HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2001/10/22MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 22, 2001
Please sign in
NAME ADDRESS
C:Admin.resolutionsign-in sheet
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 22, 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.
MASONRY
Midwest Concrete Driveway – New
HVAC
Schnapp Plumbing & Heating, Inc. – New
ASPHALT
Affordable Asphalt - New
Staff Recommendation: Approve license application as requested.
RESOLUTION NO. 5638
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING KENNEL LICENSES FOR
SHAM-O-JETS KENNEL AND GERALDINE GROSSLEIN
WHEREAS, Sham-O-Jets Kennel and Geraldine Grosslein have applied
to have their commercial and residential kennel licenses renewed; and
WHEREAS, the appropriate paperwork and fees have been submitted to
the City; and
WHEREAS, the Police Department has indicated that there are no
incidences on record that would warrant denying the applications.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City
Council does grant commercial and residential kennel licenses respectively to Sham-O-
Jets and Geraldine Grosslein, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that these licenses
will expire June 30, 2002.
Adopted this 22nd 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
Item No.6G
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 5637 Authorizing a Wage Adjustment
for Tom Kinney (9% longevity)
Date of Report: October 17, 2001
At the October 8, 2001 Council meeting the Council adopted Resolution 5632
approving a wage adjustment for Tom Kinney. An incorrect annual salary was
reported in Resolution 5632 ($54,017.60). The correct salary for Mr. Kinney is
$56,971.20) which is reflected in Resolution 5637.
Respectfully Submitted,
Givonna Reed
RESOLUTION NO. 5637
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 ($56,971.20) effective October 15, 2001.
Presented this 22nd day of October, 2001.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Rich Sonterre, Mayor
(SEAL) ____________________________________
Kathleen F. Miller, City Administrator
Motion By: Quick
Second By: Thomas
Sonterre: Aye
Quick: Aye
Stigney: Nay
Thomas: Aye
Marty: Aye
Item No: 7A
Meeting Date: October 22, 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 (1) Resolution 5627, a Resolution
Approving a Development Review for an Expanded
Billboard, and (2) Resolution 5634, a Resolution Approving
a Wetland Alteration Permit, on City-Owned Land, 2373
County Highway 10, and Consideration of Purchase
Agreement for an Expanded Easement Area.
Date of Report: October 17, 2001
Introduction:
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 and wetland alteration permit to permit an expansion of the billboard
from 300 square feet to 672 square feet. Clear Channel owns a permanent easement for
the 40’ by 40’ square plot upon which the sign is located. To expand the sign, an
additional easement area would be necessary. 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.
Discussion:
At the Council’s meeting on October 8, 2001, there was discussion regarding this request.
The Council directed staff to work with the applicant in an effort to renegotiate the terms of
the easement purchase agreement. The point of contention among some of the Council
members was that the annual rent ($7,000) did not include any adjustments for inflation.
Clear Channel has since agreed to maintain the terms of the original agreement as is, with
the addition of an inflator tied to the CPI or 3%, whichever is greater. Per the revised
agreement, The City would be paid $50,000 at the time of permit issuance and then $7,000
the second year, with the annual payments increasing by at least 3% every year thereafter
until such time that the billboard is removed.
Information from Previous Report:
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 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
Clear Channel Report
October 22, 2001
Page 2
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.
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.
City Forester Review:
The City Forester has reviewed the landscape plan submitted by the applicant and has
found it substantially acceptable. He suggested that the wildflower seed mix be examined
with consideration given to species more conducive to hydric soils and wetland conditions.
This suggestion has been passed on to the applicant. The shrub screen behind the
billboard, according to Mr. Wriskey, is acceptable and will eventually blend into the existing
cover. Mr. Wriskey did caution against the removal of many significant trees, as they serve
as a natural buffer in this area. For this reason, staff is suggesting that the applicant
provide a tree inventory for the area and clearly mark which trees would be targeted for
removal.
Wetland Alteration Permit Discussion:
Anytime work is undertaken within a wetland zoning district, the work requires approval of
either a wetland alteration permit or a wetland buffer permit. This area was recently
delineated and indicates that the billboard is in fact within a wetland. Thus, the “alteration”
provisions do apply. In addition, staff did verify with Rice Creek watershed District (RCWD)
that a watershed permit will be required for this expansion.
