HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2001/08/27M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2001\City Council\Council Packets\08-27-2001 Council\Agenda - August 27, 2001 Meeting.doc
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNCIL AGENDA
MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 2001
7:00 p.m.
1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Sonterre, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomas
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
4. PUBLIC INPUT:
A. Citizens may speak to issues not on tonight’s agenda. Before speaking
please give your full name and address for the minutes. Also, please limit
your comments to three minutes.
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
6. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approve Just and Correct Claims
B. Licenses for Approval
C. Resolution 5605 Denying Lake Region Hockey Association’s Application to
Conduct Charitable Gambling at Robert’s Off 10
D. Quarterly Financial Report “available in hard copy”
E. Resolution 5612 Naming Elegant Thymes Management as the Interim
Management Company for the Mounds View Conference and Banquet
Center
F. Resolution 5611 Authorizing Payment to Elegant Thymes Management for
Management of the Banquet Center
G. Resolution 5613, Approving a Step Adjustment for Givonna Reed
H. Resolution 5614, Approving a Step Adjustment for Tim Brennan
I. Resolution 5615, Approving a Step Adjustment for Jim Ericson
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS
7:05pm A. Consideration of a Preliminary Plat for the Mermaid Addition Major
Subdivision – Jim Ericson
7:10pm B. Acceptance of Hillview Park Shelter Bid, TKDA will be present for
questions
C. Resolution 5608 Reestablishing Procedures for Executing Step
Increases -- Givonna Reed
D. Resolution 5609 Adopting Revised Salary Schedule for Clubhouse
Manager/Golf Instructor-Givonna Reed
M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2001\City Council\Council Packets\08-27-2001 Council\Agenda - August 27, 2001 Meeting.doc
City Council Meeting
August 27, 2001
Page –2-
E. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 685, an Ordinance
Amending the Mounds View Zoning Code Related to Animal
Boarding in the B-2 Zoning District – Jim Atkinson
A. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance.
B. Vote: Quick, Marty, Thomas, Stigney, Sonterre
F. Consideration of Resolution 5599, a Resolution Approving a
Conditional Use Permit for an Animal Hospital and Boarding Facility
– Jim Atkinson
G. Consideration of Resolution 5604, a Resolution Approving a
Development Review for the Proposed Mounds View Animal Hospital
at 2625 County Highway 10 – Jim Atkinson
H. City Contribution to Festival in the Park-Givonna Reed
8. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
9. REPORTS
A. Reschedule September 17, 2001 Quarterly Retreat
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. August 13, 2001 Meeting Minutes
B. June 25, 2001 Meeting Minutes
C. July 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes
11. Next Council Work Session: September 4, 2001 (TUESDAY)
Next Council Meeting: September 10, 2001
12. ADJOURNMENT
Item No. 6B
Type of Business: CA
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Barb Benesch
Item Title/Subject: CONTRACTOR LICENSES FOR APPROVAL
Meeting Date: August 27, 2001
Please consider the following contractor licenses for approval. The licenses listed will
expire on December 31, 2001. All applicants have submitted appropriate fees and
proof of insurance. Licenses are noted with a “New” or “Renewal” after the company
name. Those licenses defined as “new” include all applicants that have never been
licensed with the City or they may have been licensed with the City in the past, but were
not licensed in 2000. Those defined as “renewal” were licensed in the year 2000.
HVAC (all are NEW)
Commercial Plumbing & Heating
Corporate Mechanical
Harris Air Systems
Heating & Cooling Two, Inc.
Kalmes Mechanical, Inc.
Midwest Equipment Co., Inc.
P & H Services Co., Inc.
Total Refrigeration Systems, Inc.
Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested.
RESOLUTION NO. 5613
CITY OF MONDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A STEP ADJUSTMENT FOR GIVONNA REED,
ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR
WHEREAS, Givonna Reed is a regular full-time employee who began working
for the City of Mounds View on October 4, 1999; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Reed’ work performance has exceeded the responsibilities of
Assistant to the City Administrator as outlined in the job description; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Reed’s performance has been more than satisfactorily reflected
in her performance review; and
WHEREAS, a step adjustment that is consistent with the City’s compensation
policy is recommended.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does
hereby approve a wage adjustment for Givonna Reed from step three to step
four effective October 4, 2000.
Presented this 27th day of August, 2001.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Rich Sonterre, Mayor
(SEAL) ____________________________________
Kathleen F. Miller, City Administrator
Motion By:
Second By:
Sonterre:
Quick:
Stigney:
Thomas:
Marty:
RESOLUTION NO. 5614
CITY OF MONDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A STEP ADJUSTMENT FOR TIM BRENNAN,
DEPUTY CHIEF
WHEREAS, Tim Brennan is a regular full-time employee who began working for
the City of Mounds View on January 1, 1980; and
WHEREAS, Tim Brennan was promoted to Deputy Chief on February 17, 2001;
and
WHEREAS, Deputy Chief Brennan’s work performance has exceeded the
responsibilities of Deputy Chief as outlined in the job description; and
WHEREAS, Deputy Chief Brennan performance has been more than
satisfactorily reflected in his performance review; and
WHEREAS, a step adjustment that is consistent with the City’s personnel policy
and Resolution 5535 that stated “move to Step 4 in six months upon satisfactory
review.”
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does
hereby approve a wage adjustment for Deputy Chief Clark from step three to
step four effective August 17, 2001.
Presented this 27th day of August, 2001.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Rich Sonterre, Mayor
(SEAL) ____________________________________
Kathleen F. Miller, City Administrator
Motion By:
Second By:
Sonterre:
Quick:
Stigney:
Thomas:
Marty:
RESOLUTION NO. 5615
CITY OF MONDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A STEP ADJUSTMENT FOR JIM ERICSON,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
WHEREAS, Jim Ericson is a regular full-time employee who began working for
the City of Mounds View on September 30, 1996; and
WHEREAS, Jim Ericson was promoted to Community Development Director on
Novenmber 17, 2001; and
WHEREAS, Jim Ericson’s work performance has exceeded the responsibilities of
Community Development Director as outlined in the job description; and
WHEREAS, Jim Ericson’s has been more than satisfactorily reflected in his
performance review; and
WHEREAS, a step adjustment that is consistent with the City’s compensation
policy is recommended.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does
hereby approve a wage adjustment for Jim Ericson from step one to step two
effective May 17, 2001.
Presented this 27th day of August, 2001.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Rich Sonterre, Mayor
(SEAL) ____________________________________
Kathleen F. Miller, City Administrator
Motion By:
Second By:
Sonterre:
Quick:
Stigney:
Thomas:
Marty:
Item No: 7A
Meeting Date:
Type of Business:
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Resolution 5607, a Resolution
Approving a Preliminary Plat for the Mounds View
Addition Major Subdivision.
Date of Report: August 20, 2001
Background:
The applicant, Dan Hall, is requesting City re-approval of the preliminary plat for the
Mermaid Addition, a major subdivision associated with the Mermaid Planned Unit
Development (PUD). The plat groups together those parcels being utilized for Mermaid
expansion, which include the former Rent-All property, the Music-off-10 property, the
south 361 feet of the Mounds View Business Park South plat as well as the existing
Mermaid parcels. Altogether, the total area involved in the plat is 9.36 acres. The
preliminary plat was originally approved by the City Council on November 13, 2000. Due
to problems working out the acquisition details with the Boston-based Cabot Group,
owners of the business park parcel, the approved preliminary plat expired.
Discussion:
This preliminary plat is consistent with Chapter 1202 of the Mounds View City Code
regarding subdivisions. The legal descriptions and property ownership information
appear to be in order, however a copy of the preliminary plat has been forwarded to the
City Attorney for his review. Before final plat approval, the City Attorney will complete a
plat review to ensure completeness. A copy of the plat has been forwarded to the County
for their review as well, however the County has not yet responded.
