he felt the past administrators never held each department accountable
for their departments. When new people came on board, the departments were held
accountable, but he said that strange things happened.
Sheri Gunn, 8120 Red Oak Court wished to thank people on behalf of the Festival committee.
She named the Public Works department, Mounds View Police, Police Reserves from other
cities, Fire Departments from Blaine and Spring Lake Park, parade emc ees, Patrick and crew for
televising the event, Wendy and Rob Marty for making the golf tournament a success, Post 761
for handling emergencies, Pete Severson and the Chevy Car Club, the Lions, school groups and
outside craft vendors. She noted that the committees for next year’s Festival will start forming
next month, and if anyone wishes to join a committee, they should call her.
Council Member Marty echoed her message of thank yous.
Steve Bakke, 8261 Sunnyside Road, raised his concerns on one issue. He said the department
heads are relied upon to carry out the mission and are accountable to the Council. He stated that
that when department heads lose their jobs, some trust is lost among the residents. He felt that
those that lost their jobs brought up reasonable assertions. Mr. Bakke added that when the
possibility of having a third party investigation was voted down, he thought residents were
disappointed and would have been willing to spend the money for it. He said that if Council
Member Marty had his computer confiscated, all other computers should have been confiscated
to show unity. He felt that Council Member Marty was singled out because his computer was
confiscated.
Mayor Sonterre replied that no Council member used cost as a justification for voting down a
third party investigation. Council Member Stigney explained the issue of not using a third party
adequately before noting that it was an internal issue.
Council Member Quick asked if the Council has complied with the Code, Charter and State Law
in this issue, and with data practices and the termination of employees. Both City Attorney Riggs
and City Administrator Miller confirmed they did comply with all the above.
Council Member Quick raised the question whether a pending investigati on would put the
Council in a different position. City Attorney Riggs confirmed it would, adding that public or
nonpublic data would need to be reviewed before releasing to the public.
Mounds View City Council July 9, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 6
Council Member Marty requested an up-to-date attorney’s bill prior to the next Council
meeting. He said it seems the City Attorney is copied on a lot of data and Council Member
Marty would like an accounting of the monies according to the city budget.
Mayor Sonterre questioned City Attorney Riggs and asked if City Attorney Riggs were copied
on something he didn’t feel was a legalistic nature, if he would complete that request. City
Attorney Riggs stated he was not aware of receiving copies on items of that sort. He explained
there is a retainer and many duties fall under that retainer. City Administrator Miller
commented the Staff can satisfy the request for the copy of the budget. She added that the City
is selective of what information is passed on to the attorney.
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approve Just and Correct Claims
B. Licenses for Approval
C. Resolution 5581 Authorizing Severance Payout to Bruce Kessel
D. Resolution 5582 Authorizing Severance Payout to John Hammerschmidt
E. Resolution 5577 Allowing Lake Region Hockey Association to Conduct
Charitable Gambling at Robert’s Off 10
Council Member Marty requested that Item E be removed for discussion.
Council Member Stigney requested that Items A and D be removed for discussion.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Approve Consent Agenda Items B and C as Presented.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
E. Resolution 5577 Allowing Lake Region Hockey Association to Conduct
Charitable Gambling at Robert’s Off 10
Assistant to City Administrator Reed explained that in the past, the Lake Region Hockey
Association has conducted charitable gambling at Donatelle’s, which is no longer open. If this
resolution is approved, the gambling will be conducted at Robert’s Off 10 next year. The
Association used Donatelle’s for several years. There are no other licenses at that location. The
owner of that location has signed off on this agreement.
Jerry Linke, 2319 Knollwood Drive, stated the Lions currently have a legal license and contract
with Roberts Off 10. Contrary to what Assistant to City Administrator Reed said, the Lions had
a conversation with Robert Waste. Gretchen Wallbridge, past president of the Lions, was present
Mounds View City Council July 9, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 7
for comments as well. Mr. Linke continued that according to Mr. Waste, he was surprised to
hear of this item on the agenda. As far as he knew, his group was only investigating options for
when the contract was up. Mr. Linke named the charitable works the Lions has done for the
community. Council Member Quick stated the issue is whether Mr. Waste has signed off on this
agreement. Assistant to City Administrator Reed stated she had a copy of the agreement at her
desk.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Recess at 7:59 p.m.
Ayes - 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
The recess ended at 8:09 p.m.
Assistant to City Administrator Reed provided a signed agreement. Though, this agreement may
be in conflict with the Lions Club. She did not have a contract depicting the relationship
between the Lions and Roberts Off 10.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Table Resolution 5577 Allowing Lake Region Hockey
Association to Conduct Charitable Gambling at Robert’s Off 10 for two weeks.
Ayes - 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
A. Approve Just and Correct Claims
Council Member Stigney observed there are four items at the end of the list for Just and Correct
Claims, which he requested be pulled from the June 11 meeting. To date he has not received
information on them. City Administrator Miller explained she provided each department with a
listing of the items in question. She does not have an answer from them yet.
Mayor Sonterre asked Council Member Stigney to confirm the check numbers in question.
Council Member Stigney listed them as 105794, 105828, 105837, 105844.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Approve Just and Correct Claims less items 105794,
105828, 105837, 105844.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
D. Resolution 5582 Authorizing Severance Payout to John Hammerschmidt
Council Member Stigney questioned this item because Mr. Hammerschmidt has approximately 5
weeks of vacation pay. He added that per the contract, he is to take his vacation during the
winter season. He questioned if the City should pay the vacation time Mr. Hammerschmidt
didn’t use.
Mounds View City Council July 9, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 8
City Administrator Miller clarified that the golf course had a contract which allowed Mr.
Hammerschmidt to carry over vacation. She was under the impression that Mr. Hammerschmidt
didn’t always take vacation in the winter. She did not have a copy of his contract but she wasn’t
aware that the contract stated he had to take vacation in the winter; it was just intended.
Council Member Stigney asked if it was City Administrator Miller’s opinion that these wages
were due to Mr. Hammerschmidt. City Administrator Miller stated she hasn’t worked in this
position long enough to know what the practice was in the past. She also clarified that the
amount due to Mr. Hammerschmidt was only accumulated vacation and sick pay; it did not
include flex hours.
City Attorney Reed informed the Council that this practice does comply with the Statutes.
Mayor Sonterre raised the issue that there is a statutory window in which to address issues, and
asked what that window was. City Administrator Miller offered to notify the finance department
the next day of when to sent the check out, assuming the Council approved this payout. Mr.
Kessel’s check was to be mailed to him. Mr. Hammerschmidt’s check will be mailed to Ramsey
County.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Approve Resolution 5582 Authorizing Severance
Payout to John Hammerschmidt
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. Public Hearing to Review, Discuss and Present the Revised Mounds View
Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor Sonterre opened the public hearing at 8:18 p.m.
Director of Community Development Ericson stated the City has been working on this plan for
three or four years. The City held community meetings at Edgewood School and mass mailed
every household in the city. There was a lot of input, and the work was completed in 1999. The
Council approved the plan for distribution to neighboring cities and the Met Council. After a
few months, the Met Council decided that more details needed to be resolved. On November 8,
2000 the Met Council approved the plan. The City Council has nine months from that date in
which to approve the document.
Director Ericson further explained that there hasn’t been many changes to the Comprehensive
Plan. Many of the principals, goals and policies are still in place. He displayed a future land use
map as well as an existing land use map. Residential will still be the City’s primary land use.