Standards for Approval of Permits: No permit shall be issued unless the City finds and
determines that the proposed development complies with the standards as stated as follows:
a. Minimum Alteration in Ecological and Hydrological Characteristics: A minimum alteration
of a wetland may be allowed when necessary for the use of property but only when it will not
have a substantially or significantly adverse effect, as determined by the City, upon the
ecological and hydrological characteristics of the wetland. The following shall also apply:
Clear Channel Report
October 22, 2001
Page 3
(1) Any alteration shall not cause a reduction in the flood storage capacity of the
wetland.
The expansion is not expected to result in the loss of any wetland flood storage
capacity. If any fill does occur, however minimal, below the 902.0 foot elevation,
an equal or greater area shall be replaced immediately adjacent to the billboard
(2) An alteration shall not reduce the existing water quality enhancement value of a
wetland under conditions of ultimate development.
This site is not designated for development. As such, this requirement does not
apply.
(3) Any alteration shall not reduce the existing wildlife habitat value of a wetland as
measured using methods approved by the City.
This area of the wetland and the adjoining uplands are open and adjacent to
County Highway 10. The alteration will not impair or otherwise negatively impact
the wildlife habitat of the area.
(4) Alterations shall be carried out so as to minimize the impact on vegetation. Removal
of vegetation within a wetland zoning district shall be permitted only when reasonably
required for the placement of structures and use of property.
The extent of the actual alteration should be minimal and restricted to the area
immediately surrounding the existing billboard. The vegetation in this area is not
of high quality, and is neither pristine nor natural. This area, including the now
delineated wetlands, was originally cultivated for some type of agricultural use,
which appeared to have been discontinued sometime in the 1940s.
(5) Alterations shall not adversely affect the water flow characteristics within the wetland
as determined by the City.
The alteration will not affect the water flow characteristics within the wetland.
(6) Storm water runoff from a development may be directed to the wetland when in
conformance with the Local Water Management Plan and only when substantially, as
determined by the Council, free of sediment, debris and chemical pollutants and only at
rates which will not substantially disturb vegetation or increase turbidity as determined
by the City.
The runoff generated by the billboard may enter the wetland and would be free of
pollutants and other particulates.
(7) The proposed action shall not cause storm water runoff from the development to
take place at a rate which would exceed the rate or volume of runoff as anticipated by
the City's Local Water Management Plan.
Clear Channel Report
October 22, 2001
Page 4
The amount of runoff generated by the billboard’s monument base will be
negligible.
(8) The quality of water infiltrated to the water table or aquifer shall remain substantially,
as determined by the City, unchanged by the alteration of the site.
The water quality of the runoff entering the system will remain unchanged.
(9) No part of any sewage disposal system requiring on-land or in-ground disposal of
waste shall be located closer than one hundred feet (100') from the wetland.
This requirement, obviously, does not apply.
(10) Waste shall not be, directly or indirectly, discharged to a wetland.
The billboard will generate no waste. The Resolution states that all construction
debris and materials shall be contained and shall not be allowed to enter the
wetland.
b. Soil Conditions; Control of Erosion:
(1) Construction erosion control measures and retention facilities shall be designed to limit
soil loss from the development site to not more than five (5) tons per acre per year.
Any areas to be graded will have perimeter erosion control fencing installed. The
area to be graded will be minimal.
(2) The applicant for the wetland alteration permit shall be required to demonstrate that,
after the development is completed, the conditions on the site will be stabilized such
that the yearly soil loss from the site will not be greater than five-tenths (0.5) ton per
acre per year.
It is projected that soil loss, if any, will be negligible and the site would be
completely restablized at the conclusion of the following growing season.
(3) Sediment and soil loss shall be determined utilizing the Universal Soil Loss Equation
as defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Technical
Field Guide, as amended from time to time, as provided for Ramsey Soil and Water
Conservation District.
It is projected that soil loss, if any, will be negligible.
(4) Only fill substantially free of chemical pollutants and wastes, as determined by the
City, may be used.
No fill is projected to be used. If any fill is brought to the site, these requirements
shall apply.