Plat Highlights:
• As mentioned above, this plat combines all of the properties involved in the
Mermaid PUD into one lot, Lot 1, Block 1, MERMAID ADDITION, and one outlot,
Outlot A, MERMAID ADDITION. The outlot would serve as the access drive to the
business park property to replace the existing access drive.
• The plat dedicates 120 feet of lateral right of way for County Road H south of the
former Rent All Parcel and 100 feet (9.5 feet deep) south of the Music Off 10
parcel. It is not anticipated that the County will require any additional right of way.
• The plat dedicates a ten-foot drainage and utility easement around the perimeter
Mermaid Preliminary Plat Report
August 27, 2001
Page 2
of the Mermaid property and also dedicates a 35-foot wide easement area for
utilities along the southwestern shared property line between the Mermaid and
business park property.
Park Dedication Requirement:
Chapter 1204 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires that all major subdivisions
and plats pay a park dedication fee. For developments encompassing more than one
acre of land, the fee amounts to ten percent of the associated land value. The table
below lists the land values associated with the Mermaid project and the amount of the
park dedication required for this project:
Mermaid Park Dedication Fee
SITE PIN MV Land*Area (SF)$ PSF
Music Off 10:083023430005 26,100$ 17,753 1.47$
Halls:083023430006 261,600$ 82,842 3.16$
083023430007 370,500$ 168,555 2.20$
083023430008 68,000$ 40,521 1.68$
Rent All 083023430009 79,300$ 41,854 1.89$
Holding Pond Part of 083023430021 117,557$ 57,910 2.03$
TOTAL:923,057$ 409,435 2.25$
Park Dedication Fee:92,306$
*Based on Market Value For Property Taxes Payable 2001
The Mermaid has already submitted the park dedication fee for this plat.
Easements:
All of the necessary easements are indicated on this plat. The ten-foot drainage and
utility easements along County Road H and County Highway 10 will be changed to five
feet to coincide with the approved parking lot setbacks for the development.
Planning Commission Action:
On August 1, 2001, the Planning Commission unanimously approved Resolution 669-01,
a resolution which recommends to the City Council approval of the Mermaid Addition
preliminary plat.
Mermaid Preliminary Plat Report
August 27, 2001
Page 3
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission is recommending approval of Resolution 5607, a
resolution approving the Mermaid Addition preliminary plat, with stipulations.
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
763-717-4021
Attachments:
1. Mermaid Pre Plat, Date-stamped August 6, 2001 (Separate Attachment)
2. Zoning Map
3. Planning Commission Resolution 669-01
4. City Council Resolution 5607
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\Development Cases\Pd00-002 (Mermaid PUD)\Mermaid pre plat - August 27, 2001.doc
Zoning Map
Mermaid Addition
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 669-01
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING RE-APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
THE MERMAID ADDITION MAJOR SUBDIVISION;
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. PD00-002
WHEREAS, Daniel Hall, President of The Mermaid, applied for approval of a
preliminary plat to expand the existing Mermaid property by adding the adjoining former Rent-
All property, the south 361 feet of the Mounds View Business Park South property, and the
Music Off Ten property; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on October 18, 2000 recommended approval of
the original preliminary plat; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council on November 13, 2000, approved the preliminary plat; and,
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2001, the preliminary plat approval expired because the final
plat was not submitted within the required six-month period after preliminary plat approval, in
accordance with Section 1202.07, Subd. 1.; and,
WHEREAS, on July 25, 2001, Mr. Hall reapplied for preliminary plat approval; and,
WHEREAS, the legal descriptions for the properties to be platted are as follows:
(See attached EXHIBIT A.)
WHEREAS, the proposed plat is named “MERMAID ADDITION” and contemplates
reorganizing the above parcels into one developable lot and one outlot; and,
WHEREAS, the area of the proposed “MERMAID ADDITION” is 9.36 acres; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents relative to
this proposal:
1. Preliminary Plat, date-stamped July 25, 2001
2. Staff Report.
Resolution 669-01
Page 2
WHEREAS, the preliminary plat is consistent with the Mermaid Planned Unit
Development, which was approved by the City Council on October 10, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, according to Ramsey County property value assessments, the total land
value of the properties involved is $923,057; and,
WHEREAS, Chapter 1204 of the Municipal Code states that all subdivisions and plats of
land to be used for commercial or industrial purposes are subject to park dedication requirements
amounting to ten percent of the most current assessed land values; and,
WHEREAS, according to Chapter 1204 of the Municipal Code, the applicable park
dedication fee for this major subdivision is $92,306; and,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Commission recommends that
the City Council approve the Mermaid Addition preliminary plat, subject to the following
stipulations:
1. The developer shall execute a sign easement document which dedicates to the City of
Mounds View the forty foot triangle at the corner of Highway 10 and County Road H
as shown on the preliminary plat for a City gateway sign.
2. The developer shall submit the applicable park dedication fee of $92,306 prior to the
City signing the final plat.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs
Staff to forward this Resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 1st day of August, 2001.
______________________________
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
______________________________
James Ericson,
Community Development Director
(SEAL)
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVELOPMENT CASES\PD00-002 (MERMAID PUD)\RESOLUTION 669-01.DOC
RESOLUTION NO. 5607
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION REAPPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
THE MERMAID ADDITION MAJOR SUBDIVISION;
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. PD00-002
WHEREAS, Daniel Hall, President of The Mermaid, applied for approval of a
preliminary plat to expand the existing Mermaid property by adding the adjoining former Rent-
All property, the south 361 feet of the Mounds View Business Park South property, and the
Music Off Ten property; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on October 18, 2000 recommended approval of
the original preliminary plat; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council on November 13, 2000, approved the preliminary plat; and,
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2001, the preliminary plat approval expired because the final
plat was not submitted within the required six-month period after preliminary plat approval, in
accordance with Section 1202.07, Subd. 1.; and,
WHEREAS, on July 25, 2001, Mr. Hall reapplied for preliminary plat approval; and,
WHEREAS, on August 1, 2001, the Mounds View Planning Commission recommended
approval of the resubmitted preliminary plat; and,
WHEREAS, the legal descriptions for the properties to be platted are as follows:
(See attached EXHIBIT A.)
WHEREAS, the proposed plat is named “MERMAID ADDITION” and contemplates
reorganizing the above parcels into one developable lot and one outlot; and,
WHEREAS, the area of the proposed “MERMAID ADDITION” is 9.36 acres; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents
relative to this proposal:
Resolution 5607
August 27, 2001
Page 8
1. Preliminary Plat, date-stamped August 6, 2001
2. Zoning Map
3. Planning Commission Resolution 669-001
4. Staff Report
WHEREAS, the preliminary plat is consistent with the Mermaid Planned Unit
Development, which was approved by the City Council on October 10, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, according to Ramsey County property value assessments, the total land
value of the properties involved is $923,057; and,
WHEREAS, Chapter 1204 of the Municipal Code states that all subdivisions and plats of
land to be used for commercial or industrial purposes are subject to park dedication requirements
amounting to ten percent of the most current assessed land values; and,
WHEREAS, according to Chapter 1204 of the Municipal Code, the applicable park
dedication fee for this major subdivision is $92,306; and,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View City Council
reapproves the Mermaid Addition preliminary plat, subject to the following stipulations:
3. The applicant shall execute a sign easement document which dedicates to the City of
Mounds View the fifty foot triangle at the corner of Highway 10 and County Road H
as shown on the preliminary plat for a potential City gateway sign.
4. The dedication page of the preliminary plat (Page 1) shall be revised as follows:
a. After the word “owners” in the first line of the first paragraph, a “comma”
shall be added.
b. Under the City’s signature block, the word “clerk” shall be changed to “City
Clerk/Administrator”.
5. Prior to City Council approval of the final plat,
a. The City Attorney shall complete the plat opinion to ensure the plat is in
proper form; and,
b. Ramsey County shall have approved the preliminary plat.