There are approximately eleven areas in the city that have been identified to change what the
future land use will be. It is not the city’s intention to redevelop. If redevelopment does occur,
the areas depicted on the future land use map are most likely the areas that would redevelop. If
Mounds View City Council July 9, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 9
the property owner does not want to have his land redeveloped, then it will not be. He explained
all the areas that are identified for future development would only be developed if the property
owners so choose. The City would prefer to see something of a comprehensive basis for
development rather than each smaller piece be developed individually. This would assist the tax
base as well.
Director Ericson stated he was not recommending an action be taken by the Council at this
meeting. He was only presenting information. The Comprehensive Plan is intended to be a fluid
document and change over time to reflect the needs of the community.
Steve Bakke, 8261 Sunnyside Road, commented he has heard that residents would like an
elevated crosswalk over Highway 10. He was under the understanding that there was a meeting
on the this Wednesday night. His question was whether the Planning Commission has
considered this. Director Ericson responded that one of the elements of the Comprehensive Plan
is to address transportation in the City. He added that the City is working toward creating and
providing innovative transportation choices.
Mr. Bakke asked if a trailway is planned. Director Ericson answered that the City is moving
forward to implement that. The Planning Commission and the Park and Recreation Department
discussed how to provide safe pedestrian and bike traffic. The Planning Commission and Park
and Recreation Department did discuss building a bridge over Highway 10. However, the
Comprehensive Plan did not go as far as recommendation on that issue. He added that the
project team is meeting this Wednesday and the consultant will meet with the community the
following Monday. All options need to be considered including an underpass, overpass or trails.
Greg Johnson, 2865 Highway 10 and Mounds View Planning Commissioner commented that any
building along Highway 10 has had a requirement to put in a sidewalk. This makes the highway
safer.
Dan Lamb, 2305 Shorewood Road, questioned who prepared the future land use map. He noted
that the water and wetlands were one color and on the Twin Cities Metro Land Use map, there
isn’t a correlation between water and land. Director Ericson clarified that most of this
information was from the Ramsey County files and the City’s files. He believes the numbers are
accurate for the amount of wetland in the city.
Mayor Sonterre closed the public hearing at 8:40 p.m.
Council Member Marty stated he did not observe trails on the map. Director Ericson explained
that there are about 20 different maps. There is a trailway map that shows where existing trails
are and where future trails will be. Council Member Marty explained he was hoping there would
be more trails and was concerned that some may be eliminated instead. Director Ericson agreed
that there should be more trails.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Approve the Comprehensive Land Use Map for
Finalization at the July 23 Meeting.
Mounds View City Council July 9, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 10
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
B. Public Hearing to consider the First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance
683, an Ordinance Rezoning Property Located at 2525 County Road I from
R-1, Single Family Residential, to R-2, Single and Two Family Residential.
Mayor Sonterre opened the public hearing at 8:52 p.m.
Director of Community Development Ericson explained this request is from Ernie Gustafson
who owns 3 lots. There are 2 undeveloped lots north of his lot. Mr. Gustafson has put forward a
subdivision plan making his 3 lots into 4. Three of the 4 lots would be rezoned to R-2, and this
drawing is on Exhibit C, included in the packet. The Planning Commission held a public hearing
on this issue on June 4 and many residents appeared before the Commission, and most opposed
the proposal. Included in this packet are a couple of letters and one email. The Planning
Commission felt this would not be an appropriate change and wouldn’t fit in with the existing
neighborhood.
The Planning Commission approved a resolution that provided an alternative to rezoning. This is
shown on exhibit F in the packet. This resolution recommended that Lots 3 and 4 of Exhibit F
could be rezoned and be consistent with the housing that already exists. Mr. Gustafson is not in
favor of this. If he were to subdivide to 5 lots, he would accept one lot facing County Road I at
R-2. There is room for 5 lots, but the lot line would end up too close to Mr. Gustafson’s house.
There would be no access allowed from County Road I. Any R-2 lot would have to take frontage
from County Road I. Staff has prepared a rezoning ordinance for the Council’s consideration.
There several options of the Council’s actions which are: to approve the first reading; approve
the first reading with different rezoning; table the issue; or deny. Director Ericson invited Mr.
Gustafson to contribute to the public hearing as well as residents.
Commissioner Quick noticed that Exhibit C does not show 5 lots. Director Ericson explained
that option was proposed after the fact. Before the 5 lots can be drawn, the Planning
Commission would have to approve a variance for the setback on the side of the lot facing Long
Lake Road.
Ernie Gustafson, 2525 County Road I, stated that when he appeared before the Planning
Commission last month, he had proposed a subdivision of 3 lots. There would be a large duplex
lot next to the duplexes that are already there to the east. While Mr. Gustafson did not agree with
the option shown on Exhibit C, he did agree with the option shown on Exhibit F. He added that
when the tornado hit his home in 1965, he rebuilt the house so it could function as a duplex. He
said he hoped the area would be zoned to allow the duplex. He further explained that there is
105 feet from the Long Lake Property line to his home. There needs to be a 10 foot side yard and
he suggested taking 10 feet from his house. That leaves 95 feet by 135 feet on the corner of
County Road I and Long Lake Road. This demands a variance of 5 feet, and he is agreeable to
presenting that to the Planning Commission if need be.
Mounds View City Council July 9, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 11
Mr. Gustafson stated that he advertised his lots for sale by acreage. A buyer was interested in the
corner lot. Mr. Gustafson couldn’t make the sale because he didn’t know if it would be
considered a lot.
Commissioner Quick asked Director Ericson what would need to be done if the Council
approved this plan with 5 lots. Director Ericson suggested having a first reading of the ordinance
and delay the second reading for the variance. If the Planning Commission doesn’t approve the
variance, then the issue is back to square one.
Commissioner Quick asked City Attorney Riggs for his suggestion. City Attorney Riggs
explained that at least 14 days would have to elapse between the first reading and the variance.
Mayor Sonterre clarified that in the 5-lot scenario, the composition would be three duplexes on
County Road I and then 2 lots remaining on Long Lake Road as R-1. Director Ericson responded
that Staff would propose that 2 lots at the most would be R-2. Mayor Sonterre further clarified
that there would be 3 single family homes on Long Lake Road if they approve the variance.
Mayor Sonterre closed the public hearing at 9:05 p.m.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Quick. To Waive the First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance
683 an Ordinance Rezoning property Located at 2525 County Road I from R-1, Single Family
Residential, to R-2, Single and Two Family Residential with Exhibit F amended as proposed.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Director of Community Development Ericson pointed out that this is the first reading. The
applicant now must appear before the Planning Commission. The second reading of the
ordinance will not happen until after the rezoning is approved.
C. Public Hearing to Consider the Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance
684, an Ordinance Rezoning Property Located at 2625 Highway 10 from R-3,
Medium Density Residential, to B-2, Limited Business.
1. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance
Mayor Sonterre opened the public hearing at 9:09 p.m.
Director of Community Development Ericson stated this is a request from the Mounds View
Animal Hospital to expand their site. The Council did approve a reading of the first ordinance at
their last regular meeting. Staff recommends approving Ordinance 684.
Janet Licox, 7815 Eastwood Road recapped that this is for limited business use. She commented
that a specific business is in mind for the lot now and questioned what types of businesses would
be allowed at this location. Director Ericson explained that a higher intensity retail use type of
Mounds View City Council July 9, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 12
business would not be appropriate in this location. Ideas of businesses that would be allowed are
dentist office or laundromat.