Clear Channel Report
October 22, 2001
Page 5
(5) A building's minimum elevation permitted in a wetland zoning district shall be as
defined in the Local Water Management Plan.
This requirement does not apply.
(6) No alteration shall be allowed which will endanger the health, safety or welfare of
persons or which may result in unusual road maintenance costs or utility line breakages
due to soil limitations, including high frost action.
The alteration will not result in any of the described negative consequences.
c. Scheduling of Work: Work in the wetland will not be performed during the breeding season of
water fowl or fish spawning season.
The re is no open water and thus no waterfowl or fish in the alteration area.
This requirement does not apply.
d. Size of Area: The size of the altered area shall be limited to the minimum required for the
proposed action.
The alteration area will be limited to the easement area, although landscaping
improvements will be made outside of the easement area that will not alter the
land.
Standards for Denial of Permits: No wetland alteration or wetland buffer permit may be
granted which would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the
property is located or which will:
a. Result in incompatible land uses or which would be detrimental to surface and ground water
resources.
The billboard is an existing use which will not in its expanded state cause any harm
to the surface or groundwater resources.
b. Increase the financial burdens imposed on the community through increasing floods and
overflow of water onto land areas within this City or onto land areas adjacent to Rice Creek.
The billboard is situated upon an eight-acre parcel which has been preserved
for passive recreation and open space uses. A bituminous trailway and regional
stormwater pond were recently constructed on the south end of the parcel with
the remainder being wetland and prairie uplands. No financial burdens will be
imposed upon the community as a result of the expansion.
c. Be not in keeping with land use plans and planning objectives for the City or which will
increase or cause danger to life or property.
Clear Channel Report
October 22, 2001
Page 6
The billboard is not inconsistent with the City’s land use plan nor will it increase
or cause danger to life or property.
d. Be inconsistent with the objectives of encouraging land uses compatible with the
preservation of the natural land forms, vegetation and wetlands within the City.
The expansion will result in a more aesthetically pleasing billboard which would not
be inconsistent with preservation of natural vegetation and wetlands.
e. Include development of land and water areas essential to continue the temporary
withholding of rapid runoff of surface water which contributes to downstream flooding or
water pollution or development of land and water areas which provide ground water recharge
or development which diminishes the land or water which are necessary to carry increased
flows of storm water following periods of heavy precipitation.
This development will not impede rapid runoff or disrupt the natural surface
water management of the site.
It appears from staff’s review that all of the standards for approval of the wetland
alteration permit have been met or sufficiently satisfied.
Recommendation:
1. Based on the interpretation of the Code which would indicate that the sign can be
expanded, staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of Resolution
5627, a resolution approving a development review 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:
a. Obtain approval from the City of a Wetland Alteration Permit.
b. The applicant shall submit a materials board prior to construction for
administrative approval.
c. All fees, legal and otherwise, associated with the easement sale and
easement document preparation shall be the sole responsibility of the
applicant.
d. Provide a tree inventory for the site indicating which trees have been
targeted for removal.
e. Execute a renegotiated purchase agreement for the additional easement
area.
f. The utilities to the site shall be relocated underground.
Clear Channel Resolution 5627
October 22, 2001
Page 7
2. Based upon the staff’s review, the standards for approval of a wetland alteration
permit have been met or sufficiently satisfied, and as such, staff recommends
approval of Resolution 5634, a resolution approving the wetland alteration permit for
the expanded billboard and landscape improvements at 2373 County Highway 10,
with the following stipulations:
a. The applicant shall apply for and receive approval of a Rice Creek
Watershed District stormwater permit, and provide proof of such permit to
the City.
b. Only clean fill, if any is needed, shall be brought onto the site.
c. No waste, construction or otherwise, shall be allowed to enter into the
wetland or any adjoining areas.
d. The construction of the billboard base shall not impede or otherwise restrict
the natural flow of surface water and stormwater runoff.
e. Any reduction to the available flood storage capacity (area below the 902
elevation) shall be restored or replaced immediately adjacent to the billboard
so that there is no net loss of available flood storage capacity to the site.
f. No grading is to occur outside of the 55-foot square easement are without
the express written authorization and consent of the City.