6. The applicant shall submit the final plat for consideration within six months as
required by Section 1202.07, Subdivision 1 of the City’s subdivision regulations.
Adopted this 27th day of August, 2001.
Resolution 5607
August 27, 2001
Page 9
______________________________
Richard Sonterre, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Kathleen Miller, City
Clerk/Administrator
(SEAL)
Motion: ________
Second: ________
Sonterre:
Stigney:
Quick:
Marty:
Thomas:
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVELOPMENT CASES\PD00-002 (MERMAID PUD)\RESOLUTION 5607 (PRE PLAT).DOC
EXHIBIT A.
Mermaid Plat Legal Descriptions
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that WITHC, L.L.C., a Minnesota limited liability company, owners, and Town
and Country Bank-Newport, a Minnesota state banking corporation, mortgagee, of the following described property
situated, in the City of Mounds View, County of Ramey, State of Minnesota;
A tract of land being part of the Southwest Quarter and also part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 8,
Township 30, Range 23, Ramey County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Commencing at a point on the South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter distant 897.5 feet West of the
Southeast corner thereof; thence North 35 degrees 07 minutes West (assumed bearing of West on said South line) a distance
of 392.7 feet to the extension Northeasterly of the centerline of County Road H; thence South 54 degrees 53 minutes West
along said centerline a distance of 145.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing South 54 degrees 53 minutes West
120.00 feet; thence North 35 degrees 07 minutes West 252.00 feet; thence North 54 degrees 53 minutes East 190.00 feet to the
Southwesterly right of way line of Trunk Highway No. 10; thence South 35 degrees 07 minutes East along said Southwesterly
right of way line 200.00 feet; thence South 54 degrees 53 minutes West along said right of way line 70.00 feet; thence South 35
degrees 07 minutes East along said right of way line 52.0 feet to the point of beginning.
ALSO, That part of Lot 1, Block 2, Mounds View Business Park South, which lies southerly of a line described as follows:
commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 1: thence North 0 degrees 20 minutes 34 seconds West, along the east line of
said Lot 1 a distance of 351.51 feet to the point of beginning; thence 89 degrees 31 minutes 15 seconds West a distance of
209.00 feet to an angle point in the south line of said Lot 1 and there terminating.
Also the East 100 feet of the West 657.57 feet of the South 215 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of
Section 8, Township 30, Range 23, according to the U. S. Go Government Survey thereof, Ramey County, Minnesota.
AND that that Moundvista, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, owner of the following described property situated in the
City of Mounds view, County of Ramey, State of Minnesota;
That part of the East 546.75 feet of the South 715.1 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 8,
Township 30, Range 23 in Ramey County, Minnesota lying Southwesterly of the Southwesterly right of way line of U. S. Highway
No. 10, as it is now laid out and travelled and lying Northerly of the following described line. Beginning on a point on the west
line of the East 546.75 feet of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter distant 445.25 feet North of the South line of
said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter as measured along said West line of the East 546..75 feet thereof; thence
North 86 Degrees 52 minutes 52 seconds East (assumed bearing of the west line of East 546.75 feet of said Southwest Quarter
of the Southeast Quarter is North 0 Degrees 47 minutes 11 seconds West) and to the Southwesterly right of way line of said U.
S. Highway No. 10 and except that part of the following described property included in the above described tract. Commencing
at a point on the South line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said section 8 distant 897.5 feet West of the
Southeast corner thereof; thence North 35 Degrees 07 minutes West (assured bearing of West on said South line) a distance of
392.7 feet to the center line of County Road H; thence South 54 Degrees 53 minutes West along said centerline, a distance of
145.0 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing South 54 Degrees 53 minutes West 120.0 feet; thence North 35 Degrees
07 minutes West 252.0 feet; thence North 54 Degrees 53 minutes East, 190.0 feet to the Southwesterly right of way line of
Trunk Highway No. 10; thence South 35 Degrees 07 minutes East along said Southwesterly right of way line 200.0 feet; thence
South 54 Degrees 53 minutes West along said right of way line 70.0 feet; thence South 35 Degrees 07 minutes East along said
right of way line 52.0 feet to the point of beginning.
That part of the East 546.75 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23 in
Ramey County, Minnesota lying Southwesterly of the Southwesterly right of way line of U. S. highway No. 10 as it is now laid out
and travelled and lying Northerly of the Center line of County Road H and lying southerly of the following described line:
Beginning at a point on the West line of the East 546.75 feet of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter distant 445.25
feet North of the South line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter as measured along said west line of the East
546.75 feet thereof; thence North 86 Degrees 52 minutes 52 seconds East (assumed bearing of the West line of the East
546.75 feet of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter is North 0 Degrees 47 minutes 11 seconds West) and to the
Southwesterly right of way line of U. S. Highway No. 10 and said line there terminating and except that part of the following
described property included in the above described tract: Commencing at a point on the South line of the Southeast Quarter of
the Southeast Quarter of said Section 8 distant 897.5 feet west of the Southeast corner thereof; thence North 35 Degrees 07
minutes West (assured bearing of West on said South Line) a distance of 392.7 feet to the center line of County Road H; thence
South 54 Degrees 53 minutes West along said center line, a distance of 145.0 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing
South 54 degrees 53 minutes West 120.0 feet; thence North 35 degrees 07 minutes West 252.0 feet; thence North 54 degrees
53 minutes East, 190.0 feet to the Southwesterly right of way line of Trunk Highway No. 10; thence South 35 degrees 07
minutes East along said southwesterly right of way line 200.0 feet; thence south 54 degrees 53 minutes West along said right of
way line 70.0 feet; thence South 35 degrees 07 minutes East along said right of way line 52.0 feet to the point of beginning.
Item No. 7B
Staff Report No.
Meeting Date: August 27, 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
Item Title/Subject: Acceptance of Hillview Park Shelter Bid
Date of Report: August 29, 2018
On August 16, 2001, bids were opened regarding the replacement of the Hillview Park Shelter.
The following were the bids received:
Ebert Construction $159,400.00
Rak Construction $178,721.00
Nadeau Utility Inc. $194,650.00
Westbrook Development $212,540.00
George F. Cook Construction $236,000.00
Unicorp $293,000.00
(See attached letter from Jim Studenski, TKDA).
It was noted previously by Mike Ulrich, that $100,000.00 is budgeted in 2001 for the
replacement shelter at Hillview Park.
Staff is seeking councils’ recommendation to award the bid to Ebert Construction in the amount
of $159,400.00; with funding of $100,000.00 from 100-4360-7030 (Parks Capital) and the
remaining balance coming out of 251-4160-9900 (Park Dedication fund) and/or General Fund
Reserves.
Steve Dazenski, Parks Foreman and Jim Studenski from TKDA, will be present if council has
any questions or concerns.
Tracy Juell, Public Works Administrative Assistant
RECOMMENDATION:
Award bid to Ebert Construction in the amount of $159,400.00; with funding of $100,000.00
from 100-4360-7030 (Parks Capital) and the remaining balance coming out of 251-4160-9900
(Park Dedication fund) and/or General Fund Reserves.
M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2001\City Council\Council Packets\08-27-2001 Council\Item 07C--Reso 5608, Procedures for Executing Step Increases.doc
Item No. 7C
Type of Business:CB
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Givonna Reed, Assistant to the City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 5608 Reestablishing Procedures for
Executing Step Increases
Date of Report: August 27, 2001
This item is before the Council to reestablish procedures for executing step
increases as established in the Personnel Manual. While researching another
matter staff recently learned that the Personnel Manual states that step increases
must be approved by the City Council. It appears that since approximately late
1998 step increases have been presented to the Council for approval only to the
extent that they are approved by the Council at the time of hire.