Ms. Licox questioned what type of access would be needed for this. She observed that there isn’t
any access for this property currently. Director Ericson replied the applicants requested there be
a right in/right out on County Road 10. That would be the primary access. Customers north of
County Road 10 would use the Eastwood Road access. They do have approved access on County
Road 10 from Ramsey County.
Ms. Licox inquired what types of runoff solutions there are. Director Ericson responded that
those issues would be addressed at the development review. The engineers have been asked to
put into consideration storm water management practices to avoid problems.
Mayor Sonterre closed the public hearing at 9:16 p.m.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Approve Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance
684.
Council Member Stigney asked the applicant if they would do what they can to preserve the trees
that are there.
Dr. Barcus replied they will. He said he is not sure how it will play out because of the size and
shape of the building. They want to maintain an aesthetic standpoint and he thought a number of
the perimeter trees will be saved.
Mayor Sonterre asked City Administrator Miller to take the roll call vote. Marty: aye. Quick:
aye. Stigney: aye. Sonterre: aye. Thomas: Absent.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To recess at 9:22 p.m.
Recess ended at 9:27 p.m.
D. Continuation of Public Hearing to Consider the Intoxicating Liquor and
Sunday Sales License Application for Topa Corporation dba Donatelle’s.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed requested a continuation of this item to the August 13
regular meeting of the City Council. This is the second request for a continuation. The applicant
is working out issues with the Ramsey County Health Department.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Continue the Public Hearing to Consider the
Intoxicating Liquor and Sunday Sales License Application for Topa Corporation dba Donatelle’s.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Mounds View City Council July 9, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 13
E. Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Variance Request for a Reduced
Side-Yard Setback, Arlen Baumhofner, 5532 St. Stephen Street.
Planning Associate Atkinson stated this request from Arlen Baumhofner is to construct a storage
building. The Planning Commission reviewed this issue in a public hearing. The Planning
Commission did not find a reason to grant the variance; they felt there was no hardship. Planner
Atkinson mentioned there is a procedural flaw in this item due to no notification of residents of
the public hearing.
City Attorney Riggs stated that Section 112502 in the City Code states the Board of Adjustment
of Appeals states a public hearing must be held and notices must be sent to those that are within
350 feet of this request. He suggested this item be continued.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Continue the Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of
Variance Request for a Reduced Side-Yard Setback.
Director Ericson mentioned that Mr. Baumhofner’s neighbor was present and wished to speak.
The Council agreed to hear public testimony.
Mr. Baumhofner stated he was in favor of the public hearing. He commented that his neighbor
was in favor of the building. He explained the storage building would look more like a carriage
house with a front porch and pillars.
Barb Skurvig, 5538 St. Stephen Street said she saw no problem with the building of the storage
building. She felt the building would enhance the area.
Director of Community Development Ericson stated this item would be scheduled for the regular
Council Meeting on August 13, due to the lead-in time needed for publication.
F. Creative Kids Child Care Agreement
City Administrator Miller stated the Council reviewed a number of proposals at the last meeting.
Included in that meeting was a copy of the lease agreement, a public works report, and a copy of
the revenue report by the City’s finance director. The revised contract is similar to the original
but simplifies the lease agreement. The original document had a formula for enrollment and we
wanted to simplify that. The second component of the agreement is the utility maintenance.
The Public Works director compiled a report which is included in the meeting packet. The Staff
recommended a minimum of a 5-year lease agreement. Provided in the report are the actual
revenues collected for the year 2000. The applicant did not feel comfortable with a 3% CPI.
Mayor Sonterre questioned the 3% number and whether that was fact based or not. City
Administrator Miller responded it is not fact; it is speculative. She used that number because the
Public Works Director included that number in his report. Mayor Sonterre suggested the CPI be
eliminated this time around, and include real numbers when the lease is due again. His
Mounds View City Council July 9, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 14
suggestion was to not increase the amount the first year, but an accurate CPI can be determined
for future years.
Council Member Marty agreed with Mayor Sonterre’s suggestion to omit the CPI for now and set
the base rate.
City Administrator Miller suggested a base rent be established, and on July 1 of each year,
determine what the CPI is. The lease offers two ways of paying. One option is a percentage of
the previous year’s analyzed rent, and another is an amount equivalized to the CPI and pay the
greater of the two.
Tracy Sonterre, applicant, received a copy of the lease at 11:30 a.m. today. She would like to
contact her lawyer before agreeing with the lease. She had a question in regard to the base rent,
due to the fact that she cannot raise her rates on child care to maintain the lease. In addition, she
will have to maintain a 4-5 percent raise for staff wages for incentive for them to stay on with her
center. She said she was reassured many times that this was to be as much of an even break as
possible. She felt that if the lease is being increased, it could be a hardship in the long run.
City Administrator Miller stated it was not intended that the rate would gradually increase.
Mayor Sonterre explained that while increases are to be expected, the City would try to keep
them surmountable. Ms. Sonterre noted that the business of child care can be costly.
Council Member Stigney questioned whether a CPI factor is involved and what the policy is for
leases for the YMCA, and such organizations.
Ms. Sonterre stated that her organization is not a private corporation nor an organization
supplemented by the state. She requested leniency to get the business started and maintain
employees. Her goal is to be in the community a long time. Ms. Sonterre’s business is at
capacity in Anoka and is a good business. She felt she could build the same type of business in
Mounds View.
Mayor Sonterre stated it was worth noting that the Council’s time has been remarkably tied up as
of late. Originally, the Council was working towards an August 1 start date for a new provider,
but realizes it will be difficult to have the center open by August 1. He suggested the word
“greater” be changed to “lesser” in the contract under 2.1 (a).
Council Member Stigney stated he was under the impression that this was a negotiated lease and
now he learned that the applicant needs to consider the lease with the lawyer. He requested our
staff and attorney look at our contract. City Attorney Riggs responded that the Council does have
that discretion.
Mayor Sonterre remarked that this is not a working document. The goal is to present an
officially approved lease. This lease is much the same as the predecessor’s, except for a few
points.
Mounds View City Council July 9, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 15
Council Member Marty stated he thought the community needed this service and believes that
Creative Kids Child Care Center has bargained in good faith. He concurred with Mayor Sonterre
on his suggestion of changing the wording relating to rent. He also questioned why it took four
days for Ms. Sonterre to get a copy of the lease when it was emailed to the Council Members on
July 5.
City Administrator Miller explained that she had been in conversation with Ms. Sonterre. Ms.
Sonterre was on vacation prior to the 4th of July. Ms. Sonterre stated she did receive a message
from City Administrator Miller when she returned to her office on Thursday, July 5. City
Administrator Miller stated she was out of the office Thursday and Friday, July 5 and 6.
Ms. Sonterre acknowledged that the Council had been working on other issues recently and
didn’t see that as a problem. She did want to bring up two other items on the lease. Item 2.4 in
regard to Accounting she didn’t feel pertained to her business. Because of the change in the
maintenance fee for her business, she understood the earnings she made did not affect the City.
She also requested clarification on item 4.1 in regard to tenant’s maintenance and repairs.
Council Member Stigney asked if Ms. Sonterre had a problem divulging her income. Ms.
Sonterre explained she was only interested in not making it public.
Ms. Sonterre questioned whether the books would be reviewed just for that property or for any
other sites of the corporation. City Attorney Riggs replied the books would be reviewed for the
whole corporation.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Continue Discussion on this Item For a Limit of 15
Minutes.
Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
City Attorney Riggs clarified that item 2.4 is on the lease because this is a state bond financed
property. Typically, the auditor needs to look at the books when a lease is with a public entity.
