HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2001/10/08M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2001\City Council\Council Packets\10-08-2001 Council\Agenda - October 8, 2001 Council
Meeting.doc
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNCIL AGENDA
MONDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2001
7 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Sonterre, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomas
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
4. PUBLIC INPUT:
A. Citizens 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 5626 Approving a Policy for Compensating Individuals Working
in Higher Classification Positions
D. Resolution 5617 Authorizing Certain Employee and Volunteer Appreciation
Events
E. Resolution 5629 Approving Compensation for Linda Meyer for Working in a
Higher Classification Position
F. Resolution 5630 Approving a Wage Adjustment for Kasey Keckeisen
G. Resolution 5631 Approving a Wage Adjustment for Kirk Leitch
H. Resolution 5632 Approving a Wage Adjustment for Longevity Pay (9%) for
Tom Kinney
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS
7:05 pm A. Public Hearing Considering the Reconstruction of County Road H2
B. Consideration of Resolution 5627, a Resolution Approving a Development
Review for an Expanded Billboard on City-Owned Land, 2373 County
Highway 10, and Discussion of Proposed Purchase Agreement for an
Expanded Easement – Ericson
C. Continued Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 5622, a Resolution
Authorizing the Abatement of the Hazardous Building Located at 8217 Long
Lake Road – Jeremiah Anderson
NOTE: Council Members, please bring your previous packet of material.
M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2001\City Council\Council Packets\10-08-2001 Council\Agenda - October 8, 2001 Council
Meeting.doc
October 8, 2001
City Council Meeting
Page –2-
D. Management of the Mounds View Banquet and Conference Center – Reed
1. Resolution 5611 Approving Payment to Elegant Thymes
Management Company for Management of the Mounds View
Banquet and Conference Center.
2. Resolution 5612 Naming Elegant Thymes Management Company as
Interim Manager of the Mounds View Banquet and Conference
Center
8. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
9. REPORTS
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. September 24, 2001
B. August 27, 2001
11. CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS POTENTIAL/THREATENED LITIGATION
12. Next Council Work Session: November 5, 2001
Next Council Meeting: October 22, 2001
13. 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: October 8, 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.
SIGN/BILLBOARD INSTALLATION
Sign-A-Rama – Renewal
Staff Recommendation: Approve license application as requested.
M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2001\City Council\Council Packets\10-08-2001 Council\Item 06C--Reso 5626, Compensating Individuals Working
in Higher Classification Positions.doc
Item No. 6C
Type of Business:CA
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Givonna Reed, Assistant to the City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 5626 Compensation Policy for Employees
Working in Higher Classification Positions
Date of Report: October 8, 2001
At the October 1, 2001 Work Session the Council directed staff to prepare a
resolution approving the attached policy for compensating employees working in
higher classification positions.
Respectfully Submitted,
Givonna Reed
Assistant to the City Administrator
M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2001\City Council\Council Packets\10-08-2001 Council\Item 06C--Reso 5626, Compensating Individuals Working
in Higher Classification Positions.doc
RESOLUTION NO 5626
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A COMPENSATION POLICY FOR EMPLOYEES
WORKING IN HIGHER CLASSIFICATION POSITIONS
WHEREAS, the City will from time to time have vacancies in positions;
and
WHEREAS, the Department Head, with the approval of the City
Administrator and the City Council, may select an appropriate employee to serve in
an interim capacity to meet the needs of the vacant position; and
WHEREAS, the Council wishes to compensate employees taking on
higher classification duties.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mounds View City Council
adopts the policy for compensating employees working in higher classification
positions.
Adopted this 8th day of October, 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
M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2001\City Council\Council Packets\10-08-2001 Council\Item 06C--Reso 5626, Compensating Individuals Working
in Higher Classification Positions.doc
City of Mounds View Policy for Compensating Employees
Working in Higher Classification Positions
1. Compensation for working in a higher classification position may be provided
to regular full- and part-time employees for the adequate performance of
duties normally performed by an employee of higher classification.
2. The performance of higher classification duties must encompass at least 75%
of the full range of responsibilities of the higher classification position for at
least two consecutive months.
3. Designation and assumption of higher classification duties under this policy
shall occur only after formal approval by the City Administrator and City
Council. The City Administrator and City Council must also approve the
percentage of time the employee will spend time performing duties of the
higher classification position prior to the assumption of duties.
4. An employee’s performance will be evaluated by her/his department head
every two months. Performance will be evaluated based on criteria outlined
in the current performance evaluation form and the additional duties
assigned.
5. An employee’s performance will determine whether an employee qualifies for
compensation under this policy and, if so, compensation will be on a sliding
scale ranging from 5% to 10% of the employee’s base wage.
6. Recommendations from department heads for compensation under this policy
must be approved by the City Administrator and City Council. If awarded,
compensation under this policy will apply to the percentage of time spent
performing the duties of the higher classification position.
7. When the vacancy is filled or when the employee returns to her/his regular
position, whichever occurs first, the employee’s salary will be readjusted to its
previous level.
8. Benefit accrual rates (sick and vacation leave) will be adjusted when
appointment to a higher classification position requires that regular part-time
employees work at least three quarter time. Benefit accrual rates will be
adjusted to normal levels once the vacancy is filled or when the employee
returns to her/his regular hours, whichever occurs first.
9. Overtime and compensatory time accrued while performing duties of a higher
classification position will be paid retroactively at the applicable rate at the
end of each two-month period spent in the higher classification position.
M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2001\City Council\Council Packets\10-08-2001 Council\Item 06D--Reso 5617, Authorizing Certain
Employee and Volunteer Appreciation Events.doc
Item No.6D
Type of Business:CA
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Givonna Reed, Assistant to the City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 5617 Authorizing Certain Employee
and Volunteer Appreciation Events
Date of Report: October 8, 2001
At the October work session the Council expressed an interest in sponsoring
certain volunteer and employee appreciation events. The Council indicated that
it wishes to sponsor the following events:
• Annual employee appreciation dinner and gift certificates
• Annual volunteer appreciation dinner
• Plaques for individuals retiring from the City of Mounds View
The City Attorney has indicated that the most appropriate way for the Council to
convey its support for such activities, which it believes to have public purpose, is
in the form of a resolution. Staff has drafted such a resolution which is attached
for the Council’s consideration and approval.
Recommendation
Approve Resolution 5617 Authorizing Certain Employee and Volunteer
Appreciation Events.
Respectfully Submitted,
Givonna Reed
M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2001\City Council\Council Packets\10-08-2001 Council\Item 06D--Reso 5617, Authorizing Certain
Employee and Volunteer Appreciation Events.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 5617
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING CERTAIN EMPLOYEE
AND VOLUNTEER APPRECIATION EVENTS
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council wishes to show its
appreciation to employees and volunteers for dedicated and committed service;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council is committed to responsibly expending
public funds; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that showing appreciation to
employees and volunteers benefits the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Mounds
View will annually (when funds are available) contribute $1000 toward an annual
employee appreciation event to be held at the Mounds View Banquet and
Conference Center; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City of
Mounds View will issue to employees gift certificates in the amount of $5 per year
of service at five-year increments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of
Mounds View will annually (when funds are available) contribute $1000 toward
an annual volunteer appreciation event to be held at the Mounds View Banquet
and Conference Center; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of
Mounds View will present plaques ($60 max.) to retirees with 10 years of service
at regularly scheduled City Council meetings.
Adopted this 8th day of October, 2001.
ATTEST:
Richard Sonterre, Mayor
SEAL
M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2001\City Council\Council Packets\10-08-2001 Council\Item 06D--Reso 5617, Authorizing Certain
Employee and Volunteer Appreciation Events.doc
Kathleen Miller, City Administrator
Motion by:
Second by:
Sonterre Aye No
Quick Aye No
Stigney Aye No
Marty Aye No
Thomas Aye No
M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2001\City Council\Council Packets\10-08-2001 Council\Item 06E--Reso 5629 Compensating Linda Meyer
for working in a higher clasification position.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 5629
CITY OF MONDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING COMPENSATION FOR LINDA MEYER FOR
WORKING IN A HIGHER CLASSIFICATION POSITION
WHEREAS, Pat Michna retired from the Mounds View Police Department
January 31, 2001 and 80% of Ms. Michna’s responsibilities were taken over by
Linda Meyer; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Meyer’s performance was rated satisfactory or higher by
her supervisor; and
WHEREAS, the City Administrator is recommending that Ms. Meyer be
compensated at a rate of 7.5% of her base pay under the City’s policy for
compensating employees working in higher classification positions (Resolution
5626).
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City
Council does hereby approve compensation to Linda Meyer at a rate of 7.5% of
her base wage for spending 80% of her time spent performing higher
classification duties from February 1, 2001- June 10. 2001; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Ms. Meyer will
be paid an additional amount of $722.68
• base $16.25/hr x 7.5% = $17.46
• ot= $26.19
• Feb 1,2001 thru June 10,2001
• 80% of 722.5 reg hrs = 578. reg. Hrs; 578. x 17.46 = 10091.88
• 80% of 16 ot hrs = 12.8 ot hrs; 12.8 x 26.19 = 335.23
• total $10,427.11
• $9,704.43 actual wages paid at 16.25 an hour; ot rate $24.37/hr
• Diff. $722.68
Presented this 8th day of October, 2001.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Rich Sonterre, Mayor
(SEAL) ____________________________________
Kathleen F. Miller, City Administrator
M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2001\City Council\Council Packets\10-08-2001 Council\Item 06E--Reso 5629 Compensating Linda Meyer
for working in a higher clasification position.doc
Motion By:
Second By:
Sonterre:
Quick:
Stigney:
Thomas:
Marty:
RESOLUTION NO. 5630
CITY OF MONDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A WAGE ADJUSTMENT
FOR KASEY KECKEISEN
WHEREAS, Kasey Keckeisen is a regular full-time employee who began
working for the City of Mounds View on March 17, 2001; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Keckeisen’s work performance has been rated
satisfactory or higher by his supervisor; and
WHEREAS, the 2001 labor agreement with the City’s police officers
states that after 6 months of continuous service, employees will move from 65%
of top patrol rate ($32,215.68 annually) to 70% of top patrol rate ($34,693.80
annually).
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City
Council does hereby approve a wage adjustment for Kasey Keckeisen from 65%
of top patrol rate to 70% of top patrol rate effective September 17, 2001.
Presented this 8th day of October, 2001.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Rich Sonterre, Mayor
(SEAL) ____________________________________
Kathleen F. Miller, City Administrator
Motion By:
Second By:
Sonterre:
Quick:
Stigney:
Thomas:
Marty:
RESOLUTION NO. 5631
CITY OF MONDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A WAGE ADJUSTMENT
FOR KIRK LEITCH
WHEREAS, Kirk Leitch is a regular full-time employee who began working
for the City of Mounds View on April 7, 2001; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Leitch’s work performance has been rated satisfactory or
higher by his supervisor; and
WHEREAS, the 2001 labor agreement with the City’s police officers
states that after 6 months of continuous service, employees will move from 65%
of top patrol rate ($32,215.68 annually) to 70% of top patrol rate ($34,693.80
annually).