Section 3.01B of the City’s personnel manual reads as follows:
Progress Through the Step Plan
2. Advancement to each step shall occur only after a performance
evaluation rated satisfactory or better has been conducted by an
employee's Supervisor and approved by the Department Head, City
Administrator and the City Council.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the adoption of Resolution 5608 which requires that a
resolution indicating satisfactory performance or better be approved by the City
Council prior to step increases being executed.
Respectfully Submitted,
Givonna Reed
M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2001\City Council\Council Packets\08-27-2001 Council\Item 07C--Reso 5608, Procedures for Executing Step Increases.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 5608
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION RE-ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES
FOR EXECUTING STEP INCREASES
WHEREAS, Section 3.01B of the City’s Personnel Manual states
that “Advancement to each step shall occur only after a performance evaluation
rated satisfactory or better has been conducted by an employee's Supervisor and
approved by the Department Head, City Administrator and the City Council”; and
WHEREAS, the Council wishes to reestablish Section 3.01B as the
proper procedure for executing a step increase, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City
Council adopts Resolution 5608 Reestablishing Procedures for Executing Step
Increases, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that resolutions indicating
satisfactory performance or better must be approved by the Council prior to the
execution of the step increase.
Adopted this 27th day of August, 2001.
ATTEST:
Richard Sonterre, Mayor
SEAL
Kathleen Miller, City Administrator
Motion by:
Second by:
Sonterre Aye No
Quick Aye No
Stigney Aye No
Marty Aye No
Thomas Aye No
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
August 13, 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
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed requested to add Item 7H Resolution 5602 Approving
Business Licenses for Topa Corporation.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed also mentioned she distributed a packet for each
Council Member. The first item in the packet is Item 7H, the second is an item that Mayor
Sonterre will cover in Reports. The third item is some recent resignations that she will cover in
Reports.
City Administrator Miller requested to delete item 7G, and she will give an update in the Reports
section.
Mayor Sonterre requested to add Item 5a under Unfinished Business regarding new lease
information on the day care facility at the Community Center.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Approve the August 13, 2001, City Council Agenda
as amended.
Ayes - 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
4. PUBLIC INPUT
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated the former mayor suggested calling Mr. Bennett and
the Golf Course issues could be solved quickly. Mayor Sonterre responded he did take that
route and added this is a state issue.
Mr. Jahnke stated he was pleased that some of the issues are being uncovered and are becoming
public. He said he is pleased to see there is some accountability. He said he feels bad for some
Mounds View City Council August 13, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 2
people and for City Administrator Miller. He commented that some of these mistakes are
mistakes of the past administration.
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a) Information Pertaining to the Creative Kids Child Care Center.
Mayor Sonterre stated the City has a signed lease for the site for Creative Kids Child Care
Center dated September 1, 2001.
City Administrator Miller interjected that Ms. Sonterre has not signed, though the document is
available for signing.
Mayor Sonterre explained the present tenant, Children’ s Home Society, is paying the lease
through August. Ms. Sonterre had hoped to open her child care center on August 1, which
wasn’t possible. September is the forecasted date. This date coincides well with school st arting.
However, Children’s Home Society has indicated to her that since they have paid for this
month’s lease, they have no intention to allow her in the facility to clean up and get ready for
opening, unless she pays an amount equal to their rate of the lease. Mayor Sonterre’ s suggestion
was to waive the daily equivalent of the lease for the last 14 days of the month. This would allow
Creative Kids Child Care Center to set up their business and open September 1. Mayor
Sonterre asked for Council input on the matter.
Council Member Quick asked if City Administrator Miller is aware of the situation. City
Administrator Miller stated she was. She explained that Ms. Sonterre did speak with her and
indicated that she needed access sooner into the building. City Administrator Miller advised Ms.
Sonterre to make arrangements with Children’s Home Society since they had paid through
August.
Council Member Quick questioned why the City Administrator wasn’t presenting this case.
Mayor Sonterre explained he w anted to be of assistance, and added that he directed Ms.
Sonterre to have her attorney speak with the City Attorney.
Council Member Quick stated he thought Ms. Sonterre should not be discussing the situation
with the Mayor.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney. To Table This Item.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Council Member Marty asked the City Attorney if Ms. Sonterre’s attorney contacted him and
the City Attorney replied he did not.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approve Just and Correct Claims
Mounds View City Council August 13, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 3
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.
D. Resolution 5597, Renewal of Police Prosecution Service Contract with Hughes &
Costello
E. Acceptance of Improvements, Walgreens Development, per Development
Agreement 00-123
F. Approving and Awarding Bid for 2001-8 Seal Coat Project
G. Cancel Public Hearing for Mounds View Drive
Council Member Marty requested to pull check number 106253 to Kennedy & Graven which
appears on Page 5 of the staff report. He questioned what timeframes this check covered.
Council Member Stigney requested that Item E - -- Acceptance of Improvements - -- Walgreens
Development is pulled from the Agenda. H e also asked that the last 5 items on the Just and
Correct Claims sheet be pulled which are check numbers 105794, 105828, 105837, 105844.
These items were pulled from the June 11 agenda as well.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Approve Consent Agenda It ems B, C, D, F, and G.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Council Member Stigney stated he was curious about the payment to Verizon Wireless in the
amount of $192.97 with check number 105844. He learned it was for one service at the Golf
Course under the name of John Hammerschmidt. He said the invoice listed many long distance
calls around the U.S. and many calls were in excess of 30 minutes. He stated that by contrast,
the Police Department, who has five cell phones, had a bill of approximately $59.00 in the same
month.
Commissioner Quick asked what the dates are on those calls. Council Member Stigney explained
it is the billing for the month of May.
Mayor Sonterre asked the City Attorney if this should be researched. City Attorney Riggs
r espo nded it should be researched to learn if it is an authorized expense. However, the bill must
be paid whether or not it is an authorized expense. The City may need to be reimbursed from
the user.
Council Member Quick asked who would be responsible for looking into this issue. City
Attorney Riggs stated the City Administrator would.
Council Member Stigney raised questions on check number 105828 for $306.00 to PGA of
America. He understood this payment was for one PGA member at the golf course for national
membership dues plus life insurance premiums, plus liability insurance premiums above what the
City pays, and incorporates member national and sectional dues. He asked why the City would
be paying the PGA’s national dues. This particular payment was f or Ronald Houston.
Mounds View City Council August 13, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 4
City Administrator Miller responded she was uncertain to what the policy is. She said she had
asked the Finance Department how many of the memberships the City usually pays and the
answer was that the City paid the Pros’ membership dues.
Mayor Sonterre requested City Administrator Miller to look into the situation and see if a policy
is in place.
Council Member Stigney questioned check number 105837 in the amount of $13,309.87 to
Springsted, Inc. He stated he felt his questions wer e not answered within the study they
produced for the City Council. He said that Springsted, Inc. did not perform a market area
analysis and used 1997 data for their analogies. Council Member Stigney stated Springsted, Inc.
surveyed only 11 cities and made no attempt to contact the other 30. He said he spoke with Bob
Thissel at the League of Minnesota Cities. Mr. Thissel indicated he thought Springsted should
look at more options with the Golf Course to see if it could break even. Council Member
Stigney commented that in the section regarding the 9 holes, there is no indication that anything
could be done. He summarized he questions paying this amount.
Council Member Marty stated he felt Springsted did complete the work and they answered all
the origi nal questions. What they initially provided in first presentation to the Council was what
the Council initially asked of them. Then further questions arose and Springsted needed to work
more to find the answers.
Mayor Sonterre pointed out that the Council had asked Springsted back twice to answer
questions more fully, and by doing so the expenditure increase was technically approved. He
agreed with Council Member Stigney that Springsted could have pre-informed the City that if
they came back to the Cou ncil, they would bill additionally.