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
763-717-4021
Attachments
1. Purchase Agreement (separate attachment)
2. Resolution 5627
3. Resolution 5634
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\Development Cases\DE01-004 (Clear Channel)\Clear Channel Report - Oct 22, 2001.doc
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. Planning Commission Resolution 673-01
g. Easement Purchase Agreement
h. Staff Report
Clear Channel Resolution 5627
October 22, 2001
Page 9
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. 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. Provide a tree inventory for the site indicating which trees have been targeted for
removal.
6. Execute a renegotiated purchase agreement for the additional easement area.
Adopted this 22th 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
RESOLUTION NO. 5634
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR AN
EXPANDED BILLBOARD AT 2373 HIGHWAY 10, REQUESTED BY CLEAR
CHANNEL OUTDOOR; PLANNING CASE NO. WA01-001.
WHEREAS, Chris McCarver, representing the applicant Clear Channel Outdoor,
has requested a wetland alteration permit to allow for the expansion of the existing
billboard on Community Center open space land, 2373 County Highway 10, as shown on
the attached Exhibit A; and,
WHEREAS, the existing billboard is located within a delineated wetland as shown
on Exhibit B; and,
WHEREAS, Section 1010.08 of the Municipal Code states that a Wetland
Alteration Permit is required when any activities encroach into a designated wetland; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has found that wetlands within the City, as part of
the ecosystem, are critical to the present and future health, safety and general welfare
of the land, animals and people within the City, as well as within the Rice Creek
Watershed District; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has in mind its statutory obligation to comply with
Chapters 104, 105 and 112 of Minnesota State Law, the regulations of Rice Creek
Watershed District, Regulations of the Department of Natural Resources, including
provisions for protected waters, Public Law 92.500 (Federal Water Pollution Control Act),
open space policies of the Metropolitan Council and its guidelines encouraging protection
and enhancement of marshes, wetlands in the flood plain area and the public interest in
preventing irreparable destruction or deterioration of valuable natural resources; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding
this proposal:
e. Planning Application
f. Zoning Map
g. Site Plan with Landscape Features
h. Billboard Elevation
i. Extract of Planning Commission Minutes, 9/19/2001
j. Planning Commission Resolution 673-01
k. Easement Purchase Agreement
l. Staff Report
Clear Channel Resolution 5634
October 22, 2001
Page 12
WHEREAS, the proposed development satisfies the requirements of the Zoning
Code and building code; and,
WHEREAS, the proposal satisfies all of the wetland requirements of Chapter
1010; 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, on October 22, 2001, the Mounds View City Council approved
Resolution 5627, a resolution approving a development review to expand the existing
billboard, with stipulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council
approves the Wetland Alteration Permit requested by Chris McCarver of Clear Channel
Outdoor to expand the billboard located at 2373 County Highway 10 and to make
associated landscaping improvements, contingent upon the following:
g. The applicant shall apply for and receive approval of a Rice Creek
Watershed District stormwater permit, and provide proof of such permit to
the City.
h. Only clean fill, if any is needed, shall be brought onto the site.
i. No waste, construction or otherwise, shall be allowed to enter into the
wetland or any adjoining areas.
j. The construction of the billboard base shall not impede or otherwise restrict
the natural flow of surface water and stormwater runoff.
k. Any reduction to the available flood storage capacity (area below the 902
elevation) shall be restored or replaced immediately adjacent to the billboard
so that there is no net loss of available flood storage capacity to the site.
l. No grading is to occur outside of the 55-foot square easement are without
the express written authorization and consent of the City.
Adopted this 22th day of October, 2001.
_________________________________
Richard Sonterre, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Kathleen Miller, City Clerk / Administrator
(SEAL)
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\Development Cases\WA01-001\Resolution 5634 - Wetland Alteration Permit.doc
EXHIBIT A
Resolution 5634
EXHIBIT B.