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City
Council does hereby approve a wage adjustment for Kirk Leitch from 65% of top
patrol rate to 70% of top patrol rate effective October 7, 2001.
Presented this 8th day of October, 2001.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Rich Sonterre, Mayor
(SEAL) ____________________________________
Kathleen F. Miller, City Administrator
Motion By:
Second By:
Sonterre:
Quick:
Stigney:
Thomas:
Marty:
RESOLUTION NO. 5632
CITY OF MONDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Approving a Wage Adjustment for Tom Kinney
WHEREAS, Tom Kinney is a regular full-time employee who began
working for the City of Mounds View on October 15, 1985; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Kinney’s work performance has been rated satisfactory or
higher by his supervisor; and
WHEREAS, the 2001 labor agreement with the City’s police officers states
that “After sixteen (16) years of continuous employment each employee shall
choose to be paid supplementary pay of nine percent (9%) of the employee’s
base rate or supplementary pay based on educational credits as outlined in 27.6
of this ARTICLE”
WHEREAS, Mr. Kinney has chosen to receive supplementary pay.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City
Council does hereby approve a wage adjustment reflecting 9% of base pay for
Tom Kinney ($54,017.60) effective October 15, 2001.
Presented this 8th day of October, 2001.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Rich Sonterre, Mayor
(SEAL) ____________________________________
Kathleen F. Miller, City Administrator
Motion By:
Second By:
Sonterre:
Quick:
Stigney:
Thomas:
Marty:
Proposed County Road H2 Improvement (Pleasant View Drive to County Highway 10) Survey Results
98 Surveys Mailed Out 41 Received - 2 were incomplete
Basic Mill &Recycle & Complete
Address Overlay Overlay Overlay Reconst Parking?Comments
2845/47 County Road H2 X
2816 County Road H2 X No Wants opinions considered in the decision.
2456 County Road H2 SURVEY INCOMPLETE
2908 County Road H2 X Doesn't like highway going thru a residential area.
2504 County Road H2 X Yes Need to have drainage problem corrected.
7301 Parkview Drive X No Preference Road needs complete reconst. Appreciate approach by the City.
2454 County Road H2 X No Storm sewer not needed-waste of money.
2654 County Road H2 X No
5279 Sunnyside Road X No
3017 County Road H2 X Does not want trailway.
2656 County Road H2 X No Doesn't want parking on street by Scotland Green. Too many cars plus many children, need full vision.
3000 County Road H2 X No Residents have large enough driveways that can provide sufficient parking.
2658 County Road H2 X No Have their own off street parking.
7337 Spring Lake Road SURVEY INCOMPLETE
5279 Irondale Road X No Preference Needs to be re-done and cleaned up; garbage cans should not be stored in front of homes.
2933 County Road H2 X
7315 Knollwood Drive X Stop all truck traffic, change name of street.
3032 County Road H2 X No Pave road and shoulders, that's it; no need for sidewalks.
3001 County Road H2 X Even though not a south side resident, doesn't feel parking is necessary.
3009 County Road H2 X
3024 County Road H2 X No
3048 County Road H2 X No
2744 County Road H2 X No Keep road to the min. width as possible.
2932 County Road H2 X No Need curb and gutter.
2512 County Road H2 X No
7362 Parkview Terrace X
2940 County Road H2 X No
Harstad Property X Yes
Harstad Property X Yes
Harstad Property X Yes
Harstad Property X Yes
Harstad Property X Yes
Harstad Property X Yes
Harstad Property X Yes
Harstad Property X Yes
Harstad Property X Yes
Harstad Property X Yes
Harstad Property X Yes
Harstad Property X Yes
Harstad Property X Yes
Harstad Property X Yes
TOTAL 0 5 3 31 No-14 Yes-15 No Pref-2
Item No. 7A
Staff Report No.
Meeting Date: October 8, 2001
Type of Business: PH
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: Jim Hess, Engineer Tech
Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing Considering the Reconstruction of County
Road H2 (County Highway 10 to Pleasant View Drive)
Date of Report: August 29, 2018
A public hearing was held on September 10, 2001, to consider the reconstruction of County Road
H2 (County Highway 10 to Pleasant View Drive). At the time of the hearing, Council directed
Staff to re-survey and compile the results regarding the preferred reconstruction options from the
affected residents. (Staff also conducted another informational/open-house meeting that was held
on September 25, 2001.)
The following are the totaled survey results: (Attached is the spreadsheet.)
Basic Overlay 0
Mill & Overlay 5
Recycle & Overlay 3
Complete Reconst. 31
Parking No-14
Yes-15
No Preference-2
This proposed project is to be assessed in accordance with Chapter 202 of the Municipal Code. A
brief review of the estimated project costs are provided below:
The Estimated Project Costs:
Street $1,072,940.00
Trailway 142,670.00
Storm Sewer 670,795.00
Water Main 27,621.00
TOTAL PROJECT $1,914,026.00
Estimated Unit Assessment Costs:
Street Assessment $14.60 per front footage
Storm Sewer Assessment:
Residential Single Family $400.00 per parcel
Residential Multi Family $1,200 per acre ($400.00 minimum)
Commercial/Industrial $1,200 per acre ($3,600.00 maximum)
Trailway No assessment
City engineer, Steve Campbell and Project Engineer, Barry Peters, will be present to provide
assistance if needed.
Upon closure of the Public Hearing, should Council wish to act on the reconstruction project,
Staff has prepared Resolution No. 5621, regarding County Road H2 Reconstruction.
City of Mounds View Staff Report
August 29, 2018
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 5621
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECONSTRUCTION OF COUNTY ROAD H2 FROM COUNTY
HIGHWAY 10 TO PLEASANT VIEW DRIVE
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mounds is considering to reconstruct County Road
H2 from County Highway 10 to Pleasant View Drive; and
WHEREAS, County Road H2 between County Highway 10 and Pleasant View Drive is a
Municipal State Aid Road (MSA) and must be constructed to MSA Standards; and
WHEREAS, this project will include complete street reconstruction (width of 26 feet, with
possible parking pullouts on the south side) including B618 curb and gutter, trailway construction (8 feet
wide), minor water main placements and construction of storm sewer.
WHEREAS, this project is proposed to be assessed to the benefited properties in accordance with
Chapter 202 of the Municipal Code and the City Charter; and
WHEREAS, the City’s engineers have conducted an investigation of the proposed project and
determined that the abovementioned segment of County Road H2 is feasible for reconstruction; and
WHEREAS, public hearing notices were mailed to affected properties and publication of the
proposed project was advertised in the official City newspaper according to Chapter 202 of the Municipal
Code; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on October 8, 2001 to consider public input regarding the
proposed project.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council authorizes the City’s consulting
engineers, S E H, to proceed with development of plans and specifications for approval.
Adopted this 8th day of October, 2001.
ATTEST:
Mayor
(SEAL)
City Administrator
Motion By: Quick
Second By: Thomas
Sonterre: Aye
Quick: Aye
Stigney: Aye
Thomas: Aye
Marty: Aye
Item No: 7B
Meeting Date: October 8, 2001
Type of Business: CB
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Resolution 5627, a Resolution
Approving a Development Review for an Expanded
Billboard on City-Owned Land, 2373 County Highway
10, and Discussion of Proposed Purchase Agreement
for an Expanded Easement
Date of Report: October 4, 2001
Background:
Chris McCarver, representing Clear Channel Outdoor, owner of the billboard located on
city-owned land on the north side of County Highway 10, is requesting approval of a
development review to permit an expansion of the billboard from 300 square feet to 672
square feet. Clear Channel owns a permanent lease for the 40’ by 40’ square plot upon
which the sign is located. To expand the sign, an additional easement or lease area
would need to be negotiated. The property is the former Midland Videen land that the
City acquired through its land swap with TOLD Development Company. The property on
which the sign is located is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. The applicant has
submitted color overhead and side-perspective renderings of the expanded billboard,
which are attached for the Councils review.
Discussion:
According to the City’s recently adopted Sign Code, the billboard is considered a legal,
nonconforming sign. Section 1008.13, Subd. 1 of the Sign Code states the following:
“Structural alterations, enlargement or re-erection are permissible only where
such alterations would not increase the degree of the nonconformity of the sign.”
City staff, supported in opinion by the City Attorney, interprets this to indicate that the sign
can be enlarged because the degree of nonconformity remains unchanged with an
expansion. The nonconformity is based not on the size of the sign or its setback, but rather
its location. It is nonconforming ONLY because it is not located north of new Highway 10.
The zoning is proper and the size would be in compliance. (Billboards are only permitted in
a PF or PUD zoning district, up to 700 square feet, not to exceed 35 feet in height.)
As part of the expansion, Clear Channel proposes significant landscape improvements
around the site and would bury the electric service, thus allowing for the removal of a
utility pole. The expansion would include the construction of a rock and brick base to add
an aesthetic enhancement to the corridor, in a fashion similar to the base of the new
Walgreens sign and that of Wynnsong Cinema.
Purchase Agreement:
Clear Channel Report
October 8, 2001
Page 2
The applicant has submitted for Council consideration a purchase agreement for
additional easement area to permit Clear Channel to expand and maintain the billboard.
The terms of this agreement, as submitted, would have Clear Channel purchasing a 55-
foot square perpetual easement in return for a one-time payment of $100,000. In staff’s
opinion, $100,000 does not adequate compensate the City for perpetually relinquishing
the additional easement area. (A perpetual easement would allow Clear Channel to
maintain the expanded billboard indefinitely, even though the City actually owns the
underlying land upon which the billboard is located.) Staff has suggested to the applicant
that a more suitable arrangement might involve $100,000 to be paid up front with annual
supplemental payments for a set number of years. At the time this report was drafted,
the applicant had not yet responded to staff’s suggestion. If any progress is made in this
regard before the Council meeting, I will verbally update the Council as necessary.
Planning Commission Action:
On September 19, 2001, The Planning Commission unanimously approved Resolution
673-01, a resolution recommending approval of the development review to expand the
billboard as shown on the submitted renderings. The Planning Commission felt that the
physical and aesthetic improvements in this area justified the approval of an expanded
billboard.
Recommendation:
Based on the interpretation of the Code which would indicate that the sign can be
expanded, staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of a development
review to allow for the expansion and aesthetic improvement of the existing Clear
Channel billboard, located at 2373 County Highway 10 (former Midland Videen wetland
and open space parcel) contingent upon the following:
1. Obtain approval from the City of a Wetland Alteration Permit.
2. Obtain RCWD permit, if necessary.
3. The applicant shall submit a materials board prior to construction for administrative
approval.
4. All fees legal and otherwise associated with the easement sale shall be the sole
responsibility of the applicant.
5. The City Forester shall review and approve the submitted landscape plan. The
applicant shall revise the plan.
6. Execute a renegotiated purchase agreement for the additional easement area.
If the City Council concurs with the staff recommendation regarding the expansion and is
agreeable to the purchase agreement as submitted, Resolution 5627 is available for
Council approval. If the Council is not agreeable with the terms as outlined in the
purchase agreement, staff would recommend the Council table the resolution and direct
staff to work with the applicant to draft a revised agreement. If the Council is opposed to
the expanded billboard and opposed to the sale of easement at any price (or at a price
acceptable to the applicant), staff should be directed to draft a resolution denying the
Clear Channel Report
October 8, 2001
Page 3
development review for an expanded billboard on City-owned land.