Council Member Stigney explained that he had been seeking clarification on the check to
Corporate Presentations, Inc., check number 105794 in the amount of $8337.52. The payment
was for cable equipment. The invoice shows that microphones were on backorder. As Council
Member Stigney made phone calls regarding this issue, he found that Alpha didn’t seem to know
they provided a quote. There is one in the file at the City. However, Alpha offered to give a
quote and that quote was close to $1,000 less than Corporate Presentation’s quote. Council
Member Stigney questioned why the contract was awarded to Corporate Presentation when they
had the higher quote.
City Administrator Miller responded this was an expenditure authorized by the previous
administration.
Council Member Stigney questioned whether this purchase was approved by the Council. City
Administrator Miller stated it should have come to the Council; the equipment is on hand.
Council Member Thomas stated that the City is in possession of something that's paid for and it
would be unethical in her mind to put that problem on someone else. She stated the bills for
Verizon and Corporate Presentation should be paid.
Mounds View City Council August 13, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 5
Council Member Quick added the comment that the City has the report and needs to pay for it.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To authorize payment of checks 105794, 105828, 105837,
105844.
Council Member Marty stated that if the check for Corporate Presentations was submitted in the
cable department for this year, it would appear it was approved.
Council Member Marty suggested that if Council Member Stigney had questions about the
presentation from Springsted that he contact them directly.
Council Member Thomas pointed out that it would be inappropriat e for a Council Member to
call; it could present another bill. She asked that City Administrator Miller call Springsted and
ask Council Member Stigney’s questions as well as inquire about overtime charges.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried.
Council Member Marty questioned check number 106253 to Kennedy & Graven in the amount
of $39,132. He was aware that information on the payment was not readily available, and
requested it be researched. He said he knew the bill would be paid but just wanted clarification.
Mayor Sonterre commented on check number 106285 to Nextel for a $1,500 phone bill. Mayor
Sonterre asked the Council to formulate a policy for cell phone usage. He requested City
Administrator Miller to look into creating a policy.
Council Member Marty commented that Nextel has the two -way radios, so it seems the cell
phone usage wouldn’t need to be high.
Mayor Sonterre also commented on a check to Brighton Veterinary Hospital and explained the
reason this invoice is paid is because they have a boarding facility and that is not allowed in
Mounds View.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Marty. To Approve Consent Agenda Item A.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Council Member Stigney raised questions on item 6e - -- Conditional Acceptance of
Improvements, Walgreens Development. He stated he was concerned with the trailway along
County Highway 10.
Community Development Director Ericson stated he had left a message for the County to seek
permission from them for signage. He said the County is looking into installing crosswalk signs
that would not be typical. Throughout the County, there is no signage utilized to call attention to
crosswalks at intersections. The intent is to install some type of signage. Staff has not spoken
with the dev eloper yet regarding signage on the other side of the access. However, Staff has
Mounds View City Council August 13, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 6
discussed adding striping on the trailway, which the developer has made arrangements to
complete. Also, Staff has not yet discussed drawing attention to motorists that there is a
trailway. He stated the City and developer are looking into the best way to make sure it is well
marked.
Council Member Stigney pointed out the actual resolution doesn’t state the City should be
provided with a Mylar copy of the site. Community Development Director Ericson responded it
is in the development agreement and should be in the resolution.
Community Development Director Ericson noticed the Resolution is numbered wrong. He said
the considerations should be renumbered, and the current number 12 should be amended to
include a Mylar copy of the site shall be provided.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Thomas. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5600, A
Resolution to Conditionally Accept the Public Improvements.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. Continuation of Public Hearing to Consider the Intoxicating Liquor and
Sunday Sales License Applications for Topa Corporation dba Donatelle’s.
Mayor Sonterre opened the public hearing at 7:56 p.m.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed stated this issue was before the Council in June and
July and she was pleased to report it can move forward. Topa Corporation has changed the
business name to Notty Pine. The public hearing had been advertised with Topa Corporation as
the name. She continued that Mr. Stuart, the applicant is present. He met with Staff to assure
all requirements were being met. The background check has been completed and is satisfactory.
The Department of Revenue has given their approval to issue the license. The Health
Department has a few more hours of work to complete, though they reported they don’t have
any hesitations in issuing a restaurant license. The applicant still needs to acquire an intoxicating
liquor license, which is later in this agenda.
Mr. Stuart, applicant, invited questions.
Council Member Stigney questioned when the restaurant will open. Mr. Stuart replied he hoped
in 10 days to 2 weeks. He added that hiring will be the biggest obstacle. The restaurant will have
a similar menu to the Main Event restaurant. There will be a short menu early on in the business,
and more choices will be added in time.
Mayor Sonterre asked if Mr. Stuart felt all the issues were handled. Mr. Stuart replied he does.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed stated the license would be valid from 8/14/01 and
expire on 6/30/2002.
Mounds View City Council August 13, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 7
Mayor Sonterre asked if the Council approved the license, and the Department of Health gave
their approval later, if that would extend the expiration date of the license. City Attorney Riggs
explained the license automatically goes through June 30.
Council Member Thomas suggested that since there is another application on this agenda for this
applicant, it may be more efficient to vote on both licenses at the same time.
City Administrator Miller explained the approval would then need to be contingent on the Health
Department approval. She was under the understanding that some equipment still needed to be
delivered. She cautioned the Council to make their motion contingent.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed noted this item is a public hearing and the other item is
not part of this public hearing.
Council Member Thomas suggested that since the public hearing has been held, a motion can
wait to be given until the other item is presented. She noted that Item 7h cannot be moved up on
the agenda since it is not a public hearing. Public hearings must be presented first.
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, Ramsey, asked if the parking issue had ever been resolved.
Mayor Sonterre responded the Director of Economic Development has been in discussions with
the theatre and restaurant owners and steps have been taken to alleviate that problem.
Mayor Sonterre closed the public hearing at 8:02 p.m.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Carry Item 7a over until Item 7h is Presented.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
B. Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution
660-01, a Resolution Denying a Variance Request.
Mayor Sonterre opened the publ ic hearing at 8:03 p.m.
Planning Associate Atkinson stated Arlen Baumhoefner, petitioner, appeared before the Planning
Commission last month. His request was denied and he is appealing this decision before the
Council. The Planning Commission unanimousl y denied the request. Planning Associate
Atkinson commented there have been no comments from neighbors. However, one neighbor
appeared at the last Planning Commission meeting and was in favor of this request.
Mr. Baumhoefner, 5532 St. Stephen Street, distributed pictures of the building. He thanked the
Council for their time and explained this building is not a normal tool shed. He informed the
Council he is licensed in electrical, plumbing and HVAC. He said he understood why the City
has r ules. Th ough in this instance there are no power or phone lines nor drainage access that is
being disturbed. He pointed out the landscaping on the pictures and stated it is complementary to
the building. He said decorating is important to his wife. The neighbor who testified at the
Mounds View City Council August 13, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 8
Planning Commission meeting was excited for this and added some flowers as well. He said he is
aware that if he moves, the new owner may want to move the shed. It is on cross bars and this
enables the shed to be moved east or west. The dimensions are 10x16 feet. It functions as a
storage facility for non-profit props. His wife puts on plays, proms, etc. and has fairly large
props.
Council Member Thomas questioned letter F on the variance which states the variance would not
be materially detrimental to the purpose of this title. Assistant Planner Atkinson explained this is
actually City Code.
Council Member Quick questioned whether the City requires tie downs. Assistant Planner
Atkinson deferred to the building inspector.
Council Member Quick noted the building is already built and asked if a permit was obtained and
followed.
Community Development Director Ericson explained the applicant did have a permit before
requesting the variance. The applicant was told what the requi rements were and the building
was then made movable. If the Council denies this request, it can be moved back.
Council Member Stigney stated his concern is the Planning Commission unanimously denied the
request. He asked Mr. Baumhoefner is there is some reason he could not pull the building five
feet from the property line.