Resolution 5634
BILLBOARD
Wetland Zoning District Map
RESOLUTION 5628
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION IN APPRECIATION OF NEW YORK MAYOR
GIULIANI’S LEADERSHIP AND THE COURAGE OF ALL
THE RESCUE WORKERS RESPONDING TO THE
SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 TRAGEDY
WHEREAS, the tragic events of September 11, 2001 will forever be etched in the
minds of all Americans and freedom loving people throughout the world, and,
WHEREAS, we struggle to find reason and meaning in the hateful taking of
innocent lives, children and parents, brothers and sisters, civilians and military,
public servants and emergency personnel, and,
WHEREAS, the destruction of the World Trade Center, the damage to the
Pentagon and the airliner in Pennsylvania struck a blow at the economic
foundations of our country and the world economy, and,
WHEREAS, the City of New York, led by Mayor Giuliani and the Police and Fire
Departments of the City and surrounding jurisdictions in New York responded
with tremendous acts of compassion and courage to the immediate dangers,
and,
WHEREAS, through their actions, words and examples have united all freedom
loving people in their resolve to ensure that there will not be any other similar
disasters in the future, and,
WHEREAS, their counterparts in Washington, DC and Pennsylvania have shown
similar courage, commitment and compassion, and,
WHEREAS, citizens in our City of Mounds View appreciate the significance and
symbolism of the historic events of September 11, 2001 and the heroic response
by the citizens of New York, the District of Columbia and the State of
Pennsylvania,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Mounds View, on behalf
of all of it’s citizens, do offer our heartfelt condolences to the thousands of people
and families that lost loved ones in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Mounds Views extends it’s
appreciation to the thousands of rescue workers involved in the response and
recovery efforts, and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Mounds View especially
commends and thanks New York Mayor Rudolf Giuliani for his leadership and
gallantry under heartrending circumstances, thereby enabling all people
throughout the world to begin the healing process, and,
BE IT FINALY RESOLVED, that the City of Mounds View urges all of it’s citizens
to show their respect and support for the families and responders involved by
opening their hearts and minds, offering financial and support in any way that
they possibly can so the recovery will be speeded to an early conclusion.
Adopted this 22nd day of October, 2001.
________________________________
ATTEST: Richard Sonterre, Mayor
(SEAL)
________________________________
Kathleen Miller, City Administrator
Motion:
Second:
Sonterre:
Quick:
Stigney:
Marty:
Thomas:
Item No. 7E
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: Charles Hansen, Finance Director
Item Title/Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance
Implementing a Franchise Fee on Reliant Energy
Natural Gas Operations within the City of Mounds
View for the Year 2002
Date of Report: October 16, 2001
Attached is an ordinance to receive a first reading on Monday, October 22, 2001.
This ordinance continues the agreement with Reliant Energy under which Reliant
Energy will collect a franchise fee in the amount of 4% of Reliant’s natural gas
gross operating revenues for services within the City of Mounds View during the
year 2002.
Ordinance 625 passed on June 28, 1999 originally enacted the franchise
agreement. It provides that the City may impose a franchise fess of not more
than 4% of Reliant’s gross operating revenues at any time through July 1, 2019.
The franchise fee was first collected in 2001. A sunset provision in the ordinance
requires it to be re-enacted each year.
Franchise fees collected under this agreement are minimal due to Reliant
Energy’s small customer base within the City of Mounds View. Enactment of the
ordinance is important to maintain equity in relation to the City’s treatment Xcel
Energy.
The ordinance will be published in the November 1, 2001 edition of the Focus
News and will be brought back to the City Council for second reading and
adoption at the first meeting in November.
Respectfully Submitted,
Charles Hansen
ORDINANCE NO. 688
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING A FRANCHISE FEE ON
RELIANT ENERGY NATURAL GAS OPERATIONS WITHIN THE
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW FOR THE YEAR 2002
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. The City of Mounds View Municipal Code Appendix D is hereby
amended to include reference to the following Special Ordinance.
Subdivision 1. Purpose. The Mounds View City Council has determined
that it is in the best interest of the City to impose a franchise fee on those public
utility companies that provide natural gas and electric services within the City of
Mounds View.
a. Pursuant to City Ordinance No. 625, a Franchise Agreement
between the City and Reliant Energy (formerly Minnegasco), the City has
the right to impose a franchise fee of not more than four (4) percent on
Minnegasco in amount and fee designs as set forth in Section 4.1 of the
Minnegasco Franchise.