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
763-717-4021
Attachments
1. Site Plan and Elevation Drawings (separate attachment)
2. Purchase Agreement (separate attachment)
3. Planning Commission Extract of Unapproved Minutes, 9/19/2001
4. Resolution 5627
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\Development Cases\DE01-004 (Clear Channel)\Clear Channel Report - Oct 8,
2001.doc
Extract of Minutes (Unapproved)
Planning Commission
September 19, 2001
5. Planning Case No. DE01-004
Community Development Director Ericson explained that this is a request to expand the existing
billboard on the north side of County Highway 10. He noted that, as it sits currently, the billboard
is 300 square feet. He then noted that the applicant has requested approval to expand the
billboard to the next standardized size which is 672 square feet. Director Ericson further noted
that the billboard is nonconforming due to its location and said that allowing expansion of the
billboard will not increase the nonconformity.
Director Ericson explained that staff has reviewed the matter and feels that improving the sign’s
aesthetics is in the best interest of the City and the improved appearance of the Highway 10
corridor.
Director Ericson reviewed the Resolution drafted by Staff with the Commission and outlined the
conditions under which the expansion of the billboard would be allowed. He further noted that
the applicant would be required to place the utilities under ground, identify the species to be
planted and have that reviewed by the City Forester, obtain the necessary wetland alteration
permits from the City and, if necessary, Rice Creek Watershed District, and negotiate an
acceptable easement with the City.
Director Ericson noted that Mr. McCarver and Mr. Cronin from Clear Channel Outdoor were in
attendance if the Commission had any questions.
Chair Stevenson indicated that the Planning Commission does not want the billboard located on
the property but noted that the applicant has an easement in perpetuity that will allow the
billboard to remain on the location indefinitely. He then said, in light of the easement in
perpetuity, the Planning Commission feels it is in the best interest of the City to allow for the
expansion and improvement of the billboard to improve the aesthetics of the sign.
Chair Stevenson requested that the actual dimensions of the sign be added to the Resolution.
Director Ericson indicated that he would include in the Resolution a condition that the height of
the sign will not be increased nor will the sign encroach any closer to the property line than it is
now.
Commissioner Scotch inquired as to whether trees would be removed in order to lengthen the
billboard.
Mr. Cronin explained that some trees would need to be removed to make room for the sign but
noted the trees to be removed are poplar trees and not significant trees. He then explained that
there would be wildflowers, shrubs that are between six and eight feet tall, and the existing trees
behind the billboard.
Commissioner Scotch indicated she feels the sign is large enough as it stands and then asked
the applicant if it were possible to improve the appearance of the sign and reduce the expansion
amount.
Mr. Cronin indicated that the Company is stuck because the signs come in standard sizes and
said that any special or custom sized billboard would be very costly. He then indicated that he
feels the Company has done everything it can do to improve the appearance of the sign and
Extract of Minutes (Unapproved)
Planning Commission
September 19, 2001
make the sign as unobtrusive as a billboard can be.
Commissioner Scotch indicated she thought the Company had three sizes of signs.
Mr. Cronin indicated the Company used to have a 10.5 x 36 sign but indicated that size is being
phased out.
Commissioner Scotch questioned whether the vinyl wrap type sign was new, as that was her
impression from the previous meeting.
Mr. McCarver from Clear Channel Outdoor indicated that the monument type base for the sign is
new for the Company, not the vinyl wrap signs.
Commissioner Scotch indicated that she was aware of how much the Company makes off of its
billboards and indicated that, even if the sign were smaller, the Company would still do very well.
Mr. McCarver agreed with Commissioner Scotch that it makes sense for the Company to expand
and improve the sign. He then indicated that the improved aesthetics are costly and said the
Company is counting on the expanded billboard to offset the costs of the improved aesthetics.
Commissioner Johnson asked if Walgreens was notified and then questioned whether the
expanded sign would affect the line of sight for Walgreens.
Commissioner Scotch indicated she did not feel the sign would obstruct the line of sight for
Walgreens but said she felt the sign is very large and could be smaller.
Commissioner Johnson indicated that billboards are big and said he feels it is better to have a
nice looking big billboard than an ugly existing billboard.
Director Ericson indicated that Walgreens was not notified and indicated that there was no
requirement to do so. He then indicated that he did not feel the sign would negatively impact
Walgreens.
Mr. McCarver indicated the sign base is five feet high from grade to the top of the cap.
Mr. Cronin expressed appreciation for the opportunity to improve the sign and indicated that the
Company understood the conditions that staff has recommended and fully accepts those. He
then respectfully requested that the Planning Commission move to adopt the Resolution
recommending approval to the City Council.
Commissioner Hegland expressed concern that allowing this expansion of the billboard would
set the City up to be required to allow an expansion at some point in the future.
Mr. McCarver indicated that the sign structure is 55 feet wide but noted the copy is only 48 feet
long. He further explained that due to OSHA requirements there needs to be a three-foot
catwalk around the perimeter of the sign. He then suggested that the Resolution be amended to
reflect that the Company is limited to a copy size of 48 feet for clarification.
Mr. McCarver then indicated that the Company could not build a 20 x 60 sign anymore because
the state only allows 1000 square feet for billboards.
Extract of Minutes (Unapproved)
Planning Commission
September 19, 2001
Commissioner Hegland indicated he would like the Resolution to indicate the maximum copy
size of 48 feet.
Director Ericson indicated that the maximum square footage for billboards in the City is 700
square feet eliminating the possibility for future expansion of the sign.
Commissioner Scotch asked what was behind the trees.
Director Ericson indicated that there was a trail that cuts along and adjacent to the new storm
water pond and directly behind the trees are more trees and a wetland area.
Commissioner Miller asked whether a Rice Creek Watershed Permit was required.
Director Ericson indicated he was not sure whether a Rice Creek Watershed permit would be
required and noted it was the responsibility of the applicant to find out. He then indicated that a
City wetland alteration permit is required.
Commissioner Zwirn pointed to an open area on the drawing of the billboard and questioned
how the applicant intended to prevent people from congregating in the hidden area.
Mr. Cronin indicated that the Company’s landscaper suggested that gooseberry bushes be
planted there because they are very thorny.
MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Miller. To Approve Resolution 673-01, a Resolution
Recommending Approval to Council of the Development Review to Expand the Existing
Billboard on City-owned Property North of County Highway 10.
Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Chair Stevenson commended Clear Channel Outdoor on its efforts to start a relief fund for the
victims of the terrorist attack out east. He then said the contribution the Company made and the
ongoing effort to raise funds for the relief effort should be commended.
RESOLUTION NO. 5627
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR AN EXPANDED
BILLBOARD AT 2373 HIGHWAY 10, REQUESTED BY CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR;
PLANNING CASE NO. DE01-004.
WHEREAS, Chris McCarver, representing the applicant Clear Channel Outdoor,
has requested a development review to allow for an expansion of the existing billboard
on Community Center open space, 2373 County Highway 10 as shown on the attached
Exhibit A; and,
WHEREAS, the existing billboard is approximately 25 feet tall and 300 square feet
in area, and is located on a perpetual easement owned by the applicant; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting to expand the existing billboard area to
672 square feet (14 feet tall by 48 feet long) at the same 25-foot height; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development, and
the billboard is considered a legal, nonconforming sign, and;
WHEREAS, according to Section 1008.13, Subd. 1. of the Sign Code, “Structural
alterations, enlargement or re-erection are permissible only where such alterations would
not increase the degree of the nonconformity of the sign;” and,
WHEREAS, expansion of the sign is permissible because the alteration does not
increase the degree of nonconformity; and,
WHEREAS, according to Chapter 1006.06 of the Mounds View Municipal Code,
any new construction or expansion of existing facilities or uses requires the approval of a
development review; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding
this proposal:
a. Planning Application
b. Zoning Map
c. Site Plan with Landscape Features
d. Billboard Elevation
e. Extract of Planning Commission Minutes, 9/19/2001
f. Staff Report
Clear Channel Resolution 5627
October 8, 2001
Page 8
WHEREAS, the proposed development satisfies the requirements of the Zoning
Code and building code; and,
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2001, the Mounds View Planning Commission
approved Resolution 673-01 which recommended approval of the expanded billboard
and aesthetic improvements, subject to conditions; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council believes that the expanded billboard
will result in an improved aesthetic appearance for the billboard and also the County
Highway 10 Corridor.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council,
finding that all of the zoning and building code requirements have been satisfied, does
hereby recommend approval of the development review request for a 672-square foot,
14’ x 48’ expanded billboard located at 2373 County, subject to the following
stipulations:
1. All utilities to the billboard shall be reinstalled underground.
2. Obtain approval of a City Wetland Alteration Permit.
3. Obtain RCWD permit, if necessary.
4. The applicant shall submit a materials board prior to construction for
administrative approval.
5. All fees legal and otherwise associated with the easement sale shall be the sole
responsibility of the applicant.
6. The City Forester shall review and approve the submitted landscape plan. The
applicant shall revise the plan.
7. Execute a purchase agreement for the additional easement area.
Adopted this 8th day of October, 2001.
_________________________________
Richard Sonterre, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Kathleen Miller, City Clerk / Administrator
(SEAL)
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\Development Cases\DE01-004 (Clear Channel)\Resolution 5627.doc
EXHIBIT A
Resolution 5627
Item No: 7B
Meeting Date: 9/24/01
Type of Business: CB
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Jeremiah Anderson, Housing/Code Enforcement Inspector
Item Title/Subject: Discussion of resolution 5622, ordering the abatement of
hazardous conditions existing at 8217 Long Lake Road
Date of Report: September 18, 2001
Background:
Currently, the single-family dwelling located at 8217 Long Lake Road in the City of
Mounds View is abandoned and is in a hazardous condition due to inadequate
maintenance, dilapidation, and physical damage. Additionally, the interior of the
dwelling contains filth and contamination. An inspection of the abandoned dwelling on
August 2, 2001 revealed immediate safety hazards and numerous housing
maintenance code violations. As such, the home is unfit for human occupation and was
posted to prevent its occupancy on August 2, 2001.
Discussion:
From a historical reference, this is not the first time the City has investigated code
violations present at 8217 Long Lake Road. A review of City records shows that the
City has investigated over 30 code violations at the property and conducted many site
inspections and follow-up work, which date back to 1994, expending many hours of
staff time. Additionally, several Ramsey County Court Citations have been issued to
the former occupant of the property for prior unresolved code violations during the past
few years.
The ownership situation of the property has been an issue of confusion in the past and
continues to be a source of confusion. The property was originally under a contract for
deed with the property owner living in the state of Arizona. The holder of this contract
for deed was entitled the rights to occupant of the property in exchange for a monthly
contractual payment. However, the real estate taxes and title of the property remained
in the name of the out of state owner. This system continued over the last few years
8217 Long Lake Road
September 24, 2001
Page 2
until the contract holder of the property was arrested, convicted, and subsequently
incarcerated for criminal activity. The property was then inhabited by family members
of the contract holder. This continued until the contractual payments were not paid,
which then defaulted the original contract and consequently, resulted in the property
reverting to the out state owner. Shortly after this occurred, the remaining occupants
abandoned the property leaving it in its current condition.