Mr. Baumhoefner explained that if the building were four feet closer, it would destroy the site
lines of the back yard. He also stated that four feet could help create a junk pile. He does not
intend to start one, as most people have that intention, but it tends to happen. This building is
meant to be attractive.
Council Member Stigney asked if the Planning Commission saw the pictures. Community
Development Director Ericson said they did not.
Planning Associate Atkinson stated the Planning Commission’s concern was the seven criteria.
They felt they couldn't approve the variance based on the seven criteria.
Community Development Director Ericson said the Planning Commission considers every
request carefully. If the lot would be sloped and there would be no other place to put a shed,
then this variance would be approved. He explained that in this case, there is no hardship case to
having the shed where it is. In the Planning Commission’s denial, they recommended to the
Council that this be denied.
City Attorney Riggs stated the Council needs to make findings to establish the hardship.
Council Member Thomas asked if hardship guidelines are established. Director of Community
Development Ericson stated he could not think of any.
Mounds View City Council August 13, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 9
Council Member Quick pointed out that oversized garages fall under conditional use permits.
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated he has watched this type of case before and
understands the hardshi ps. He said he has heard people say the Council can overturn decisions.
He has seen variances given for oversized garages. He gave his opinion that he thought this
request should be approved.
Mayor Sonterre closed the public hearing at 8:21 p.m.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5583, A
Resolution Denying a Variance Request.
Council Member Marty suggested that if this building was there five to ten years, and a new
owner moved in and didn’t want the building, it could be destroyed in moving it four feet. If this
request is approved, and new owners moved in, the shed would be considered grandfathered in
and the new owners would not have a choice.
Council Member Quick stated he could not see the benefit in challenging the Planning
Commission. He said he has a shed and it is five feet from the property line. He didn’t see why
Mr. Baumhoefner couldn’t follow the guidelines as other residents do. There is no reason such
as a 100 -year old oak tree or situations created by subdivisions that this shed would be in the way
and did not find reason to grant the request.
Council Member Thomas stated she was conflicted. She said she is ‘‘a letter of the law ’’ type of
person in that when there is a list of criteria, she feels it should be followed. She said she is never
in favor of overturning a unanimous decision of our Planning Commission. She continued that
on the other hand, this is a neighborhood and the neighbors should have a say in what is going on
around them. She stated there is nothing that can be done now, though a policy should be
effected stating neighbors could have an influence.
Commissioner Quick said that if people wanted a say in what happens in their neighborhood,
they have the right to run for offi ce. He felt this was an isolated case since there are not a lot of
people with this type of situation. He stated that Mr. Baumhoefner was aware of the rules and
since he is licensed in several trades, he knows the code should be followed.
Council Member Stigney expressed his view that the City Attorney demonstrated the Council
does not have the option to approve the appeal.
Council Member Marty said that based on the City Attorney’s comments and the Planning
Commission’s decision, he did not see demonstrated hardship. He felt the Council would be
hardpressed to overrule the seven points.
Mayor Sonterre stated he was taking solace in that this building was a fixed building. Since at
some point someone could move it into the zoning code, he could not support the appeal of the
denial.
Mounds View City Council August 13, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 10
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
C. Public Hearing to Consider a Conditional Use Permit for an oversized
Garage at 8368 Groveland Road.
Mayor Sonterre opened the public hearing at 8:32 p.m.
Planning Associate Atkinson stated the applicant appeared before the Planning Commission on
July 18. He has not had contact with any neighbors regarding this case. He added that Mr.
Clasen has been in contact with the neighbor directly to the north of him and that neighbor is in
approval.
Mayor Sonterre closed the public hearing at 8:32 p.m.
Council Member Marty questioned whether the neighbors around Mr. Clasen need to be
contacted.
Planning Associate Atkinson explained all neighbors were notified before the Planning
Commi ssion meeting. A public notice was printed in the paper as well. There have been no
r esponses.
Council Member Thomas asked if there was a specific intent to build an oversized garage.
Jack Clasen, 8368 Groveland Road, explained the reason for the size is for the items in his yard
that he does not want in his yard. He added that the next phase of improvement will be to re-
side his house. He cannot match the siding of the house which was from 1968, so he will re- side
the entire house.
Council Member Quick asked Mr. Clasen if he works on his own vehicles. Mr. Clasen replied he
does not; however his neighbor works on his own cars. This neighbor will be the most affected
neighbor and he has mentioned to Mr. Clasen that he is in favor of building this garage.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Approve the Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized
Garage at 8368 Groveland Road.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
D. Public Hearing to Consider A Conditional Use Permit for Mounds View
Animal Hospital to Operate an Animal Hospital at 2625 County Highway 10.
Mayor Sonterre opened the public hearing at 8:37 p.m.
Planning Associate Atkinson stated the Mounds View Animal Hospital would like to relocate.
They have been in front of the Council and Planning Commission several times. Planning
Associate Atkinson recapped the rezoning issue.
Mounds View City Council August 13, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 11
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit as they did not
find adverse effects that were significant. It is up to the Council to look for any adverse effects.
He noted the neighbors were concerned about access. Dr. Barcus of the Mounds View Animal
Hospital did address that issue at a previous meeting, and the issue will be discussed at the
development stage. Discussion at this meeting should center around the business use. The
owners are requesting to board animals and boarding is not approved in the City Code. Staff
recommends tabling this request until Ordinance 685 is adopted.
City Attorney Riggs asked if the public hearing would need to be re-noticed if it was continued.
Director of Community Development Ericson responded that further public comment is not
needed since there has been significant public input.
Council Member Thomas asked how long the hearing would be continued. Pl anning Associate
Atkinson stated it would be until the ordinance is in place.
Council Member Thomas questioned if that would cause developmental delay for the hospital.
Planning Associate Atkinson explained that Mounds View Hospital is waiting for a dev elopment
review and that will be discussed on Wednesday.
Council Member Thomas inquired if it would be appropriate for the Mounds View Animal
Hospital to be at the Planning Commission on Wednesday if the Conditional Use Permit is not
granted.
Director of Community Development Ericson stated it would be appropriate. The conditional
use permit will be before the Council before the Planning Commission acts on the development
review application. City Attorney Riggs concurred that it would be appropriate.
Director of Community Development Ericson explained that no action is necessary until the
Ordinance is presented for discussion.
Mayor Sonterre closed the public hearing at 8:42 p.m.
E. Public Hearing and First Reading (Introduction) of Ordinance 685, an
Ordinance Amending the 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.
Mayor Sonterre opened the public hearing at 8:43 p.m.
Planning Associate Atkinson stated this ordinance will amend the municipal code. The Mounds
View Animal Hospital is requesting to board animals, as previously mentioned. This ordinance
would allow boarding in B -2 zones, and only in B -2 zones. This ordinance would not apply just
for this animal hospital, but for any animal hospital in a B -2 zone. He continued that this is a
conditional use permit and any animal hospital wanting to board animals would need to come
before the Council to board animals. The Council could then discuss any adverse effects. It is
proposed that in the City Code, Chapter 1113.04, Subd. 4, Point b. would be removed. When
Mounds View City Council August 13, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 12
the Planning Commission reviewed this, they suggested adding conditions and those conditions
are listed in the Staff Report. Also, he suggested changing the definition of ‘‘Animal Boarding
Facility’’ to be included in the City Code.
Council Member Thomas asked if there was an animal population limit to an boarding facility in
the state statute, or whether it is something the Council should be considering.
Planning Associate Atkinson said it is not in the state statute. The Mounds View Animal Hospital
is proposing 16 runs for animals. He further explained the Council could define ‘‘noise’’ and
that could be a provision the Council could consider if a another business seeks a conditional use
permit.