He encouraged Ms. Sonterre to leave that item in place.
Council Member Stigney asked if the books would be reviewed annually or quarterly. Mayor
Sonterre suggested that since that information must be prepared for taxes, it may be the least
costly to review the books annually. City Attorney Riggs suggested to make the language in the
agreement read “annually or upon request.”
Mayor Sonterre raised issues with Section 4.1. He said that Ms. Sonterre needed clarification on
exactly what is considered interior and exterior maintenance. He brought up two scenarios of
broken windows or plumbing problems and asked who would be responsible for what types of
repair. He then suggested the language be left as is and define it at a later date. City Attorney
Riggs agreed the language could be modified.
Mounds View City Council July 9, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 16
Council Member Stigney questioned the wording in Section 2.3 in relation to a drastic
adjustment in any utilities due to inflation, act of God, etc. City Administrator Miller suggested
the wording be changed to “There should be an adjustment in any utilities,” etc.
City Attorney Riggs explained that this provision was intended to cover the drastic spikes in
utility costs. He added that the word “inflation” is taking into account the CPI.
Council Member Stigney felt the increase in utilities should be the tenant’s responsibility.
Council Member Marty pointed out that if the cost would increase drastically, it would likely be
brought before the Council.
Mayor Sonterre reviewed the changes discussed: Section 2.1.(a) should read “by the lesser of”
and “3% CPI”; 2.3 should read “There should be an adjustment in utilities”; 2.4 should read
“annually or upon request the accounting information.”
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Approve the Creative Kids Child Care Agreement as
amended.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
G. Payments to Seasonal Employee for Golf Lessons
Assistant to City Administrator Reed distributed papers with the first two pages intending to be
answers to questions the Council Members had at the last meeting.
Assistant to City Administrator Reed explained that in answer to Council Member Stigney’s
question of who were the card carrying PGA golf teachers, all four are. She included a small
flow chart in the handout, explaining how the pros are paid.
The following information sheet that was handed out outlined the fees received for golf lessons.
Mayor Sonterre raised the question of how the apprentice pro is paid. Assistant to City
Administrator Reed explained the apprentice is an employee of the City but wasn’t sure how the
apprentice was paid. She offered to find out.
Council Member Stigney questioned item 5 on the handouts. He asked who the $40
administrative fee is paid to. Assistant to City Administrator Reed replied that is paid to the
pros. Council Member Stigney asked if that is in addition to the wages they would already be
making. Assistant to the City Administrator Reed deferred this item to the Head Pro, who was
out of the office.
Council Member Stigney questioned what the definition of “member” is in regard to card
carrying PGA members. Assistant to the City Administrator Reed explained all 4 teachers are
members. The PGA web site would likely have more information on member status.
Mounds View City Council July 9, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 17
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed explained that there are 2 staff employees that work in
the clubhouse. One seasonal employee has other responsibilities. The master professional only
gives lessons. Resolution 5548 created a second position to give lessons only and was approved
by the Council and is an open position.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed stated that on June 25, the Council requested job
descriptions be developed. Since the issue is on lesson pay, the individual who gives lessons and
works in the clubhouse would only receive his base pay while this issue is under discussion.
Council Member Marty questioned how long the pay could be withheld due to working on the
job descriptions. Assistant to the City Administrator Reed stated the job descriptions were given
to the two regular employees the day after the last Council meeting. She explained she would
need 48 hours to draw up the descriptions for the other employees and send them to Labor and
Relations.
Mayor Sonterre said he understood there is a need to change a certain position to a contracted
position. He questioned whether that should be considered by Labor and Relations. Assistant to
the City Administrator Reed confirmed that Labor and Relations recommended this position be
an individual contract.
Council Member Stigney inquired whether the City is in violation of Chapter 302 of the City
Code. City Attorney Riggs clarified that an independent contractor agreement is a fairly simple
agreement, but did agree that it should be discussed with Labor and Relations.
Council Member Stigney stated he read in the contract that this particular employee would be
paid until the end of the year. Assistant to the City Administrator Reed explained they would be
paid at the end of the junior session, which is the end of August. The Pros will be paid this
Thursday for lessons up to June 15.
Mayor Sonterre suggested this item be put off until the work session the following week to
discuss changing a certain position to a contract position as per the recommendation of Assistant
to City Administrator Reed and City Attorney Riggs.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed asked if she has direction from the Council to create a
job description for the person that gives lessons and has operational duties. She clarified it
would all be in one job description. Mayor Sonterre asked if this was a recommendation brought
forward by Labor and Relations. Assistant to the City Administrator confirmed it is.
Council Member Marty affirmed the Council was giving direction. Council Member Stigney
stated he was not ready to act on it.
H. Approval of amendment to Development Agreement 87-81, regarding a
parking lot expansion at Building G of the Mounds View Business Park.
Mounds View City Council July 9, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 18
Planning Associate Jim Atkinson reviewed the Staff Report. The Council approved a prior
request to add 35 spaces with 3 conditions. The Case had been tabled due to one document, and
as of today that document was issued.
City Attorney Riggs explained the contract for private development appears to suggest
modifications can be made. However, there is no verification whether everything was done
properly when the parcel was transferred to new owners.
Director of Community Development Ericson suggested approving a resolution to amend the
resolution that approved the expansion and amend that resolution stating Council no longer
desires to have the developer agreement amended.
This will be discussed at the next work session.
I. Closed Session
City Attorney Riggs stated the Labor and Relations Negotiations requires by Minnesota Statute to
have a motion to approve discussion of that item in a closed session.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Discuss Item I Labor Negotiations in Closed Session.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Layover Agenda Items 8, 9 and 10 to the Next Regularly
Scheduled Council Meeting.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
11. Next Council Work Session: July 16, 2001
Next Council Meeting July 23, 2001
12. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Sonterre adjourned the meeting to a closed session at 10:57 p.m.
Transcribed and recorded by:
Christine Moksnes
Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
July 23, 2001
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
7:02 P.M.
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Sonterre, Quick, Marty, Stigney, and Thomas.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A. Monday, July 23, 2001 City Council Agenda.
City Administrator Miller suggested the Council go into closed session to discuss the audit
investigation.
Public Works Director, Michael Ulrich, requested item J. Resolution 5595, Approving a Public
Hearing for Mounds View Drive Resurfacing Project be added to the Council Business.
Mayor Sonterre requested that Council Business Item 7F be moved to 7A and the other items be
renumbered.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Approve the Agenda as Amended.
Ayes - -- 5 Nays - -- 0 Motion carried.
4. PUBLIC INPUT
Bill Werner, 2765 Sherwood Road, read an open letter to Kathleen Miller. He requested a copy
be included in the minutes, which is below.
Date: 07-23-01
To: Kathleen Miller, MV Clerk-Administrator
From: William Werner 2765 Sherwood Rd.
Subject: Charter Requirements
The Mounds View city constitution, in the form of a charter, requires department
heads to report in person to the public once each quarter at a regularly scheduled
council meeting.
Mounds View City Council July 23, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 2
This requirement for presenting the public with information on the workings of
the city staff has been largely ignored. I believe this disregard has been
detrimental to the proper operation of the city, leading to many surprises that
have befallen Mounds View in recent weeks.
As an original member of the Mounds View Charter Commission at the time the
charter was written, I want to offer my recollection of the spirit of this
requirement when it was written an d as it was practiced initially after the charter
was voted in.
The objective of this quarterly report is to continually inform the public of the
status, progress and plans on all projects in the city. This includes budget status
and projected expenditures on all funding, including monies from other agencies.