Staff has received several phone calls from relatives of the former contract holder
explaining that the property is in the process of being sold to an interested buyer.
However, for this to be effectuated, a formal ownership transaction between the out of
state owner and contract holder would need to occur. Problems with the title and other
legal issues surrounding the terms of a contract buyout have delayed this process. This
was confirmed by staff when the interested buyer was contacted and verified his
intentions of purchasing the property.
Minnesota Statute § 463.16 authorizes the governing body of any City or Town to order
the owner of any hazardous building or property within the municipality to correct or
remove the hazardous condition of the building or property, or raze or remove the
building. Additionally, Minnesota Statute § 463.161 authorizes the governing body of
any City or Town to correct or remove the hazardous condition of any hazardous
building or property.
Additionally, Minnesota Statute § 463.15 Subd. 3 defines a hazardous building or
hazardous property as any building or property which because of inadequate
maintenance, dilapidation, physical damage, unsanitary condition, or abandonment,
constitutes a fire hazard or hazard to public safety or health. The dwelling unit located
at 8217 Long Lake Road meets these definitions and as such, is considered a
hazardous building.
Furthermore, Section 1005.16 Subd. 4 of the City Housing Code provides the City the
authority to abate, remove or otherwise remedy the violation and take any action
permissible under State law to specially assess or otherwise charge the cost of such
abatement, removal, or remedy against the premises where the violation was located.
Lastly, Section 1005.17 Subd. 2 of the Housing Code allows the City to enforce the
provisions in the Housing Code by an appropriate form of civil action. This section also
allows the abatement of everything existing in violation thereof and cause the premises
to be vacated.
Resolution 5622 satisfies the appropriate provisions of the City Housing Code and
Minnesota Statutes.
Recommendation:
Consideration and approval of resolution 5622 ordering the abatement of hazardous
conditions existing at 8217 Long Lake Road.
Jeremiah Anderson
Housing/Code Enforcement Inspector
Attachment 1: Resolution 5622 and Abatement Order
Attachment 2: Notice of Violation 01-0530232300028-3
Attachment 3: Photo documentation
Attachment 4: Memo dated July 24, 2001
Attachment 5: Memo dated August 1, 2001
Attachment 6: Memo dated August 2, 2001
Attachment 7: Letter dated September 5, 2001
Attachment 8: Memo dated September 17, 2001
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
September 24, 2001
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
7:00 P.M.
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Sonterre, Quick, Marty, Stigney, and Thomas.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A. Monday, September 24, 2001 City Council Agenda.
Council Member Stigney requested approval of the August 27, 2001 minutes be added to the
agenda.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed noted that the City Administrator wanted to review the
minutes and make some basic changes before presenting the minutes for approval.
Assistant to the Administrator Reed requested that the special order of business be moved up in
the agenda.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Approve the September 24, 2001, City Council
Agenda as amended.
Ayes - 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
4. PUBLIC INPUT
Mr. Linke of 2319 Knoll Drive noted that the agenda for the September 17, 2001 work session
had indicated that the meeting was for goal setting and a retreat. He then asked why the traffic
signal at Pleasant View Drive and County Highway 10 was discussed. He further noted he would
like a copy of the materials that were handed out at that meeting concerning the stoplight.
Council indicated that the materials were handed out but the matter was not discussed at the
September 17, 2001 meeting.
David Jahnke of 8428 Eastwood Road indicated that the work session meetings are open to the
public. He then said that he was disappointed that he was not allowed to ask questions at that
Mounds View City Council September 24, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 2
meeting and that the three-minute time limit was brought up. He did say, however, that the
Mayor has always been fair about the three-minute time limit.
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approve Just and Correct Claims
B. Licenses for Approval
C. Resolution 5618 Approving a Joint Powers Agreement with Ramsey County for
Election System Replacement
D. Resolution 5623 Authorizing the Replacement of Carpeting throughout the Police
Department
E. Resolution 5606 Approving Severance for Bill Clark
F. Construction of a Traffic Signal at Pleasant View Drive and County Highway 10
Council Member Marty indicated he had a question concerning Check Number 106589 issued to
Kennedy and Graven for an amount shorted on the last payment. He then noted that he had
reviewed the billing and found that part of the billing was for discussion with a citizen and said
this citizen has been in contact with the attorney a number of times.
Council Member Marty noted he had discussed the matter with Ms. Reed who had indicated that
the City is trying to direct everything from the staff to the attorney. He then said he is curious as
to whether the City has a policy concerning residents contacting the City’s attorney directly
because he does not feel it is proper for a resident to be able to run up the City’s bill. He further
suggested that perhaps the resident using the attorney’s time should be asked to pay the bill rather
than the City’s taxpayers.
City Attorney Riggs explained that the matter was a Data Practices Act question and said the
resident was wondering about the statute which is why the matter was referred to him. He then
said that general requests are not usually sent to him.
Council Member Marty pointed out that this was not a one time matter as there appears to be
back and forth dialogue between the resident and the attorney.
City Attorney Riggs indicated that it is entirely possible that there was dialogue back and forth as
the length of the response depends on the questions asked.
Mayor Sonterre questioned whether the citizen was directed to contact the attorney by the City
Administrator.
City Attorney Riggs indicated that the request was directed to his office.
Mounds View City Council September 24, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 3
Mayor Sonterre noted the issue of residents contacting the city attorney should be a topic for the
work session.
Council Member Stigney requested that Item 6D be removed for discussion.
Council Member Stigney questioned why the police department would have spent $1,600 to
clean the carpet and then ask for complete replacement of the carpet. He then noted that there is
not enough money in the budget for the total amount to replace the carpet and asked where the
money would come from.
The Deputy Chief of Police clarified that the Police Department’s portion of the last cleaning bill
was $718.00. He then explained that the carpet did not come clean last time and is in need of
replacement. He further explained that the Police Department would like to replace all of the
carpet at once rather than doing it in stages and disrupting work several times. He also noted that
a better grade of carpet would be used to allow for continued maintenance and wear and tear.
Council Member Stigney noted the money was not in the budget and asked where the
approximately $3,000 shortage would come from.
The Deputy Chief of Police noted there were funds available in the equipment account as the
former Chief had put the carpet funds in that account.
Council Member Marty noted that in the Spring the Council had passed a Resolution to purchase
firearms. He then asked if those had been purchased and whether they were being used.
The Deputy Chief of Police indicated that Beretta firearms were purchased and said very few
officers are familiar with them. He then indicated that one of the officers was sent to school to
learn proper use of the firearms and said that officer is in the process of cleaning the firearms and
will assist with qualifying the other officers on those firearms.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Approve Consent Agenda Item 6D as Presented.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1(Marty) Motion carried.
Council Member Marty noted he questioned Ms. Reed on how the rate of accrued sick leave was
changed from 214 hours to 105 hours and said he was not sure he understood how the hours were
calculated. He further noted that, even if the Chief had used some sick leave, he would continue
to accrue the sick leave during that one-month period at the rate of 30 days until he reached 30
months.
Council Member Marty noted he was aware that the City Attorney had made the determination
on what the severance amount would be but said he did not understand how the amount was
calculated.
Mounds View City Council September 24, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 4
Council Member Marty also indicated that the rate of pay was calculated based on the hourly rate
of $32.91. He then noted that the chief was due for a step increase prior to his departure and
questioned whether the Chief’s pay should have been increased.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed indicated that the step increase would be contingent
upon the completion of the Chief’s performance review. She then indicated that the Chief’s last
day was only 4 days after his two-year anniversary and that did not leave time for the
performance review to take place.
Council Member Marty noted that, because the Chief’s anniversary date was prior to his leaving,
he questioned whether the City was calculating the severance properly.
Council Member Thomas explained that Council would have needed to approve the step increase
before it became effective. She then noted that, since the performance review had not taken
place and Council had not approved a step increase for the Chief prior to his leaving, it would be
inappropriate to calculate the Chief’s severance based on the increased pay.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Approve Items A, B, C, E, and F of the Consent
Agenda as presented
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1(Marty) Motion carried.
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. Resolution 5622 Authorizing Abatement of Hazardous Building at 8217 Long
Lake Road – Jeremiah Anderson
Housing Inspector Jeremiah Anderson explained to Council that the property located at 8217
Long Lake Road has been abandoned and noted there are numerous code violations. He then
explained that the current owner is in the process of selling the property and staff is concerned
that an unsuspecting buyer would attempt to inhabit the property before all the code violations
were remedied. He then respectfully requested that Council approve the Resolution authorizing
abatement to formally authorize correction of the code violations.
Council Member Stigney questioned if the abatement would prohibit the nonresident owner from
finalizing the sale of the property.
Mr. Anderson noted the City is willing to work with the property owner on the sale.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Sonterre. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5622, a
Resolution Authorizing Abatement of Hazardous Building at 8217 Long Lake Road.
Lee Wolfgram, the attorney for the incarcerated property owner, addressed Council and
explained that his client is incarcerated and the other seller is in Arizona and has been very
difficult to work with. Mr. Wolfgram noted the Purchase Agreement was signed on July 15,
Mounds View City Council September 24, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 5
2001 and the buyer is interested in rehabilitating the property. He further explained that the other
property owner had changed her demands for the sale but said he feels an agreement has been
reached and that the closing can occur prior to the next Council meeting.
Council Member Marty noted he had been reading about this situation in staff reports and noted
that the owner of the property in Arizona is signing a Quitclaim Deed to the incarcerated person.
He then asked if the payments are current.
Mr. Anderson explained that when the resident owner was incarcerated the payments went into
default. He further explained that relatives of the resident owner lived in the home until those
payments were in default and left the home in the current condition.
Council Member Stigney asked whether staff had any problem postponing the abatement on this
property.
Mr. Anderson indicated he would prefer to have the abatement authorized as the sale has been
pending since July. He then said the City does not want to hinder the sale of the property.
Council Member Stigney asked Mr. Wolfgram how long he needed to finalize the sale.
Mr. Wolfgram indicated he thought the sale should be completed within the next week as counsel
for the other party had mailed the documents to his office and they should arrive shortly. He then
indicated he feels the sale should be finalized by the October 8, 2001 Council Meeting.
Council Member Thomas questioned when someone would be occupying the property to begin
remediation of the code violations.
Mr. Wolfgram indicated he was not sure when someone would be occupying the premises but
said he believes the new owner would like to move in and begin making the corrections before
the weather changes.
Council Member Thomas asked what the closing date was.
Mr. Wolfgram indicated that a closing date has been set three different times and then said that
there would not be a new closing date until the documents arrive back from Arizona.
Council Member Thomas indicated she was concerned because, if Mr. Wolfgram had spoken to
counsel for the other side this morning, she would have thought the date for the closing would
have been mentioned.
Mr. Wolfgram indicated he would not have a closing date until he received the documents as the
closer will not give him a date.
Council Member Thomas noted that, if documentation is being sent back to Mr. Wolfgram, the
other side must know of a date and then asked why that date was not discussed.