Subd. 2. Franchise Fee Statement. A franchise fee is hereby imposed on
Reliant Energy under its natural gas Franchise in the amount of four (4.0) percent
of Reliant Energy’s gross revenues, as defined in Section 4.1 of the Franchise
commencing with Reliant Energy’s January 2002 billing month.
Subd. 3. Payment. The said franchise fee shall be payable to the City in
accordance with the terms set forth in Section 4.4 of the Franchise.
Subd. 4. Surcharge. The City recognizes that the Minnesota Public
Utilities Commission requires each said utility company to add to its effective
rates for the utility service on which the public utility gross earnings fee is
imposed, a surcharge to reimburse such utility company for the cost of the fee.
Subd. 5. Proof of Company Gross Revenues. Reliant Energy shall make
each payment when due and shall quarterly furnish a complete and correct
statement of gross revenues for said quarter. Reliant Energy shall permit the
City and its designated representative free access to the company’s records for
the purpose of verifying such statements.
Subd. 6. Enforcement. Any dispute, including enforcement of a default
regarding this ordinance will be resolved in accordance with the Franchise
Agreement.
Subd. 7. Effective Date of Franchise Fee. Notwithstanding the effective
date of this ordinance and notwithstanding any contrary provisions in Section 4 of
the Franchise, the effective date of the fee collected under Subdivision 2 of this
ordinance is the later of ten (10) days after the publication and after the sending
of written notice enclosing a copy of this adopted ordinance upon Reliant Energy
by certified mail.
Subd. 8. Sunset Clause. This ordinance shall automatically sunset on
December 31, 2002.
SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect as provided herein.
Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this _____ day of
____________, 2001.
Read and passed by the City Council of the city of Mounds View this ____ day of
___________, 2001.
______________________________
Rich Sonterre, Mayor
______________________________
Kathleen F. Miller,
City Clerk-Administrator
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
City Attorney
Item No.7 D
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: Charles Hansen, Finance Director
Item Title/Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance
Implementing a Franchise Fee on Xcel Energy
Electric and Natural Gas Operations within the
City of Mounds View for the Year 2002
Date of Report: October 16, 2001
Attached is an ordinance to receive a first reading on Monday, October 22, 2001.
This ordinance continues the agreement with Xcel Energy under which Xcel
Energy will collect a franchise fee in the amount of 4% of Xcel’s electric and
natural gas gross operating revenues for services within the City of Mounds View
during the year 2002.
Ordinance 518 passed on October 13, 1992 originally enacted the franchise
agreement. It provides that the City may impose a franchise fess of not more
than 4% of Xcel’s gross operating revenues at any time during the 20-year term
of the franchise. The 20-year term runs from 1993 through 2012 and the
franchise fee was first collected in 1993. A sunset provision in the ordinance
requires it to be re-enacted each year.
Franchise fees of $200,000 for the General Fund and $200,000 for the Street
Improvement Fund are included in the draft 2002 budget. Enactment of the
ordinance is essential to preserving this revenue source and balancing the 2002
budget.
The ordinance will be published in the November 1, 2001 edition of the Focus
News and will be brought back to the City Council for second reading and
adoption at the first meeting in November.
Respectfully Submitted,
Charles Hansen
ORDINANCE NO. 687
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING A FRANCHISE FEE ON XCEL
ENERGY ELECTRIC AND NATURAL GAS OPERATIONS
WITHIN THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW FOR THE YEAR 2002
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. The City of Mounds View Municipal Code Appendix D is hereby
amended to include reference to the following Special Ordinance.
Subdivision 1. Purpose. The Mounds View City Council has determined
that it is in the best interest of the City to impose a franchise fee on those public
utility companies that provide natural gas and electric services within the City of
Mounds View.
a. Pursuant to City Ordinance No. 517 and Ordinance No. 518, which
are the Franchise Agreements (“Franchise Agreements”) between the City
of Mounds View (the “City”) and Xcel Energy (formerly Northern States
Power Company), a franchise fee of not more than four (4.0) percent of
Xcel Energy’s gross operating revenues may be imposed by the City at
any time during the 20 year term of the Franchise. The franchise fee is
paid as full compensation for the rights to transmit and furnish electric
energy for light, heat, power and import, transport, sell and distribute
natural gas for heating, illuminating and other purposes as outlined in
Section 2 of Ordinance Nos. 517 and 518.