The finance director is expected to arrange his accounting procedure to make
transparent to the public all financial activities and plans. The city administrator
should set an example by encouraging full disclosure in order to enhance
accountability at the department level.
This kind of expression of accountability to the citizens of Mounds View would, in
my opinion, enhance the well being of Mounds View.
To quote one of the nation’s founding father s: ‘‘Any nation that expects to be
ignorant and free, expects what never was and never will be.’’
Signed, William Werner
Mayor Sonterre added that the Council requested the Charter Commission look into this and
give an opinion. No opinion was specifical ly rendered. This is something that had to be
interpreted by the Council. He requested that City Administrator Miller add this item to the
agenda for the Council’s next work session.
Naza Werner, 2765 Sherwood Road, stated she is a longtime resident. She stated that people are
thoroughly disgusted with the city government. She felt that the Council should be more open
with information beforehand instead of disclosing bits and pieces just before it was time to vote.
She added that if a citizen wants information, they must file a written request. Then they must
wait along time for a response. She said as she watches Council meetings, she gets the impression
that some Council Members lack sufficient information to make wise decisions. She felt some
dec isions seem to be rubber stamped. Ms. Werner commented this is detrimental to the city and
its reputation.
Dana Mandosa, 2633 Clearview Avenue, stated he was told at the last Council meeting that if he
wanted information, he would need to formally request it. On July 17, he said he made that
request. He asked when he should expect that information to come back.
Mounds View City Council July 23, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 3
Mayor Sonterre pointed out the public disclosure process is one in which they take requests in
order. Mayor Sonterre remarked he could not speak with regard to where this request is. He
asked that Mr. Mandosa have patience.
City Administrator Miller confirmed Mayor Sonterre’s explanation of how requests are handled.
She stated she has reviewed the requests with the City Attorney’ s office. She has recently
finalized some requests regarding Mr. Hammerschmidt and Mr. Kessel. She mentioned she
discussed with City Attorney Riggs the number of requests the City has received. Mr.
Mandosa’ s requests would be received in the next few weeks.
Mr. Mandosa asked how many requests the City has. City Attorney Riggs stated there are ten to
fifteen, and some of those requests are multiple requests. City Attorney Riggs stated that Mr.
Mandosa’s request included three separate items, and he thought the request could be handled in
about a week.
Michelle Sandback, 2356 Sherwood Road stated she spoke with Frank Pavkow of MN/DOT
recently regarding the noise wall. Mr. Pavkow sent a letter to the City, and Ms. Sandback
requested a copy of the letter. She r eported she watched a replay of the April 8 public forum
meeting with Representative Evans, the Senator, Mr. Pavkow, and Mayor Sonterre. At the
beginning of the meeting, Mayor Sonterre stated the list of questions would be forwarded to
MN/DOT. Mr. Pavkow informed Ms. Sandback that he has not received that letter. Mayor
Sonterre offered to send a video tape to Mr. Pavkow. Mayor Sonterre added that he spoke with
the Senator’s office and scheduled a follow up meeting for August 1 with MN/DOT.
Council Member Marty thanked Ms. Sandburg for forwarding the information she discovered to
the City Council.
Jane Stolelamp, 2305 Sherwood Road, stated she presented a petition on behalf of the Residents
for Greenfield Pond at the last Council meeting. She reported she has since received
information from the Environmental Quality Board. They determined the petition was valid and
that the Rice Creek Watershed is the responsible governmental unit. The Environmental Quality
Board has given direction to the Watershed f or what to do next. Ms. Stolelamp provided a copy
of this letter to City Administrator Miller.
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, publicly thanked Sheri Gunn for all the work she did in
Festival in the Park. He also thanked the Lions Club for all their work.
Mr. Jahnke stated that TIF funding is one of his pet peeves and he had a question regarding this.
He stated that the Council reported they were being checked for TIF funding by the state some
time ago. Mr. Jahnke requested a report if the Council r eceived one.
Aaron Parrish, Economic Development Coordinator, responded the City did receive a
preliminary letter. He stated he was planning to present this report in the EDA Reports.
Mr. Jahnke questioned if this report is available. City Attorney Riggs responded it is not public
data until the city provides a report. The City has 60 days to prepare a report.
Mounds View City Council July 23, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 4
Mr. Jahnke questioned whether he could receive a copy of the audit on the golf course. City
Administrator Miller replied that report is not available as of yet.
Dan Lamb, 2305 Sherwood Road, stated he had been attempting to contact Council Member
Marty the prior week. He asked if Council Member Marty had a number for the Rice Creek
Watershed. Mayor Sonterre responded there has been no response from the Rice Creek
Watershed. Council Member Thomas place a phone call to that agency and did not receive an
answer as of yet.
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approve Just and Correct Claims
B. Licenses for Approval
C. Building G Parking Lot Expansion, Resolution 5589
D. Approval of Resolution 5585 Authorizing Application for an Opportunity Grant
Through the Livable Communities Demonstration Program for the Highway 10
Reconstruction and Revitalization Study
E. Approval of Resolution 5586 Authorizing Application for an Opportunity Grant
Through the Livable Communities Demonstration Program for the Laport
Meadows Housing Development.
F. Resolution 5590 Approving a Tobacco License for Walgreens #06447 (2387
Highway 10)
Council Member Marty questioned whether Council Member Stigney received answers for his
questions at the last meeting on Just and Correct Claims. Council Member Stigney stated he
received partial answers.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Approve Consent Agenda Items A through F as
Presented.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. Update Report Regarding Charitable Gambling License for Lake Region
Hockey at Robert’s Off 10.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed reported that at the July 9 City Council meeting, there
was a resolution requesting approval for gambling at Robert’s Off 10. A representative from the
Lion’s Club questioned the action and the item was tabled.
Mounds View City Council July 23, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 5
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed stated she spoke with representatives of Lake Region
Hockey and the Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division as well as with Mr. Waste. Mr.
Waste indicated he did intend to terminate his lease agreement with the Lions. Mr. Waste stated
that he since had decided to lay this issue over until t he end of the year. Assistant to the City
Administrator Reed stated Mr. Waste could terminate his agreement with the Lions, but would
have to do so in writing.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed stated that Mr. Waste advised her that since the Council
meeting of July 9 he would like to continue his relationship with the Lions. She stated that City
Attorney Riggs recommended Mr. Waste submit a letter to the City to this effect.
City Attorney Riggs stated that he did speak with Lake Region Hockey on this issue and they
were agreeable.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed stated that Staff did not have a copy of the application
that was approved by the Lions. However, this issue was before the City Council and a
resolution was approved in 1999. She reported that she checked with the State and the Lions do
hold a valid license.
Jerry Linke, 2319 Knollwood Drive, stated he appreciated the time that Staff put into this issue.
He mentioned that at the last meeting, questions were raised on how the Lions spend their
money. He listed the expenditures for the past 12 months which includes emergency housing for
those in a fire or domestic problem, basic needs for families in crisis of which 41.5% of the
money was spent, scholarships for Edgewood and Pineview schools, a new engine in the van,
Festival in the Park, the community Easter egg party, the bike safety program and Scouts. He
handed out a list of these expenditures.
Mayor Sonterre pointed out that the spending wasn’t the issue that was chal lenged. Mr. Linke
responded he understood that, but wished to give this information to the Council since their
license is up for renewal in a few months.
B. Approval of Resolution 5584, a Resolution Adopting the Updated Mounds
View Comprehensive Plan
Director of Community Development Jim Ericson presented the revised Comprehensive Plan.