Mounds View City Council September 24, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 6
Mr. Wolfgram explained that the attorney for the party in Arizona is in Minneapolis and needs to
review the documents before they are approved and a closing date set.
Council Member Quick asked City Attorney Riggs if authorizing the abatement would prohibit
the sale of the property.
City Attorney Riggs indicated that the Resolution creates an order for abatement of the existing
conditions but said the process can be stopped through negotiations.
Council Member Quick noted the problem has been around for quite a while and said he feels the
City should move on the abatement.
Council Member Marty asked Mr. Wolfgram if his client wants to sell to a third party.
Mr. Wolfgram indicated that his client does want to sell the property and noted his client is due
to be released from prison on October 6, 2001.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Table Resolution 5622, a Resolution Authorizing
Abatement of Hazardous Building at 8217 Long Lake Road to the next Council Meeting.
Ayes – 3 Nays – 2 (Sonterre/Quick) Motion carried.
B. Consideration of Resolution 5625 Appointing a Finance Director/Treasurer
Assistant to the Administrator Reed reviewed staff’s recommendation for the hiring of Charles
Hanson as Finance Director/Treasurer. She then pointed out that the vacation accrual rates and
rate of pay are in recognition of Mr. Hanson’s numerous years of experience.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5625, a
Resolution Appointing a Finance Director/Treasurer.
Council Member Marty indicated he is concerned because the staff reported indicated that Mr.
Hanson is coming to the City from Brooklyn Center but when he called Brooklyn Center to
inquire about Mr. Hanson, he was told Mr. Hanson has not worked there for quite some time. He
then questioned whether it was appropriate to hire a finance director/treasurer until it is
determined whether the former finance director will be given his job back.
City Attorney Riggs indicated he had discussed the matter with the attorney advising the City on
the issues concerning the former finance director and had been assured that there is no reason the
City should not proceed with hiring a new finance director.
Council Member Marty asked where Mr. Hanson is coming from.
Mounds View City Council September 24, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 7
Assistant to the Administrator Reed apologized for the confusion and explained that Mr. Hanson
had left Brooklyn Center earlier this year in search of another position.
Council Member Stigney noted that, in his opinion, the fact that Mr. Hanson left Brooklyn
Center earlier this year creating a gap in work history is relevant information Council should
have been made aware of. He then noted Council has not seen Mr. Hanson’s resume and
questioned how Council could approve the appointment without all the pertinent information.
Assistant to the Administrator Reed explained that Mr. Hanson did work for the city of Brooklyn
Center and noted that the recommendation for hiring him is contingent upon references being
checked. She further noted that Mr. Hanson has indicated that his former supervisor can be
contacted for a reference and that leads her to believe the relationship was solid at the time of his
leaving the City of Brooklyn Center.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Table Resolution 5625, a Resolution Appointing a
Finance Director/Treasurer to the October 8, 2001 Council Meeting.
Ayes – 2 Nays – 3 (Thomas/Sonterre/Quick) Motion failed.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Call the Question.
Ayes – 3 Nays – 2 (Stigney/Marty). Motion carried.
Vote on original motion to approve
Ayes – 3 Nays – 2 (Stigney/Marty) Motion carried.
C. Discussion Regarding Public Works Staffing
Public Works Foreman Pittman addressed Council and noted that Council had approved another
person in the surface water management area of public works in 1993 and that position is not
filled. He then indicated that, with the retirement of Mr. Decheine, the department is short-
staffed and needs to get the position filled prior to the winter plowing season.
Council Member Quick asked whether working short-staffed would subtract from the ability to
do the required maintenance and keep service at the present levels.
Mr. Pittman indicated that working short-staffed would have an impact on the present levels of
service. He then explained to Council that public works had been using a part timer to bring the
maintenance numbers for the sewers up but noted that, with the retirement of Mr. Decheine, and
the part timer going back to school, the numbers would be going down again without the
additional person.
Mounds View City Council September 24, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 8
Council Member Marty noted that Mr. Decheine’s wife had commented about Mr. Decheine
coming back to plow snow and then asked if public works would need part time help or if
existing staff would some how pick up the slack.
Mr. Pittman indicated that they would need part time help if the position is not filled. He then
explained that the trails and sidewalks have increased since 1998 and said that staff likes to begin
cleaning the trails immediately after clearing the roadways because it is much harder to clear the
trails once the snow is trampled on.
Council Member Stigney indicated that it appears that public works needs another staff member
but noted that there is a budget deficit of approximately $344,000 and the City Administrator
wants to expand her staff. He then suggested a motion to table this request until October 8, 2001.
Mr. Pittman clarified that this position has been in the budget since 1993.
Council Member Stigney clarified that the budget for 2002 is approximately $344,000 in the
hole.
Council Member Thomas made a point of clarification that there is nothing to table and said no
motion to table is needed.
Council Member Stigney suggested postponing the discussion until after the budget work
session.
Council Member Thomas asked if this matter was a discussion item or whether staff was looking
for direction from Council.
Mayor Sonterre indicated this matter was for discussion only and no action is required.
Council Member Quick pointed out that Council Member Stigney did not have the floor when he
made his motion to table and, therefore, the motion is not allowed.
Council Member Quick indicated he feels Council needs to authorize staff to advertise and fill
that position as he does not believe the budget deficit is as bad as Council Member Stigney
would have residents believe. He then indicated that he feels the bottom line of the budget can
be more than justified.
Council Member Marty questioned why this matter was not brought to a work session for
discussion.
Mayor Sonterre noted the matter was discussed at a work session and indicated that Council
needed to authorize staff to advertise for a position that already exists. He then indicated that he
agreed with Council Member Stigney’s budgetary concerns but said the overage has been
reduced significantly. He further indicated, however, that there is a difference in talking about
proposed new positions and how that affects the budget and maintaining a level of staffing.
Mounds View City Council September 24, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 9
Council Member Stigney indicated he felt Council needed to weigh the three positions and
determine which one would be authorized as he does not feel the budget can support three new
positions. He then indicated he would prefer to discuss the positions at the work session during
the budget discussions prior to deciding on the public works position.
Council Member Thomas clarified that the administrative positions are purely hypothetical at this
point and the public works position is an open position that needs to be filled. She then indicated
that a work session is for discussion purposes and no action can be taken which means that the
candidate search would be pushed back until after the next Council meeting.
Council Member Marty indicated he felt that the public works position is a priority for the City
as they deal with the City’s infrastructure and residents will let Council know if they are not
receiving service in a timely fashion.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Authorize Staff to Advertise and Hire for the Vacant
Sewer/Water Position.
Council Member Stigney indicated that, if time is of the essence, Council could call to order at
the work session to authorize the hiring of the public works position after the budget discussions.
He then indicated that he would hope public works would come out on top but said he feels the
three positions need to be discussed.
Council Member Marty indicated that, in his opinion, there is no question that public works
would come out on top. He then stated that it may be necessary to drop the proposed
administrative positions.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried.
8. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mayor Sonterre presented Mr. Decheine with a plaque recognizing his 31 years of service to the
City of Mounds View.
Mr. Decheine thanked the Mayor and Council for the plaque. He then thanked the residents of
Mounds View and his former co-workers for making his 31 years so enjoyable. Mr. Decheine
told Council that Mr. Pittman is the finest person he has ever worked for. He then thanked Mr.
Pittman for his professionalism and work ethic.
9. REPORTS
Assistant to the Administrator Reed reported that the City Administrator had requested that she
ask Council to schedule a work session to meet with the public works department.
Mounds View City Council September 24, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 10
Mr. Pittman explained he had invited Ms. Miller down to the public works garage to sit down
and converse with the crew and she had suggested that Council meet with public works to share
concerns and questions.
Mayor Sonterre recommended that Council Members bring their calendars to the work session so
that a date can be set.
Mr. Pittman asked if it was possible to have Council come to the public works garage.
Council indicated that, due to the open meeting laws, the meeting would need to be held in
Council Chambers.
Council Member Marty noted he wanted to welcome Walgreens and the Knotty Pine and said he
thinks the businesses are good additions to the community. He then indicated he had heard that
the Knotty Pine is changing ownership.
Council Member Thomas asked for an update on the ownership of the Knotty Pine.
Community Development Director Ericson explained that the current owner of the Knotty Pine
has decided to sell the facility. He then indicated that Mr. Jacobs had been into the City’s offices
making calls and may be the one who is purchasing the restaurant. He further indicated he
believes the new name for the restaurant will be Jake’s Café of Mounds View.
Mayor Sonterre welcomed the Knotty Pine and Walgreens.
Mr. Linke indicated that the Mounds View Lions had talked to Mr. Jacobson who indicated he
had taken over management of the restaurant one week ago.
Council Member Stigney inquired as to whether the Lions pull tabs will be allowed at the new
restaurant.
Mr. Linke indicated he was not sure if the new owners would meet the requirements of the
ordinance to allow a pull-tab stand and said the Lions are investigating the matter.
Council Member Marty asked if the restaurant and liquor licenses would transfer to the new
owner.
City Attorney Riggs indicated that ownership has not transferred but said when it does the
licenses would need to be transferred as well.
Mayor Sonterre reported he had attended the Minnesota Mayor’s Association Convention in
Crookston.
Mounds View City Council September 24, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 11
Council Member Marty thanked all the residents who turned out for the community policing
meeting that the Deputy Chief and other officers conducted on Tuesday. He then said he felt it
was a good presentation that was well received by the residents.
Community Development Director Ericson reported that the City would be holding a public
meeting on October 15, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. at the Community Center to discuss the Highway 10
redevelopment project.
Mayor Sonterre noted that Council feels the redevelopment of Highway 10 is very important to
the City and asked residents to attend the meeting to provide input into the project.
Council Member Marty concurred that as much resident input as possible is needed to make the
project a success. He then noted that he thought there was an informational meeting scheduled
for September 25, 20001 on the County Road H2 project.
Mr. Pittman indicated he was not sure of the date for the County Road H2 project meeting.
Mayor Sonterre noted that, in light of the horrific actions that took place on September 11, 2001,
he had made some calls to the Anoka County Airport to inquire as to whether they had increased
security. He then indicated that neither the airport nor the representative of the MAC he had
spoken to had a report of any improvements in security made to small airports. He further
indicated that he would continue to follow up with the airport concerning increased security.
Assistant to the Administrator Reed indicated that the City Administrator had received a request
from the public works department for reimbursement of the $50.00 fee for the cake for Mr.
Decheine’s retirement party.
Council Member Marty indicated that he felt that after 31 years of service the City could buy Mr.
Decheine a cake. He then said that Mr. Decheine only got a plaque not a gold watch or anything
of real value after all those years of service.
Council Member Thomas indicated that Council could contribute to the cake fund as persons
contributing to another person.
Council Member Quick noted he felt the matter should be added to the legislative agenda.
Council Member Stigney noted he had asked at the August 27, 2001 meeting whether it was okay
for the City to disburse funds for the Mike Ulrich going away party.
City Attorney Riggs indicated he remembered the specific question to be if the funds were
disbursed in error, who can the City collect from.
Council Member Stigney clarified that was not his question and said his question is whether the
City should disburse money for the going away party.