Council Member Thomas stated the thought a limit should be included in the Code. It would
benefit future hospitals as well. She laid out the scenario that if a business sought to house 80
animals and the Council considered it a noise problem, the Council could not deny a conditional
use permit if the business presented enough information that they would have that problem
contained.
Mayor Sonterre stated the Minnesota Pet and Containment Act does not specify how many
animals are allowed.
Planning Associate Atkinson commented he would like to research that issue.
Dr. Bruce Schnabel, applicant, informed the Council that the state does not have a limit.
Planning Associate Atkinson mentioned t he state does specify a size limit of animals.
Council Member Marty questioned where the outdoor runs would be since he didn’t identify
them on the plans.
Dr. Schnabel explained where the outdoor runs would be and added that it would be a contained
and monitored area. He also explained the heating and air conditioning system and stated the
clinic would be separated into three zones. The zones would be the reception area, the exam
rooms, and the kennel and animal holding area. The air is not mixed bet ween the zones. The
kennel would have their own heat exchanger, so the heat is conserved, but not recirculated. The
kennel room would be sound insulated to prevent noise from coming to the front of the clinic and
outside the clinic. He showed the plans to the Council. He also explained they plan on having 16
runs, and don’t have plans or room to expand the number of runs. There will be cages for
hospitalized patients.
Director of Community Development Ericson pointed out that with the conditional use permit,
the Council does have the authority to deny a request if presented with a request for 80 dogs in a
small building. He said Staff felt this request would not necessitate a limiting number associated
with it. Every boarding facility will have to come before the Council.
Mayor Sonterre closed the public hearing at 8:54 p.m.
Mounds View City Council August 13, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 13
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Waive the First Reading and Approve Ordinance 685,
An Ordinance Amending the 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.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
F. Resolution 5601, Appointing Tim Brennan as Interim Chief of Police.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed reported the police chief resigned effective August 20.
The City Administrator has recommended that Tim Brennan be appointed Interim Chief of
Police.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5601, A
Resolution Appointing Tim Brennan as Interim Chief of Police.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Council Member Marty questioned if the salaries of the Public Works employees would be
reviewed later. City Administrator Miller explained the City will be advertising for the Public
Wor ks Di rector position. If the Public Works Department employees’ salaries are to be
increased, it will be reviewed later. She added that the responsibilities of the Public Works
Director have been spread among employees as per Michael Ulrich.
Council Member Marty inquired if the 15% increase in pay for the interim Public Works
Director is then split among the employees. City Administrator Miller said this will be reviewed
at a Human Resources meeting.
G. Approval of On-Sale Malt Liquor License for Bridges Golf Course.
This item was removed from the Agenda.
H. Approval of Intoxicating Liquor License and Restaurant License for Topa
Corporation dba Donatelle’s.
City Attorney Riggs explained that there are two licenses to approve. The liquor license would
need to be approved contingent upon the other license being approved on August 16. The liquor
license would be effective August 17. The prerequisite is to have the restaurant license first.
Council Member Thomas asked if both motions can be approved at once. City Attorney Riggs
replied they can be.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Marty. To Approve the Intoxicating Liquor License for Topa
Corporation as Amended With Said Conditions and to Waive the Reading.
Mounds View City Council August 13, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 14
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Mayor Sonterre called a 5 -minute recess at 9:02 p.m.
The Council returned from recess at 9:10 p.m.
8. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mayor Sonterre presented a plaque to Police Chief Clark. It was noted that Police Chief Clark
will celebrate his second anniversary with the City of Mounds View. Mayor Sonterre thanked
him for his hard work. Police Chief Clark said it was a delight to be with the City and added the
City has a fine department.
9. REPORTS
A. Schedule Special Budget Work Session.
City Administrator Miller sought to schedule a special budget work session within the month.
She planned to have the Council meet with department directors to go through the budget. The
preliminary date was set for Monday, August 20 from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. The meeting date for
September will be September 4 as part of the Work Session.
Council Member Marty informed the Council that Economic Development Coordinator Aaron
Parrish resigned last Tuesday, August 7.
Council Member Marty questioned the reason Assistant to the City Administrator Reed is
present for Council meetings. He suggested City Administrator Miller present cases rather than
her assistant. Assistant to the City Administrator Reed explained she is not paid overtime, but
receives flextime. She loses flex time at the end of the year because she has no time to take it,
which is typically the case with other employees.
Council Member Marty stated that while the Chief of Police was gone, Lt. Brennan was also on
vacation. Council Member Marty said he understood that Lt. Brennan would be assuming the
Interim Police Chief responsibilities starting Wednesday, August 14. He noted that on Tuesday,
August 13, Lt. Brennan has a half -day of vacation. Council Member Marty questioned when Lt.
Brennan will learn that position to effectively carry out the duties.
City Administrator Miller explained it is not unusual for an employee to take time off prior to
assuming new responsibilities. She added that once an employee assumes new responsibilities,
they have no time to take vacation. She didn’t feel this was an unusual situation. It was the
Police Chief’s responsibility to approve the Deputy Chief’s time away.
City Administrator Miller stated she received a call from a resident stating they received a notice
from the Rice Cr eek Watershed regarding a petition. The notice stated an EAW will be
conducted prior to the ponding.
Mounds View City Council August 13, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 15
City Administrator Miller apologized that there was some confusion regarding the liquor license
at the Bridges Golf Course. A memo was circulated to Council Members stating the license had
lapsed. It is the Assistant to the City Administrator's responsibility to oversee that and she was
on vacation. When she returned from vacation, she was told the Council did approve the license.
It was listed in the Consent Agenda, and may not have been noticed. Assistant to the City
Administrator Reed confirmed the insurance was still effective. An email has been sent to the
Council Members and the Golf Course has been told to resume selling liquor.
Council Member Stigney questioned if Mayor Sonterre has yet met with the Senator’s office
regarding the sound wall. Mayor Sonterre stated he made a recommendation at that meeting,
which MNDOT was amenable to.
City Attorney Riggs stated he received a phone call from Esultants, the company that is working
on the web site. This individual said he had been given approval to start working on the web site,
so he did. Costs were incurred, and he is questioning why he hasn’t been paid. City Attorney
Riggs stated this has no t been approved by the Council and explained to the individual that the
approval he had gotten wasn’t Council direction. City Attorney Riggs stated the Council should
discuss how to handle this situation.
Mayor Sonterre inquired if the City Administrator will be notified to bring it to the Council.
City Attorney Riggs said he advised the individual to call the City Administrator.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed said she was seeking direction to fill some of the
positions that have opened up recently. She said she came to the Council for approval for the
severance package for Mr. Decheine, but did not ask for direction to fill that position.
Council Member Stigney pointed out that position was pre-filled a couple of years ago, and since
then t here has been one extra person in that department.
Council Member Quick commented that one person is trained in for that job, but that doesn't
address the fact that the head count is down one.
Council Member Marty remarked that when this employee was hired, they were directed to that
department to prepare for assuming this position.
Council Member Stigney stated this happened during his tenure here under the last mayor.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed stated Patrick Toth resigned effective August 31. He
was part time with half benefits. She sought direction to hire for this position. City
Administrator Miller explained that since Assistant to the City Administrator Reed had been on
vacation, they had not yet discussed this issue. City Administrator Miller stated she would
explain the situation at a later date to her assistant.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed stated Economic Development Coordinator Parrish
resigned effective August 23 and requested direction to fill that position.
Mounds View City Council August 13, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 16
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Approve Advertising for the Position of Economic
Development Coordinator.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Council Member Marty commented that there is no wireless internet. City Administrator Miller
responded Jim Hess is researching options. She added that it will be difficult to replace since it
was free.
Council Member Marty stated that Dana Mandosa, a resident, contacted him. Mr. Mandosa
mentioned that Mr. Kessel and Mr. Hammerschmidt had faxed a proposal to the City Attorney
that day. City Attorney Riggs stated the proposal was not faxed to him, though someone in his
office received them. He added it was not appropriate to discuss the issue at this time.