This document has been worked on since 1997. The Planning Commission worked on this for
almost two years before they forwarded it to the Metropolitan Council. The Metr opolitan
Council approved it and it is now before the City Council for adoption. The current
Comprehensive Plan builds heavily on the previous plan.
Director Ericson stated that one of the stipulations to this resolution is that it should be approved
sub ject to an outside consultant looking at the data. He added that a few items from the census
are not included and should be. The resolution should be approved subject to statistics. Director
Ericson stated that the Comprehensive Plan is not on the inter net yet as it is waiting for approval,
Mounds View City Council July 23, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 6
however the summary is on the internet as well as some of the maps. He explained that it will be
put on CD and it will be available at the library and at the City Hall to be checked out.
Council Member Thomas pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan is considered to be a living
document and finer detail may need to be revisited from time to time.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Marty. To Approve Resolution 5584, A Resolution Approving
the Revised and Updated Mounds View Comprehensive Plan.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
C. Consider Approval of Resolution 5587, A Resolution Approving and
Awarding Construction Bid for City Project 01-06, Edgewood Middle School
Regional Pond.
Economic Development Coordinator Aaron Parrish stated a proposal is presented to construct a
regional pond off of County Road H at Edgewood Middle School. The low bidder was Vitin
Company. The bid was evaluated by the City Consultant and it was determined this company
does have the capacity to complete this project. Coordinator Parrish advised there is a change in
the City contribution. The City’s contribution will be $90,000 rather than $150,000. Property
owners that would benefit from this project have been solicited. Coordinator Parrish r eported
that the engineering construction expenses will now be included. He further stated that there
may be an opportunity to realize savings if Staff can go to the site and supervise the work,
depending on staffing levels with the City.
Council Member Stigney questioned if TIF funds are used, would that be in compliance with
state regulations. Coordinator Parrish confirmed it would be.
Council Member Thomas thanked the staff for their hard work and stated she understood that
Staff was put in a hard spot by approaching the property owners.
Council Member Marty questioned if this would be completed in the allotted timeframe.
Coordinator Parrish stated it would be. It will need to be done in time for the school open house.
Coordinator Parrish explained the way the document reads is that the deadline to move the trail
is in August. The project deadline is November 30. Due to the paving being completed in
conjunction with Ramsey County and working around their timeline, the paving cannot be
completed i n November. The contract will be left open until next year for renovation issues.
November 30 is the substantial completion date.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Approve Resolution 5587, A Resolution Approving and
Awarding Construction Bid for City Project 01 -06, Edgewood Middle School Regional Pond.
Council Member Stigney commented it would have been nice if the Mermaid could have been
involved.
Mounds View City Council July 23, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 7
Ayes - -- 5 Nays - -- 0 Motion carried.
D. Consideration of Resolution No. 5588, Establishing Parking Restriction on
Quincy Street, between County Road I and Bronson Drive
Mike Ulrich, Director of Public Works, stated that Staff met with the committee that was
established to evaluate the parking and safety issues on Quincy Street in regard to the expansion
of Pinewood Elementary School. A survey was sent to 19 property owners. The City received
15 responses to this survey with 13 of those responses being positive toward restrictive parking
between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. He added that school hour s will go until 4:30 p.m.
this year. There will be restrictions in parking between 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. school days.
Mayor Sonterre suggested there be a distinction between staff school day and student school day.
Due to after school and weekend acti vities, it could be a perception that school is in session when
it is not.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Approve Resolution 5588 and Waive the Reading.
Ayes - -- 5 Nays - -- 0 Motion carried.
E. Consideration of City Hall Boiler Systems Quotes
Director of Public Works Ulrich explained the Staff requested quotes from contractors for the
replacement and updating of the City Hall boiler system. One boiler stopped working last year
due to a broken heat exchanger and was tagged by the inspector.
Mr. Ulrich stated that three quotes were received. Some quotes did not comply with the request
and Staff requested additional information from the service providers. Some bidders adjusted
their quotes, and they are listed in the Staff Report. Mr. Ulrich added that there will need to be
abatement of asbestos insulation from the heating pipes in the project area, which will add
approximately $1,000 to the low quote.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Approve the Quote from Lakes Air Heating and
Cooling to replace the City Hall boiler system.
Ayes - -- 5 Nays - -- 0 Motion carried.
F. Consideration of City Hall, Community Center Parking Lot Sealcoating
Quotes.
Public Works Director Ulrich stated two quotes were requested to sealcoat the parking lots of
the Community Center and City Hall. A different material from what was used in the past will
be used for these parking lots. Mr. Ulrich explained there is a great concern with the
Community Center if small rock is trailed into the building. The new material has a better
texture and Road Surfacing Technologies applies this with less overlap. They will also apply the
sealcoating thicker.
Mounds View City Council July 23, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 8
Council Member Thomas questioned how long this will add to the wearability of the surface.
Mr. Ulrich explained this is a scheduled project about every three to five years. The drive lanes
may wear more, but this particular material should last between five and seven years.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Award the Sealcoat Project of City Hall and
Community Center Parking L ots to Road Surfacing Technologies for a Sum of $18,213 to be
Funded From the Pavement Management Program Budget, 100 -4470-7050.
Ayes - -- 5 Nays - -- 0 Motion carried.
G. Compensation for Seasonal Golf Course Instructor
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed explained the City Council gave direction to negotiate
an independent contract at the last City Council meeting. Also, there has been discussion
concerning whether there is a need for four positions to offer private lessons. Assistant to the
Cit y Administrator Reed stated she spoke with the Clubhouse Manager, who advised that the
Seasonal Golf Instructor position is needed. This position would be a Master Pro that would
bring in clientele that would otherwise not have exposure to the Golf Course.
Due to new information, the recommendation for compensating the instructor under an
independent contract has changed. Assistant to the City Administrator Reed explained that City
Attorney Riggs advised that a private individual cannot run private busi ness without
compensation to the City for wear and tear. The independent contractor must compensate the
City for use of the course rather than abiding by the original plan, which allowed the instructor
to keep 100% of the fees generated from lessons, less the cost of range balls. Also, the
independent contractor will receive $5.00 per student per lesson at the end of the eight -week
program for Junior Golf Lessons. The golfers would pay the City directly for their lessons.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed suggested the effective date be July 23. Also backpay
for lessons given after June 15 is recommended. City Attorney Riggs explained the Council can
designate June 15 as a start date for back pay.
Council Member Marty commented that this indiv idual is filling a need at the golf course. This
individual would add an amenity to the city, yet does not receive city pay. He questioned
whether the City should charge for the use of the driving range, parking lot, restrooms, and golf
balls.
City Attorney Riggs explained the City is a public entity and cannot give gifts away. He further
explained that a private individual running a business on city or public property could use it
without having to pay anything for the use of it. With 70/30 split ther e is a component that takes
into account the use of the golf course. Therefore, the individual has a right to be on the golf
course.
Council Member Marty stated he had not had a chance to call around to see what fee the pros
get at other courses.
Mounds View City Council July 23, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 9
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed stated she did check with some other cities, and their
responses are what prompted her to ask these questions of the Council. She stated she then
received direction from City Attorney Riggs. She stated that some other cities have the pros pay
for range balls, and some did not.
Council Member Thomas questioned if this solution now satisfies the requirements with the State
Auditor’s office that caused this problem in first place. City Attorney Riggs replied it does. The
issues the State Auditor’s Office raised concerned the 100% compensation which would not be
approved by the State Auditor.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Quick. To Amend the Compensation Structure and Set the
Effective Date for Back Pay as June 15, 2001.