Subd. 2. Franchise Fee Statement. A franchise fee is hereby imposed on
Xcel Energy under its electric and natural gas Franchise Agreements in the
amount of four (4.0) percent of Xcel Energy’s gross revenues, as defined in
Section 4.2 of the Franchise Agreements, commencing with Xcel Energy’s
January 2002 billing month.
Subd. 3. Payment. The said franchise fee shall be payable to the City in
accordance with the terms set forth in Section 4 of the Franchise Agreements.
Subd. 4. Surcharge. The City recognizes that the Minnesota Public
Utilities Commission requires each said utility company to add to its effective
rates for the utility service on which the public utility gross earnings fee is
imposed, a surcharge to reimburse such utility company for the cost of the fee.
Subd. 5. Proof of Company Gross Revenues. Xcel Energy shall make
each payment when due and shall quarterly furnish a complete and correct
statement of gross revenues for said quarter. Xcel Energy shall permit the City
and its designated representative free access to the company’s records for the
purpose of verifying such statements.
Subd. 6. Enforcement. Any dispute, including enforcement of a default
regarding this ordinance will be resolved in accordance with the Franchise
Agreements.
Subd. 7. Effective Date of Franchise Fee. Notwithstanding the effective
date of this ordinance and notwithstanding any contrary provisions in Section 4 of
the Franchise Agreements, the effective date of the fee collected under
Subdivision 2 of this ordinance is the later of ten (10) days after the publication
and after the sending of written notice enclosing a copy of this adopted ordinance
upon Xcel Energy by certified mail.
Subd. 8. Sunset Clause. This ordinance shall automatically sunset on
December 31, 2002.
SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect as provided herein.
Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this ___ day of
______________, 2001.
Read and passed by the City Council of the city of Mounds View this ____ day of
______________, 2001.
____________________________
Rich Sonterre, Mayor
____________________________
Kathleen F. Miller,
City Clerk-Administrator
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
City Attorney
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kathleen Miller, Administrator
FROM: Steve Dazenski, Parks Foreman
DATE: September 20, 2001
SUBJECT: Update on the HVAC System at the Community Center
Staff has been in contact with Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. (KFI) regarding the tasks
and costs relating to the correction of the HVAC system at the Community Center.
(I have attached the memo from August 30, 2001 for your reference.)
Attached to this memo is an outline of the work that needs to be performed, along
with the estimated related costs, for the repair(s) of the HVAC system. It should be
noted that by having the HVAC system operate at its full capacity, there will be an
immediate reduction to the monthly usage of the electric and gas.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kathleen Miller, Administrator
FROM: Steve Dazenski, Parks Foreman
SUBJECT: Community Center HVAC System
DATE: October 5, 2001
The HVAC system at the Community Center has had continued problems since its
installation. Flannery Construction, the Construction Manager on the Community
Center project, has expressed that they will not assist the City in making the
necessary repairs, without charge, due to the fact that the file has “long since been
closed out”. (see attached)
The amount of City time spent at the Community Center trying to “temporarily” fix
the problems is numerous. The actual repairs made to the system by the company
that installed it, were $2,685.00 in 2000 and as of today, the repairs for 2001 are
$3,205.00.
The City enlisted the expertise of Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. (KFI), Consulting
Engineers, to diagnose the problems of the system. On May 22, 2001, John Derrick
from KFI, sent a letter outlining the problems and recommendations for the HVAC
system. (see attached) Mr. Derrick expressed to me that the units that were installed
at the Community Center should have a life expectancy of 30-50 years;
unfortunately, the way the system was setup originally by the contactor, will limit
these units to approximately 5 years.
As we are now quickly approaching the heating season, it is imperative that the
problems be rectified as soon as possible and that the proper repairs be made.