Mounds View City Council September 24, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 12
City Attorney Riggs indicated that his advice would be that the safer course of action would be
not to do so. He then said that cities have done it and it appears that this City has done it in the
past but he is not sure if past approvals rise to the level of policy. He then said that the safest
course of action is not to do it.
City Attorney Riggs further clarified that the Attorney General had not yet opinioned on the
matter but information coming from the Attorney General’s office has suggested that the best
course of action is for City’s to develop a policy regarding employee parties.
Council Member Stigney asked, whether in good conscience, the City Attorney could advise this
Council to disburse funds for an employee party.
City Attorney Riggs said no, that the safest course would be to not approve funds for an
employee party until there is a policy in effect.
Council Member Stigney stated he would like to go on record as saying the City has disbursed
funds for a party in violation of state statute.
City Attorney Riggs clarified that he had not said that the City disbursed funds in violation of
state statute. He then said that the safest bet would be not to authorize funds for a party until a
policy is in effect.
Council Member Stigney noted that Council, on a 4 to 1 vote, had authorized payment for an
employee party.
City Attorney Riggs clarified that the City had authorized payment of a bill that was received by
the City for an event that had already taken place.
Council Member Stigney indicated the vote was given knowing that it violated state statute.
Council Member Thomas clarified that there is no statute or opinion unless the matter goes to
court to say that the City is acting incorrectly. She then said that the City is on shaky ground and
needs to set a policy concerning employee parties. She further commented that Council did not
violate state statute by paying a bill that came to the City.
Council Member Stigney asked for a copy of the state statute from City Attorney Riggs.
City Attorney Riggs suggested that Council Member Stigney review the opinions of the Attorney
General on the matter and information from the Attorney General’s Office suggesting that a
city’s charter can be amended to allow the events.
Mr. Pittman noted, for the record, that everyone had contributed money toward a gift for Mr.
Decheine and the money was used to purchase a nice watch.
Mounds View City Council September 24, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 13
Council Member Quick asked whether Council Member contributions to the cake fund should be
$10.00 or $12.50.
Mayor Sonterre noted the total for the cake was $50.00.
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. September 10, 2001 City Council Minutes.
Council Member Thomas requested the following changes: On Page 8, third paragraph delete
the words “to remain”. On Page 12, sixth paragraph down indicate that the public works
foreman had indicated the PCI indicator was down below the point to which the street needed to
be repaired.
Council Member Marty requested the following changes: On Page 15, fourth paragraph from the
bottom, the last line, note that Mayor Sonterre had indicated that Mr. Ulrich had made that
suggestion. On Page 16 delete the words “in October” from the paragraph where he discussed
early closing of the golf course.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Approve the Minutes of the Monday, September 10,
2001 Council Meeting as Amended.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Abstain – 1 (Quick) Motion carried.
Council Member Marty noted that the correct date for the County Road H2 information meeting
is Tuesday, September 25, 2001 from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Marty. To Recess the Monday, September 24, 2001, City Council
Meeting.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
The Council Meeting was recessed at 8:30 p.m.
Council reconvened the meeting at 8:35 p.m.
Mayor Sonterre asked the Council for permission to adjourn from the closed session.
It was the consent of Council to adjourn from the closed session.
Council recessed to closed session to discuss pending litigation at 8:36 p.m.
11. CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING LITIGATION
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, October 1, 2001
Mounds View City Council September 24, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 14
Next Council Meeting: Monday, October 8, 2001
13. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Sonterre adjourned the meeting at ______ p.m.
Transcribed and recorded by:
Joan Lenzmeier
Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
August 27, 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 (Absent).
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A. Monday, August 27, 2001 City Council Agenda.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed pulled Agenda Items 6E and 6F to be addressed at a
future date.
City Administrator Miller pulled Agenda Item 6D to be addressed at a future date.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Sonterre. To Approve the August 27, 2001, City Council Agenda
as amended.
Ayes - 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
4. PUBLIC INPUT
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, asked if they have to pay any money on the golf course
bonds yet. City Administrator Miller replied yes, the bonds were being paid off.
Mr. Jahnke asked if the citizens of Mounds View were paying off the bond. City Administrator
Miller replied she could not reply to that without checking into it.
Mr. Jahnke asked when the Community Center was built and how much it was costing a month
to keep it operational. Mayor Sonterre replied they could not answer that, but they would work
on Mr. Jahnke’s inquiry and get a response to him.
City Administrator Miller replied in the past they had not kept strict controls over the various
entities, but they have tried to address that issue and hoped to have some firm numbers in the
future.
Mounds View City Council August 27, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 2
Mr. Jahnke inquired about giving senior citizens a break on their utilities as other cities do in the
area. Mayor Sonterre replied the Council would need to look at this as a whole and respond in
the future.
Council Member Quick asked Mr. Jahnke for a list of the cities that were giving senior citizens a
break on their utilities. Mr. Jahnke replied he would provide such a list.
Michelle Sandback, 2356 Sherwood Road, presented a letter to Mayor Sonterre regarding the
State Highway 10 noise wall issue. She inquired what could be expected with respect to traffic
volumes in 2010. She stated when Highway 10 opened in 1999, there was no noise wall along
her segment. She stated Mayor Sonterre’s suggestion at the August 1, 2001 meeting was a good
idea and thanked the Council for their understanding. Ms. Sandback stated this was a huge
concern for their neighborhood since the noise from the Highway had, and continued to cause a
lot of needless stress and it had to stop. She presented a petition for a Sound Abatement Wall.
The Petition covered the areas of Long Lake, Sherwood and Hillview Roads; Woodlawn,
Edgewood, Jackson, Laport, Knoll, and Louis Drives; Greenfield Place and Greenfield Avenue;
Quincy Street; and all of Colonial Village. There were 291 signatures representing residents who
felt this noise also affected them.
Mike Szczepanski, 2385 LaCourt Drive, stated he had been a resident for 22 years. He asked if
the Council Members knew what the number one reported problem in America was. Mayor
Sonterre stated he did not and asked if any other members had an answer.
Council Member Stigney stated it was noise pollution. Mr. Szcepanski indicated that was correct
and stated the people on the north end of town had been putting up with the noise since the
freeway opened. He stated there had been countless meetings that Ms. Sandback had listed with
numerous people from the State on down and he was confused why this had been sent to a work
session.
Mayor Sonterre replied it was MnDOT’s money, MnDOT said how the money would be spent,
and the Council needed to discuss this matter further. He stated it was appropriate for a work
session. He indicated the Council could not tell the State what to do with their money and land,
but the Council could make a suggestion and the State would be coming back to the City with
their thoughts on the Council’s suggestions.
Council Member Quick asked if there was any documentation in the possession of the City
regarding this. Mayor Sonterre stated he understood there was no documentation.
City Administrator Miller noted she was also not aware of any documentation.
Council Member Quick asked the City Administrator if they knew about the August 1, 2001
meeting. City Administrator Miller replied she did not have that information.
Council Member Quick stated this was suppose to be a team effort and they should not be having
meetings during the middle of the day when the whole Council could not be there. He stated the
Mounds View City Council August 27, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 3
problem he had was that there was no team effort and he was very tired and disheartened
regarding that. Council Member Quick noted he would not say anything until he saw the
information. As far as he was concerned, they were at ground zero, and all he knew was that
there was some money available from MnDOT, but they did not know what recommendations
MnDOT were proposing. He stated they were representing all of the citizens, not just one group
of citizens.
Mayor Sonterre noted if Mr. Szczepanski had further issues, he should call Council Member
Quick, Mayor Sonterre, or City Administrator Miller.
Mr. Szczepanski replied the meeting was held during the middle of the day because that was
when the State employees were available.
Council Member Marty stated this was also news to him, and the reason they referred this to a
work session was to have some control in working with MnDOT and to get everything
coordinated so it was done right. He stated they were not trying to slow it down, but they wanted
to make sure this was done correctly.
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
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
Council Member Marty requested that Consent Agenda Items 6G, 6H, and 6I be removed for
discussion.
Council Member Stigney requested that Consent Agenda Item 6A be removed for discussion.
With respect to check number 106455, payment to Sysco Foods for $631.17 for a couples golf
league, Council Member Stigney inquired when things exceeded the budget, why were the
Mounds View City Council August 27, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 4
taxpayers picking up the difference. Assistant to the City Administrator Reed replied the
additional cost would come from the golf course budget.
Council Member Stigney expressed concern that the City needed closer control on spending
money. Assistant to the City Administrator Reed replied this was a fee that couples paid in order
to be part of this league, and this would have come from those fees paid.
With respect to check number 106424, Council Member Stigney inquired why the individual
who attended the conference did not fly or use staff vehicles. City Administrator Miller replied
this was a police expense and it was her assumption the Police Chief approved this. However,
this was a good question and she would bring it up at the staff meeting tomorrow.
Council Member Stigney asked what was the policy was with respect to travel. City
Administrator Miller replied she did not know the circumstances, but she would check on that
and get back to the Council.
With respect to check number 106412, Council Member Stigney asked who approved this party,
and how it got on the City credit card. City Administrator Miller replied this had been an
ongoing practice. She stated the City has had a policy of having a going away party for those
employees leaving the City. However, if the Council wanted to cease this policy, she would not
have a problem with that, or if they wanted to place a dollar limit on it, that was also agreeable.
Council Member Stigney asked if this was a written policy. City Administrator Miller stated it
was not a written policy, but the Entertainment Committee had addressed this issue when the
holiday get together was discontinued.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed stated the Entertainment Committee had addressed this
issue and there was no written policy she was aware of, but the City has always had some type of
a going away party. She stated the City would have no problem ceasing this type of activity if the
Council wanted to do that.
With respect to check number 106355, Council Member Stigney asked what Bob’s Auto was and
their affiliation with the City. He asked if Bob’s Auto was contracted with the City to do vehicle
repairs and if there was some conflict of interest. City Administrator Miller replied she had
checked with the Maintenance Department and had been informed they were given an estimate
that exceeded the amount that Bob’s Auto had bid. Bob’s Auto had come in as the lowest bidder.
She indicated the Maintenance Department could prepare a list of the auto businesses used when
the City mechanic was not able to do the job himself.
Council Member Marty asked that a list be prepared and the lowest bid be taken.
With respect to check number 106334, Council Member Stigney indicated he had the same
concerns with this check as he did with check number 106355.
Mounds View City Council August 27, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 5
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney. To move all of the above issues to the next work session
and direct staff to prepare policies for all of these issues.
Ayes – 4 (Sonterre, Quick, Stigney, Marty) Motion carried.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Sonterre. To Approve Item 6A, Just and Correct Claims.
Council Member Stigney requested a friendly amendment to remove Check number 106412, (the
Ulrich party) from the approval.
Council Member Quick declined the friendly amendment.
Ayes – 2 (Sonterre, Quick) Nays – 2 (Stigney/Marty) Motion failed.
With respect to check number 106471, Council Member Marty asked if this expense was for
Xcel energy for the past winter. City Administrator Miller replied she would check and get back
to Council.