Council Member Marty questioned the fact of the 70/30 split. He explained that as the City
Attorney suggested, the City should be compensated for the use of the course. He stated his
concern was that if other golf courses are paying 100% the City should not take the chance that
this individual would take a position at a City that pays 100%. Council Member Marty
questioned if the split should be modified to 95/5.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed stated she has spoken with individual that would be t he
pro and they were agreeable with the current terms.
Council Member Quick inquired how long the contract would be enforced. Assistant to the City
Administrator Reed replied it would be enforced until October 15, and then it would be
terminated. Next y ear, the same discussion will need to take place, but there will be something in
place.
Ayes - -- 4 Nays - -- 1 (Marty) Motion carried.
H. Consideration of Resolution No. 5591, Approving a Feasibility Study for
Mounds View Drive Mill and Overlay Project
Public Works Director Michael Ulrich stated the need to overlay Mounds View Drive and to
conduct a feasibility study to determine cost estimates has become apparent. Staff anticipates
that based on the consulting engineers’ study, the estimated cost of $55,500.00 will suffice. Mr.
Ulrich pointed out the original quote was only for the overlay. The City is working with the
county and their contract, and anticipate the project cost could raise as much as $8,000.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Approve Resolution 5591, A Resolution Authorizing
a Feasibility Study for the Mill and Overlay of Mounds View Drive.
Council Member Marty clarified that the estimated cost is $55,500 and will raise approximately
$8,000 to $10,000. He questioned whether the estimat ed cost should read $65,000. Mr. Ulrich
said that is the total estimated cost.
Mounds View City Council July 23, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 10
Ayes - -- 5 Nays - -- 0 Motion carried.
Mr. Ulrich stated the possibility is high that the study could be completed this year.
I. Consideration of Resolution No. 5592, Setting a Public Hearing for County
Road H2 Reconstruction Project
Public Works Director Ulrich stated there have been concerns regarding street parking during
reconstruction of County Road H2. At a recent meeting, people were asked to take a response
card, fil l it out and return it to the City. There was no deadline on the card so it is difficult to
determine when the responses will come back. Mr. Ulrich said he expected some cards will be
returned at the public hearing. There has been mostly positive response so far of the comments
made.
Council Member Marty brought up the assessment policy. Director Ulrich stated the residents
are assessed by the foot.
Mayor Sonterre stated some residents felt that because apartments had a higher population, they
shoul d be charged more per foot. Director Ulrich responded there is a section in the assessment
policy that specifically addresses that situation.
Council Member Marty questioned whether this will this include a sidewalk or pathway.
Director Ulrich responded there is an eight -foot bituminous trail proposed. Preliminary plans
will be presented at the September 4 work session. The public hearing will take into account
public comments. He further explained there is a 60-day waiting period in which any resident
can solicit signatures.
Mayor Sonterre commented this is a resolution that would set a public hearing for September 10
at 7:05 at City Hall.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Approve Resolution 5592 and Waive the Reading.
Ayes - -- 5 Nays - -- 0 Motion car ried.
J. Consideration of Resolution No. 5595, Approving a Public Hearing for
Mounds View Drive Resurfacing Project
Public Works Director Michael Ulrich stated mailings would be sent to all affected property
owners in the resurfacing project of Mounds Vi ew Drive. A public hearing will be set August 27
and this item will go to the City Council the second week in November.
Director Ulrich stated that paving cannot be done past the first part of November and therefore,
it may be beneficial to extend the guidelines and not pave until the first part of Spring.
However, one consideration to paving in the spring is the freeze and thaw cycle and how that
affects the roads. Also, the cost could rise two to three times higher in the spring.
Mounds View City Council July 23, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 11
City Attorney Riggs pointed out there is a 60-day waiting period after the public hearing, and
this could hold the action up.
Director Ulrich stated that all property owners on the east would be assessed. He suggested it
may be possible to have the property owners provide some type of document that they agree to
pay the assessments and work could begin sooner. He suggested the Charter Commission
consider this request. The 60-day waiting period is a long period and possibly 30-45 days could
be more appropriate. This timeframe would help in cases such as this one, and in larger cases.
Council Member Marty reiterated that if the paving isn’t completed until next year, the cost will
rise. He suggested that if the City is approached by parties that will be assessed, if the City gives
them the facts, possibly the residents would work with the City to get the project started sooner.
Director Ulrich pointed out that there is a 60-day waiting period for anyone in the city; not just
those being assessed. Council Member Marty reiterated the possibility of asking the Charter
Commission to review this.
Council Member Quick stated it is not the Charter Commission’s decision. The Council has the
responsibility to interpret the Code and suffer the consequences of its interpretati on.
Council Member Stigney stated the Resolution should be corrected from County Road H2 to
Mounds View Drive.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Approve Resolution 5595 as amended, A Resolution
to Set the Date for a Public Hearing as August 27, 2001.
Ayes - -- 5 Nays - -- 0 Motion carried.
Assistant to City Administrator Reed stated she needed to present two items that may be more
appropriate listed under Council Business.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney. To add items K. Consideration of Resolution 5593,
Authorizing Severance Pay for Larry Decheine and L. Consideration of Resolution 5394,
Authorizing Severance Pay for Michael Ulrich to the Agenda under Council Business.
Ayes - -- 5 Nays - -- 0 Motion carried.
K. Consideration of Resolution 5593, Approv ing Severance Pay for Larry
Decheine
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed stated she learned earlier that day that one of the Public
Works employees would be retiring after 31 years of service. This is the last Council meeting
prior to the employee’s final date of working for the City. His last day will be July 31. Assistant
to the City Administrator Reed summarized that Mr. Decheine is entitled to 100% of accrued
vacation time, estimated at 98.94 hours. This translates to $1,838.51. There were tw o options
Mounds View City Council July 23, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 12
available to Mr. Decheine which are: Option 1 - lump sum payment of 50% of accrued sick
leave, or Option 2 - -- 65% of sick leave accrued for use toward the retiree’s group health, dental
and/or life insurance premiums for as long as the funds are available up to the retiree’ s 65
th
birthday. If Option 2 is elected, these funds may be used only for the retiree’s health, dental
and/or life insurance premiums and at no time may they be taken for cash or for any other
purpose. Mr. Decheine has chosen Option 2, which estimates his total package at $24,513.96.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Approve Resolution 5593, a Resolution Approving
Severance Pay for Larry Decheine.
Ayes - --5 Nays - -- 0 Motion carried.
L. Consideration of Resolution 5394, Approving Severance Pay for Michael
Ulrich
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed stated Mike Ulrich has been with the City 14 years and
his last day with the City is August 3. Mr. Ulrich is entitled to 398.49 hours of vacation time.
This translates to $14,357.59. Mr. Ulrich is entitled to the same options as listed above for Mr.
Decheine. Mr. Ulrich has chosen Option 1 which estimates his total package at $31,651.99.
Council Member Marty questioned whether there is a difference between retirement or leaving
as far as benefits. City Attorney Riggs explained that Mr. Duschein will receive 65% of the
benefits while Mr. Ulrich will receive 50%.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Approve Resolution 5394, Approving Severance Pay
for Michael Ulrich.
Ayes - -- 5 Nays - -- 0 Motion carried.
8. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mayor Sonterre presented a plaque to Mr. Ulrich in appreciation for his hard work for the City
of Mounds View. Mayor Sonterre wished Mr. Ulrich continued success. He expressed
appreciation in working with Mr. Ulrich both on the City Council and the Park and Recreation
Commission.