Mayor Sonterre mentioned that he attended the groundbreaking ceremony that was held at the
Mermaid. It was well attended by residents and construction workers. Council Member Marty
was there as well. This event represented the beginning stages of redevelopment of the County
Road 10 corridor.
Mayor Sonterre stated he has had meetings with Senator Shodray and others regarding the sound
wall. He explained that at a prior meeting a question was raised whether the sound wall ends
prematurely. MNDOT determined the wall did end 1,000 feet early. MNDOT accepted
responsibility to add to it. Mounds View will receive $300,000 from the state. The state’s
intention was to continue from where it ends now, which would go through a nonpopulated area.
MNDOT was asked if they would contribute $300,000 toward sound wall development along
houses that are directly along the park. Frank Pafkow from MNDOT agreed that it would be
acceptable on MNDOT’s part to move the sound wall down along the Park. Engineers are
working on the size needed to cover homes on that str etch of road. They are also working with
Rice Creek Watershed. The trees should not be removed for this. MNDOT has offered to buy
landscaping materials to be planted along the berm. They won’t donate their labor, but will give
the materials. Mayor Son terre stated that MNDOT indicated they need to take measurements to
gain the best benefits to residents along the park.
Council Member Quick asked whether homes along the park and homes in the manufactured
home park qualify for sound walls. Mayor Sonterr e explained they do not, according to the
MNDOT definitions.
Council Member Quick asked if the City Attorney Riggs could research this issue. Council
Member Quick said he found it difficult to understand why the MNDOT would build along a
park, a nonpopulated area, and not along a residential area. He also pointed out that the
MNDOT is going against the Council’s recommendation. He expressed his concern that a state
agency is going off in their own direction.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Place This Issue on the Next Work Session Agenda for
Council to Direct Staff How to Communicate with MNDOT.
Mounds View City Council August 13, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 17
Mayor Sonterre explained that nothing has been finalized. Suggestions were made and the
MNDOT was amenable to it. They will bring a recommendation to the City.
Council Member Marty mentioned that the groundbreaking ceremony at the Mermaid was not
posted as an open meeting. He had spoken with Director of Community Development Ericson
that afternoon, and it was too late to post as an open meeting.
City Administrator Miller explained that such incidental meetings do not need posting, though it
can be if the Council would be more comfortable.
City Attorney Riggs stated that City Administrator Miller called to request interpretation. City
Attorney Riggs exp lained that the handbook says that an incidental meeting with no agenda does
not need to be posted.
Council Member Quick stated that if the meeting is in an open setting with multiple members of
Council present, he concurs with the City Administrator.
Council Member Thomas stated one of the benefits of posting is the Council would have to
watch their conversations a little less stringently. Since conversations can go the wrong way, it
could be be helpful if meetings were posted.
City Administrator Miller asked if the Council is directing her to post informal meetings.
Council Member Quick stated he didn’t see that informal meetings needed posting unless the
Council wanted to for their comfort level.
City Attorney Riggs stated that if all five members will be in attendance, he would recommend
posting even if they are not conducting city business. He added that it is a "gray" area.
Council Member Quick pointed out that the table for Festival in the Park was manned by
Council Members and that didn’t need posting. However, if all five Council Members happened
to meet in a home, he would feel comfortable having that posted.
Mayor Sonterre stated that Chapter 403 of the City Code states the Mounds View City Council
should be serving someone. In reviewing this section of the Code, he didn’t see that the Council
was in compliance. He raised the question of whether Council Members are the best
representatives of human rights. Possibly a residential commission would be better suited. He
suggested changing the City Code under ‘‘membership ’’ from ‘‘members of City Council ’’ to
‘‘Five Members of Residents of Mounds View’’ and he was inviting input.
Council Member Marty voiced his opinion that one Council person should be part of this
commission.
Mayor Sonter re stated he has concluded that Council liaisons should not be on these
commissions.
Mounds View City Council August 13, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 18
Council Member Thomas stated her concern was that any time there is consideration to change
the Code, it is a serious change that takes significant discussion. She suggested this issue deser ved
work session time where it can be discussed fully. The reports format doesn't lend enough time.
Mayor Sonterre concurred with Council Member Thomas.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Consider Making a Change to City Code Under
Membership at a Future Work Session.
Council Member Quick stated he would be opposed to any changes whatsoever.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. June 4, 2001
B. June 6, 2001
C. June 11, 2001
D. June 25, 2001
E. July 9, 2001
F. July 23, 2001
Council Member Thomas requested to pull item D off the minutes list. She stated the minutes
have not yet had corrections made according to the tape.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Remove Item D, the Minutes of June 25, 2001 off
Agenda Until Corrected.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Council Member Marty stated he did not receive the July 9 minutes by email. He requested that
item E be pulled off the minutes list for approval at a later date.
MOTION/SECOND: Mar ty/Stigney. To Remove Item E, the Minutes of July 9, 2001 off the
Agenda for Approval at a Later Date.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Extend the Meeting Another Fifteen Minutes.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
City Attorney Riggs stated that Items A and B are to be one meeting. He stated he spoke with
the recording secretary and confirmed she did receive a video tape for the June 6 meeting. He
understood this tape was inaudible and also understood the Council chose not to discuss the
minutes at the last work session. He said was not sure the minutes are in a form that are ready
Mounds View City Council August 13, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 19
for acceptance, and he has comments to add. He directed the City Administrator to take a draft
review of the minutes with the idea that these minutes will be finalized by this week. City
Attorney Riggs continued, commenting that if the tape is inaudible, it becomes public property.
Council Member Marty stated he did make a copy of the video for the City, and has it at his
home. City Attorney Riggs stated the tape needs to be available for public viewing. He said he
thought that would be the most expedient way to get this finalized. He explained that officially,
the City Clerk Administrator is the official minute taker. The hired recording secretary and her
employer should not be placed in the middle of reviewing tapes.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Remove Items A and B From the Agenda and To
Follow City Attorney’s Direction for the City Administrator to Draft Review Meeting Minutes
of June 4 and 6, 2001.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Council Member Thomas requested that the minutes of June 11, 2001 be changed on page 20,
first paragraph from ‘‘run through’’ to ‘‘formulated.’’
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Approve Meeting Minutes of June 11, 2201 as
amended.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Council Member Marty requested that the minutes of July 23, 2001 be changed on page 3, fifth
paragraph from ‘‘Ms. Sandburg’’ to ‘‘Ms. Sandback ’’.
Mayor Sonterre requested that the same minutes be changed on page 3, fourth paragraph from
‘‘Pavkow’’ to ‘‘Pafkow ’’.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Approve Meeting Minutes of July 23, 2201 as
amended.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Mayor Sonterre announced the Council will adjourn their meeting to the closed session and not
return to the Chambers.
11. CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING/THREATENED LITIGATION AND
RELATED MATTERS.
Jerry Linke questioned the closed session to discuss threatened litigation and stated bef ore
closing a meeting, the specific grounds permitting a meeting to be closed must be disclosed. He
felt that having the words ‘‘related matters’’ on the agenda did not disclose the reasoning.
Mounds View City Council August 13, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 20
Mayor Sonterre explained the reason for adjourning to a closed session was to discuss protected
information.
City Attorney Riggs suggested removing the words ‘‘And Related Matters’’ from Item 11.
Mr. Linke questioned closing the meeting at 10:18 p.m. and was concerned the meeting would
not be completed by that time.
City Attorney Riggs stated that in discussing this matter with City Administrator Miller, he did
not forecast the meeting would need to be more than 15 minutes.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Extend the Meeting to 10:25 p.m.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
The meeting recessed to a closed session and will adjourn.
12. Next Council Work Session: September 4, 2001
Next Council Meeting August 27, 2001
13. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Sonterre adjourned the meeting to a closed session at 10:13 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
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.