Council Member Quick stated this was the typical way things had been done, and the best way to
handle this was to have a formal policy for these issues. With respect to the going away party,
this was typical, every employee who had left had going away parties, and the City had provided
some of the support for the food. Council Member Quick stated this was nothing new. He stated
they could discuss what they were going to do in the future and go from there.
Council Member Stigney stated it was the amount that was bothering him, and he would not
agree to pay for this at this time. He stated he would not vote for it.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty. To Approve item 6A, but to refer the topic of discussion for going
away parties, for the Maintenance Department to develop a list of auto repair businesses and to
take the lowest bidder, and to look into travel expenses to a future work session.
Council Member Marty retracted his motion.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To reconsider Council Member Quick’s second motion
to pay the bills.
Ayes - 4 Nays – 0 Reconsidered motion carried.
With respect to Items 6G, H, and I, Council Member Marty stated on Item 6G he wanted a copy
of the performance evaluation. He also asked for the same thing on Item 6H. He stated with 15
percent pay increase as acting Chief, that person would be making more than the Chief was
making and suggested the 15 percent increase be addressed. With respect to Item 6I, he stated he
did not see a problem with any of these, but wanted to see the performance review.
Council Member Quick inquired if that information was confidential.
Mounds View City Council August 27, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 6
City Attorney Riggs replied generally that type of information was not confidential. City
Administrator Miller stated it was not provided as part of a public document, but if the Council
Members wanted to see those, she would provide copies.
Council Member Quick asked if that information was available to Council during the day at any
time. City Administrator Miller replied that was correct.
Council Member Quick stated with respect to the 15 percent question, if the person was
responsible for two jobs, they should be making more money on the interim basis.
Council Member Marty replied he understood that, but if the person who was filling in would be
making more than the department head was making, it seemed a bit out of line.
Council Member Stigney agreed they needed a cap and the cap needed to be based on the salary
of the new person coming in. He requested this issue be addressed when they discuss the other
policies.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To discuss this issue at a future work session.
Ayes - 3 Nays – 1 (Quick) Motion carried.
Council Member Stigney asked if this was the normal progression of pay increases for these
employees. He requested in the future the dollar amounts be added to the steps figures as well.
City Administrator Miller agreed to add the dollar amounts.
Council Member Marty asked if they could table this to the next Council meeting, and make the
increase retroactive.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Table Consent Agenda Items 6G, 6H, and 6I to the
next regular Council Meeting and make the increases retroactive.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Approve Consent Agenda Items 6B and 6C.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. Consideration of a Preliminary Plat for the Mermaid Addition Major
Subdivision
Community Development Director Ericson stated the applicant was requesting City re-approval
of the preliminary plat for the Mermaid Addition. The plat grouped together those parcels being
Mounds View City Council August 27, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 7
utilized for Mermaid expansion, which included 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. The preliminary plat was originally approved by the City Council on
November 13, 2000. Due to problems working out the acquisition, the approved preliminary plat
expired. He indicated this preliminary plat was consistent with the City Code regarding
subdivisions.
Council Member Marty asked why the trees were cut down. Community Development Director
Ericson replied this was done for visibility purposes. He indicated the trees were overgrown and
causing structural problems with the facility. However, trees would be replanted.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Sonterre. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5607, a
Resolution Approving the Mermaid Addition Preliminary Plat, with Stipulations.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
B. Acceptance of Hillview Park Shelter Bid
Jim Studenski, TDKA, asked Council to award the bid to Ebert Construction in the amount of
$159,400.00, with funding of $100,000.00 from the Parks Capital and the remaining balance
coming out of Park Dedication fund and/or General Fund Reserves. He stated they had received
six bids and felt confident they had a good cross of contractors. He stated Ebert Construction
was a good contractor and he felt they would do a good job.
Mayor Sonterre stated he liked low bids, but noted it was $19,000.00 less than the next lowest
bid. He asked if they were comfortable with this proposal. Mr. Studenski replied they were
comfortable. He stated he did not feel that some of the high bids were trying to get the job. If
they got it, they got it and if they didn’t, they didn’t. He stated in relationship to the second and
third bidders, the third bidder came in at the estimate and the intent was that TDKA did not win
the project, but the confidence level with awarding for Ebert Construction was there. He stated
he had no issue with awarding them this dollar amount.
Council Member Stigney asked the City Administrator where the funds were coming from and
stated that $100,000 was coming from the General Fund. City Administrator Miller replied it
was the intent to take $59,400 from the Park Dedication Fund.
Council Member Stigney asked if there was enough money in the Park Dedication Fund to pay
for this. City Administrator Miller stated she believed there was.
Mayor Sonterre commented that the Mermaid had made a contribution to the Park Dedication
Fund, and there would be appropriate funds.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Award the Bid to Ebert Construction in the amount of
$159,400.00; with funding of $100,000.00 Parks Capital and the remaining balance coming out
of Park Dedication Fund.
Mounds View City Council August 27, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 8
Council Member Quick added a friendly amendment indicating the Parks Capital Fund account
number was 100-4360-7030 and the Park Dedication Fund account number was 251-4160-9900.
Council Member Stigney accepted the friendly amendment.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
C. Resolution 5608 Reestablishing Procedures for Executing Step Increases.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed stated that all step increases were to be made by the
Council. She stated it appeared that since 1997 or 1998, the Council had not been presented with
step increases. She asked for clarification for what the procedures would be and recommended
the staff evaluations not be made public, but the Council would need to approve any step
increases.
Council Member Marty requested Council receive the actual performance evaluations, and not
summary versions.
Council Member Stigney clarified that there was no need for this except to reiterate the present
policy. Assistant to the City Administrator Reed replied this was simply a housekeeping item.
Council Member Stigney stated he had no problem approving this Resolution as written.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed indicated the evaluation would come to Council in
summary form.
Council Member Marty stated he interpreted the first Whereas in the Resolution to mean the
Council would get the performance evaluation and they would approve it. Assistant to the City
Administrator Reed replied this kind of information was usually put into summary form, unless
there was some reason to actually see the evaluation. She stated Council could look at the
evaluations if they wanted to, but evaluations would not be included in council packets as a
courtesy to employees.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Waive the Reading and Adopt Resolution 5608, a
Resolution indicating satisfactory performance or better be approved by the City Council prior to
step increases being executed.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
D. Resolution 5609 Adopting Revised Salary Schedule for Clubhouse
Manager/Golf Instructor.
The Assistant to the City Manager Reed stated at the June 25, 2001 Council meeting, staff was
given direction to reevaluate the position descriptions of the two regular golf course employees.
At the July 9, 2001 Council Meeting, staff was given direction to create and point a position
description for the seasonal golf instructor. The purpose of creating these new position
Mounds View City Council August 27, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 9
descriptions was to include golf instruction and move away from the separate pay structure that
had been used in the past to compensate employees for giving private, semi-private and group
lessons. She indicated the City Administrator had received a call from AFSCME indicating that
the City must maintain the status quo with respect to salaries for AFSCME employees until a
contract was negotiated. Labor Relations Associates concurred. For that reason staff would not
be presenting points or pay information for the two golf course employees who belonged to the
AFSCME unit. The Clubhouse Manager/Golf Instructor was not a member of AFSCME. She
indicated Labor Relations Associates had recommended that the Clubhouse Manager/Golf
Instructor points remain at 361 and that the maximum salary be set at $46,000.00 annually.
These recommendations were made under the assumption that incentive pay would not be paid.
Staff recommended that the Council adopt Resolution 5609 which authorized the Clubhouse
Manager/Golf Instructor be paid at step 2 of the proposed pay schedule. The pay schedule would
be retroactive to June 16, 2001.
Council Member Marty asked if the head golf pro would now be the Clubhouse Manager.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed replied he had always been the Clubhouse Manager,
and she had just standardized the title (golf instructor) across the board to Clubhouse
Manager/Golf Instructor.
Council Member Marty asked why it could not be changed to Clubhouse Manager/Head Pro.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed replied she could do so if that was what Council
wanted.
Council Member Marty asked if Ken Manthis was getting a 15 percent increase. Assistant to the
City Administrator Reed replied the person in this position was not receiving the additional 15
percent for serving on this management position. It was not approved by the Council and this
was not addressed.
Council Member Marty stated he thought it should be. Mayor Sonterre indicated this salary was
flat, and did not warrant any further compensation.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed replied when golf instruction was included the
maximum salary for the position would be $46,000.00.
Mayor Sonterre asked what formula was being used with respect to golf instruction versus
Clubhouse Manager. Assistant to the City Administrator Reed replied Labor Relations had not
divided this out.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Sonterre. To Waive the Reading and Adopt Resolution 5609 a
Resolution Revising Salary Schedule for Clubhouse Manager/Golf Instructor.
Council Member Marty asked if Ken Manthis was in the union. Assistant to the City
Administrator Reed replied he was considered management and was therefore not in the union.
Mounds View City Council August 27, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 10
Council Member Marty stated if that was the case, he felt they needed to address the 15 percent
they talked about earlier this evening and make it retroactive.
Council Member Stigney indicated he had not received this item until tonight, and in order for
him to evaluate this, he needed more time and information.
Ayes – 2 (Sonterre/Quick) Nays – 2 (Stigney/Marty) Motion failed.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Table Resolution 5609 until further information was
provided.
City Administrator Miller asked what additional information was needed. Council Member
Stigney replied he wanted to know what the points were based on.
City Administrator Miller stated they did not have that information. Labor Relations assigned
the points. Council Member Stigney replied he wanted to see this information and also wanted
to see the Labor Relations evaluation. He stated he wanted to look at different golf courses in the
PGA and what was being paid at those courses.
Council Member Marty made a friendly amendment requesting the figures be retroactive.
Council Member Stigney accepted the friendly amendment.
City Administrator Miller stated what was provided was a result of the Council’s direction. It
appeared to her that they were going backwards when they were comparing this with other golf
courses. She indicated all golf courses are different, and it was not fair to compare them. She
stated this salary was based on the job description.
Ayes – 2 (Stigney/Marty) Nays – 2 (Sonterre/Quick) Motion failed.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To refer Resolution 5609 to the next work session and
obtain more clarification regarding a 15 percent increase and Labor Relation Evaluations.
Ayes - 3 Nays – 1 (Quick) Motion carried.
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.
Planning Associate Atkinson indicated Dr. Bruce Schnabel and Dr. Kevin Barcus of Mounds
View Animal Hospital had indicated their desire to board animals at their proposed new facility.
The City Code, however, currently did not allow boarding of animals except when associated
with surgery, illness, or injury. Therefore, an amendment to the Code was necessary to allow this
service.
Mounds View City Council August 27, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 11
Council Member Marty asked about all animal boarding facilities regarding the nuisance code
and not having more than two dogs. Planning Associate Atkinson replied the Code applied to
residence, not a boarding facility.
Council Member Marty asked for clarification regarding the outdoor exercise area. Planning
Associate Atkinson stated there would be someone close by to supervise the animals, but not
necessarily outside with the animals.
Council Member Marty asked where the dog run would be located. He stated it was not on the
plans. Planning Associate Atkinson stated the site plans did include the outside exercise areas.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Waive the Reading, Approve the Second Reading, and
adopt Ordinance 685, An Ordinance Amending the Mounds View Zoning Code Related to
Animal Boarding in the B-2 Zoning District.