9. REPORTS
A. Discuss City Council/Charter Commission joint meeting
Council Member Thomas stated that she and Charter Commissioner Chair Jonathon Thomas set
a joi nt meeting for Thursday, August 23 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss civil rights. The meeting will be
held in the Council Chambers.
Jonathon Thomas, 8040 Groveland Road, stated one of the Charter Commission Members
motioned to have a meeting regarding human right s. This meeting was set for August 23. There
Mounds View City Council July 23, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 13
are items that are of special importance and it became apparent that they should be discussed at a
joint meeting of the City Council and Charter Commission.
Mayor Sonterre stated he is in agreement to have a joint meeting, however his concern was it
may not be necessary to invite the Council to this meeting. The Council is always invited to the
Charter Commission’s meetings and this particular meeting could be a fairly lengthy
presentation. Mayor Sonterre continued that if the joint meeting was held after the Charter
Commission meeting, there may not be sufficient time nor the necessary environment for
discussion. He suggested an invitation be issued and a separate time set up for discussion.
Charter Commission Chair Thomas stated he did discuss that possibility with the Commission,
though the feeling was that this was an important issue and it would be best to present it to the
public as a joint meeting with the City Council and Charter Commission.
Mayor Sonterre stated he appreciated the invitation, though thought it could be beneficial to
discuss items in addition to the human rights issue at another time. He suggested this issue be
discussed at a wor k session.
Council Member Stigney stated he agreed with Mayor Sonterre that it should be a separate issue.
Mr. Werner, 2765 Sherwood Road, made a public comment, stating he thought it was important
to separate these issues.
Council Member Thomas stated a joint meeting was requested to present the infor mation jointly
to the public. The agenda could state whether there would be a separate meeting afterward.
Council Member Quick stated he would appreciate the invitation. Council Member Marty stated
he would try to attend the meeting. Council Member Thomas stated she felt it helps for public
notification to publicize this as a Council Meeting jointly with the Charter Commission to present
this information.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Marty. To Accept the Invitation to a Joint Meeting with the
Charter Commission on Thursday, August 23.
Ayes - -- 4 Nays - -- 1 (Stigney) Motion carried.
Council Member Marty reported that Bill Clark, Chief of Police, is turning in his official notice
of resignation. The effective date will be 30 days from today’ s date.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Accept the Resignation of Bill Clark, Chief of Police,
effective 30 days from July 23, 2001.
Council Member Marty expressed concern that within the last six months, six people have left
the City.
Mayor Sonterre asked if Mr. Clark had accepted another position. City Administrator Miller
stated she had no indication that he had; and the Deputy Chief was not aware that the Chief of
Mounds View City Council July 23, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 14
Police had accepted another position. City Administrator Miller stated she left a message for Mr.
Clar k.
Ayes - -- 5 Nays -0 Motion carried.
Council Member Marty stated he asked at the last Council meeting for an accounting of the City
Attorney’s fees to date. City Administrator Miller responded she was prepared to provide
information.
City Administr ator Miller provided the year to date expenditures of the City Attorney’ s fees as
well as a summary of what was spent last year.
Council Member Marty questioned if the golf course litigation was included last year. City
Administrator Miller stated it was.
City Administrator Miller stated the interim Finance Director provided her with two reports.
She handed out the reports and stated that $256,000 was spent last year, and $23,000 this year
thus far on City Attorney’s fees.
Jerry Linke stated that the City Administrator and City Attorney violated public policy practices
by not providing copies of these reports for the public. City Administrator Miller stated the
copies would be provided to the public prior to the end of the meeting.
Public Works Director, Michael Ulrich, thanked the Mayor, Council and Staff for their work
with the City. He also thanked the Lions club and commented the Lions staff is considerate of
their jobs.
Council Member Quick questioned City Administrator Miller on how the former Chief of Police
was being paid out in severance pay. He asked if the interim Finance Director could look at that
issue.
Council Member Marty pointed out that taxes are different depending on which option for
payout is chosen.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed stated both Council Members Marty and Quick are
correct. She explained that to alleviate the potential for a problem, the employees now sign a
document stating they realize they have a choice and confirm their election, thereby being
furnished with the appropriate tax forms.
Council Member Quick stated he was more concerned if the City has settled the severance pay
issue with a former employee and requested that the Interim Finance Director research that
issue.
Council Member Quick stated the Mounds View Matters print media of May/June states that
Coffee with the Mayor will be held the fourth Wednesday of the month.
Mounds View City Council July 23, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 15
Mayor Sonterre confirmed this and stated the next meeting will be in Mounds View Square at
9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, and the guest speaker will be the outgoing Chief of Police. The
discussion will be the changeover from traditional policing style to community policing method.
Council Member Quick stated that since this is a current issue, he believes staff should be
directed t o have that videotaped and put on cable.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To videotape the next ‘‘Coffee with the Mayor ’’ meeting
on Wednesday, July26 at 9:30 a.m. dependent on the availability of Staff.
Ayes - -- 5 Nays - -- 0 Motion carried.
City Administrator Miller stated that as Council Member Marty had mentioned, the Chief of
Police has submitted his resignation. She asked that the Deputy Chief is appointed as Interim
Director. She requested Council authorization for this action.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Sonterre. To Direct Staff to Take the Appropriate Steps to Form
a Resolution to Make the Deputy Chief the Interim Director.
Council Member Marty questioned if this would be done three weeks from now. City
Administrator Miller explained the resolution would be ready for the next Council meeting,
which then makes the resolution ready three weeks from now.
Ayes - -- 4 Nays -1 (Marty) Motion carried.
City Administrator Miller stated she had a request for leave from the Police Chief to use 32
hours of flex ti me the week of August 2. She explained that personnel policy limits hours of flex
time to 16 during any pay period. She stated she is looking for direction on this issue.
Council Member Quick asked if City Administrator Miller sees a problem in deviating from
policy. City Administrator Miller said this would set a precedent.
Council Member Marty stated he thought the Chief of Police should spread the flex hours out as
per policy. Mayor Sonterre concurred.
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. June 25, 2001 Meeting Minutes
B. June 4, 2001 Meeting Minutes
C. June 6, 2001 Meeting Minutes
Council Member Thomas requested to table the June 25 minutes in order to return them to the
secretarial staff for corrections.
Council Member Marty requested that item B, June 4 meeting minutes be tabled.
Mounds View City Council July 23, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 16
City Attorney Riggs stated that June 4 and June 6 were essentially one meeting, and therefore
both items B and C would be tabled.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Marty. To Table Item 10 in its entirety for corrections.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Marty. To Recess at 8:56 p.m. Until the end of the EDA
Meeting, then Rejourn to Closed Session.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Return to Council Meeting from recess to the EDA meeting at 9:17 p.m.
Mayor Sonterre adjourned the Council meeting to closed session at 9:18 p.m.
Return from closed session.
Mayor Sonterre stated there is one item the Council needs to take action on.
City Administrator Miller asked the Council to authorize City Staf f to enter into terms of
engagement that was incorporated in the letter provided to her by MMKR for conducting the
Golf Course fund audit and the Community Center fund audit.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Marty. To Enter Into Terms of Engagement as Per the Lett er
from MMKR.
Ayes - -- 5 Nays - -- 0 Motion carried.
11. Next Council Work Session: August 6, 2001
Next Council Meeting August 13, 2001
12. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Sonterre adjourned the meeting.
Transcribed and recorded by:
Christine Moksnes
Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.