ROLL CALL: Quick, Stigney, Marty, Sonterre.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
F. Consideration of Resolution 5599, a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use
Permit for an Animal Hospital and Boarding Facility.
Planning Associate Atkinson stated applicants had requested a conditional use permit to allow an
animal hospital and a boarding facility in a B-2 Zoning district, located at 2625 County Highway
10. The Planning Commission passed Resolution 657-01 recommending approval of the
rezoning. He reviewed the City Code regarding animal clinics and stated staff recommended
approving this Resolution.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5599 a
Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for an Animal Hospital and Boarding Facility in
a B-2, Limited Business Zoning District at 2625 County Highway 10.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
G. Consideration of Resolution 5604, a Resolution Approving a Development
Review for the Proposed Mounds View Animal Hospital at 2625 County
Highway 10
Planning Associate Atkinson reviewed the staff report and stated if the City Council believed it
had sufficient information from staff, residents and the applicant, it may act on this Resolution
recommending approval of the development review for the Mounds View Animal Hospital. If
the City Council felt that the applicants had not adequately addressed these issues, the Council
should table the review until the next meeting to allow the applicants time to provide more
information to satisfy the Council.
Mounds View City Council August 27, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 12
Council Member Marty asked for a copy of the Ordinance. He stated his copy did not have this
Resolution in it. He inquired about the dog run on the site plan, and asked if it was large enough.
He indicated it looked pretty small and asked about the cost of the corridor improvements in
relation to the other construction. He stated he believed it was excessive for the small area and
concurred with staff’s recommendation to forego the decorative lights at this time.
Council Member Stigney asked for clarification regarding decorative lighting. Planning
Associate Atkinson replied the applicant would not provide decorative lighting at this time.
Community Development Director Ericson replied they had to come up with a process for
installing the decorative features along the corridor and explained how that would be assessed
onto the property owner, or how the City would pay for it. At this point, staff was suggesting
that Council waive the requirement to put in decorative lights at this time until further
discussions were had regarding the Highway 10 project.
Council Member Stigney asked if anything was going to be done about a trail on the north side of
Highway 10. Community Development Director Ericson replied that was still under
development, but they did foresee a trail at some point. It was a question of where it was going
to go.
Council Member Stigney stated the City needed a policy regarding this issue. Community
Development Director Ericson replied a policy was needed once the Highway 10 project was
discussed.
Council Member Stigney suggested some money be escrowed for the decorative lighting.
Council Member Marty agreed.
Planning Associate Atkinson stated the money would be escrowed for five years, but staff was
recommending due to the size of this project, it not be required.
Council Member Quick asked what percentage of the project would be trail. Planning Associate
Atkinson replied 1.6%; 3.2% with the lights. Two lights would be 2.3%. The Minnesota Health
building paid .92%.
Mayor Sonterre recessed the meeting at 9:02 p.m.
Mayor Sonterre reconvened the meeting at 9:13 p.m.
Council Member Quick asked Resolution number 4 would be re-worded. Planning Associate
Atkinson replied they would like to put together a one percent policy for future projects, but did
not believe they could do it for this project. He recommended the Council deal with this on an
individual basis.
Council Member Marty expressed concern that the Mermaid project was just under $6 million
and they make this a maximum of one percent, so this project and the MN Health project were
Mounds View City Council August 27, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 13
not paying more than their fair share. Planning Associate Atkinson replied he would like to
research this more.
Mayor Sonterre asked if it would be appropriate to insert into item 4 .06% for the lights, and
corridor improvement costs of $3,600.00. Planning Associate Atkinson replied that would be
very appropriate.
Council Member Stigney indicated money for decorative lighting also needed to be factored in.
Council Member Marty stated he understood it would be one percent, and then it would not be
that far out of line. In the future they would bring this up to assess it project by project not to
exceed one percent.
Mayor Sonterre supported taking the recommendation of staff.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5604, a
Resolution Approving a Development Review for the Proposed Mounds View Animal Hospital
at 2625 County Highway 10, and modify stipulation number 4 that currently states “the Applicant
shall pay a fee in lieu of trailway improvements, to be refunded if improvements are not
completed within five years”, and recommend to change to pay a fee for trailway and decorative
lighting improvements of 1% be placed in escrow and if the improvements were not completed
within five years, the funds be returned to applicants.
.
Dr. Barcus asked for definition as to what the 1% figure would be based on. He stated he
believed the City should pay for lighting and those types of construction costs, but they would go
along with this. He stated their construction costs would be somewhere around $400,000.00, not
$600,000.00.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
H. City Contribution to Festival in the Park
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed stated the lists of charges for Festival in the Park were
mailed to Sherry Gunn and copies given to the Council. Ms. Gunn had expressed concern about
the fee for the City Attorney’s work on the contract as well as the charges for the use of golf
course personnel. She stated staff was looking for direction from the Council regarding whether
these items should be charged to Festival in the Park or another City account. She stated
additional charges had recently come through in an estimated amount of $300.00, which were
also attorney’s fees.
Council Member Stigney asked if the attorney was writing a contract. Assistant to the City
Administrator Reed stated that was correct.
City Attorney Riggs replied this was not a part of his retainer because it was a contract with a
third party.
Mounds View City Council August 27, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 14
Council Member Stigney stated this needed to be looked at because he believed a part of this
should fall under his retainer.
Council Member Marty agreed and stated this amount seemed to be substantial and a good part
of the budget had been used for attorney’s fees.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed stated there was a provision in the contract that any
remaining funds would go back into the Festival in the Park and if these fees were removed that
was what would happen.
City Administrator Miller stated she recalled Mr. Riggs was in attendance and met with members
of the Festival Committee. What had come out of those discussions was how much the event
had cost the City in the past and the agreement reflected those past costs which was reflected in
that $4,000.00 figure.
Mayor Sonterre asked if attorney’s fees had been addressed in the past. City Administrator
Miller replied this had not been addressed. She stated it was her understanding that these costs
would not be costs incurred in the future.
Council Member Stigney asked if the contract protected the City, or did it only protect the
Festival Committee.
Sherry Gunn, 8120 Red Oak Court, stated the City’s donation had always been $4,000.00, which
was applied to the fireworks, but this year because of the contract that the City had required, they
came up short. She stated they did not ask for the contract and they understood they would not
have to pay for the attorney’s fees.
City Administrator Miller replied they had not discussed attorney’s fees.
Mayor Sonterre stated he personally liked the contract idea, but it was not fair to the Festival to
have fees such as these come up without warning.
Ms. Gunn stated it was not in the contract that they would have to pay for the attorney’s fees.
Council Member Quick stated typically they charged the other entity for these types of charges.
He stated the attorney was sort of a City employee, and it was up to the Council to determine
where the money came from.
Council Member Marty indicated the Festival had been going for many years, it was for the
citizens, and they were operating it at a "bare bones" budget. The festival was not making any
money, but it was providing a nice service for the citizens. He wondered if they could just cut it
off at $4,000.00, and the City could pay the additional amount above $4,000.00 for this year
only. He stated the Festival would be paying for the "lion’s share" of it anyway.
Mounds View City Council August 27, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 15
Mayor Sonterre asked if the fire department would be submitting a bill. City Administrator
Miller replied she that the fire department would not be submitting a bill, but there is still a cost
to the fire department’s overall budget that is paid for in part by the City.
Ms. Gunn stated the fire department had never asked for payment before since it was always on a
volunteer basis. This year they wanted to charge them $375.00, but that now was apparently not
going to happen. It appeared this would be a volunteer service.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed stated she had spoken with the Fire Chief and there
would be no charge to the Festival.
Council Member Stigney requested a copy of the contract.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Table this item to the September 10, 2001 Council
Meeting.
Council Member Quick amended his motion to table it to the Tuesday, September 4, 2001 work
session.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
8. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
None.
9. REPORTS
A. The September 17, 2001 Quarterly retreat would be held as scheduled.
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Council Member Marty asked why the June 4, 2001 and June 6, 2001 Minutes approval were not
on the agenda tonight. He stated at the last Council meeting the City Attorney asked if they had
any changes or amendments to submit them to the City Administrator and he had provided the
City with a tape and a transcription of the minutes.
City Administrator Miller stated she had received a copy of the changes, but the City Attorney
was out of the office last week and they would be brought before the City at the next Council
meeting.
Council Member Marty asked why the City Attorney had to approve these minutes. City
Administrator Miller stated it was her understanding that the City Attorney approved the
minutes.
A. Monday, August 13, 2001 City Council Minutes.
Mounds View City Council August 27, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 16
Council Member Stigney requested the following changes: Page 3, second paragraph, should
state the last four items on the Just and Correct Claims Sheet be pulled, not five items. Page 4,
3rd paragraph up, delete “there is one on file with the City”. Page 5, 1st paragraph, to read,
“Council Member Thomas stated the City is in possession of something that’s not paid for…”.
Page 6, 2nd paragraph first sentence to read, “…City should be provided with a Mylar copy of the
site plan as builts.” Page 7, 8th paragraph, delete the word Ramsey in the first sentence. Page 16,
3rd paragraph, change under the last mayor to under Mayor McCarty. Page 16, last paragraph,
first sentence change the spelling of Shodray to Chaudhary.
Mayor Sonterre requested the following changes: Page 3, 4th paragraph from the bottom, change
Commissioner Quick to Council Member Quick.
Council Member Marty requested the following changes: Page 4, paragraph 4, 5th sentence,
change Thissel to Thistle. Page 4, paragraph 4, 5th sentence to read, “…at the League of
Minnesota Cities Conference”. Page 5, 4th paragraph to read, “…was submitted in the cable
department budget …”.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Approve the Monday, August
13, 2001, City Council Minutes with the requested changes.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To extend the Council Meeting to 10:15 p.m.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
B. Monday, June 25, 2001 City Council Minutes.
Mayor Sonterre requested the following changes: Jerry Linke’s address be changed from
Knollwood Drive to Knoll Drive on pages 1 and 16.
Council Member Stigney requested the following changes: That all references to reappointing be
changed to re-pointed. Page 10, last paragraph to read, “…the cost is $5.00 per child for your
group lessons…”. Page 11, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence to read, “…the Council that it has four
people…”.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve the Monday, June 25,
2001, City Council Minutes with the requested changes.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
C. July 9, 2001 City Council Minutes.
Mounds View City Council August 27, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 17
Mayor Sonterre requested the following changes: Jerry Linke’s address be changed from
Knollwood Drive to Knoll Drive on pages 1 and 7.
Council Member Stigney requested the following changes: Page 2, 5th paragraph, change
Stolelamp to Stolelamb.
Council Member Marty requested the following changes: Page 1, paragraph 3 under Public
Input, delete the last sentence starting with “The comment was referring…” and add in its place
the following: “We would have better discussion with staff if we don’t have residents there” (in
quotes).
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve the Monday, July 9,
2001, City Council Minutes with the requested changes.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
11. Next Council Work Session: Tuesday, September 4, 2001
Next Council Meeting: Monday, September 10, 2001
12. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Sonterre adjourned the meeting at 10:04 p.m.
Transcribed and recorded by:
Kathleen Altman
Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.