M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2001\City Council\Council Packets\10-22-2001 Council\10-22-01 CC\Item 07G--Amending Reso 5508, Veterans Day.doc
Item No.7G
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: Kathleen Miller, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Amending Resolution 5508, A Resolution Setting 2001 Meeting
Dates for City Council Meetings and Work Sessions
Date of Report: October 22, 2000
Background
The Mounds View City Council approved Resolution No. 5508 Setting 2001 Meeting Dates
for City Council Meetings and Work Sessions at its January 2, 2001 City Council Meeting.
That Resolution includes Exhibit A with the aforementioned dates. November 12th was
erroneously scheduled as a City Council Meeting date. Sunday, November 11th is
Veterans Day and according to the City’s Personnel Policy:
“If Christmas day, New Year’s Day, Independence Day or Veteran’s Day fall on a Sunday,
the Following Monday will be considered the holiday.”
Therefore Monday, November 12th is a holiday. Staff recommends the City Council
consider amending Resolution 5508, a Resolution Setting 2001 Meeting Dates for City
Council Meetings and Work Sessions by canceling the Monday, November 12, 2001 City
Council Meeting and rescheduling it for Tuesday, November 13, 2001.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the City Council amend Resolution No. 5508, A Resolution Setting 2001
Meeting Dates for City Council Meetings and Work Sessions by canceling the Monday,
November 12, 2001 City Council Meeting and rescheduling for Tuesday, November 13,
2001.
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________
Kathleen F. Miller
City Administrator
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
October 8, 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, October 8, 2001 City Council Agenda.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Approve the October 8, 2001, City Council Agenda as
presented.
Ayes - 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
4. PUBLIC INPUT
Dan Coughlin of 8468 Spring Lake Road indicated that some time ago he had made a public data
request for information and noted he would like to draw attention to the former golf course
manager’s cell phone usage and billings. Mr. Coughlin noted he was told a citizen only has
access to long distance calls and not local calls. He then indicated that the long distances calls he
reviewed were very disturbing and included significant telephone calls from places like Hawaii
in January back to Mounds View and a number of calls to out of state financial institutions with
follow up calls to various places in Atlantic City. He indicated he had attempted to determine
where the numbers in Atlantic City were answered but did not receive an answer. Mr. Coughlin
then indicated that it makes one wonder why financial institutions are called prior to calls to
Atlantic City.
Mr. Coughlin noted that there were three telephone calls to phone sex lines, one for two hours
and fifteen minutes, one for forty-five minutes, and one for thirty minutes. He further noted that
the calls were made during the business day and asked if the City has taken court action to try to
get the City reimbursed for those calls. Mr. Coughlin said he realizes this is City Hall and not a
Sunday school class so he will not speak to the moral depravity of making the calls but said, as a
taxpayer, he is concerned that this individual not only was paid for the time spent at the golf
course but the City also paid the bill for his fornicating adventures.
Mounds View City Council October 8, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 2
Mr. Coughlin indicated he wanted to bring the matter to the attention of the Council because he
feels the matter needs to be investigated.
Mr. Coughlin asked Council Member Marty if, since the day the former golf course manager was
removed from his position, he had been in contact with him or shared information directly or
indirectly with him.
Council Member Marty said, “no I have not.”
Mr. Coughlin indicated he had a copy of a letter sent to the City Administrator containing a
sworn statement, that has been corroborated independently, indicating that Council Member
Marty was observed on three separate occasions conferring with and sharing notes with the
former golf course manager on the night of the firings.
Mr. Coughlin indicated he did not have access to the golf course manager’s local cell phone bills
and then asked City Administrator Miller if there was any evidence to show that Council
Member Marty did have contact with the golf course manager.
City Administrator Miller indicated she needed to discuss the matter with the City Attorney
before responding to Mr. Coughlin’s question.
Mayor Sonterre asked if Mr. Coughlin had shared the numbers with the City Administrator.
Mr. Coughlin indicated he had brought the matter to the attention of the City Administrator and
said he also wanted to make Council aware of the matter.
City Administrator Miller indicated the item is being investigated and said local calls are private
data. She then indicated that the information would be provided to Council during the closed
session but would not be discussed during the open session.
Mayor Sonterre asked if City Administrator Miller had verified calls of indiscretion with regard
to Mr. Hammerschmidt’s cell phone.
City Administrator Miller said, “yes, I have.”
Council Member Stigney noted that he had asked that the golf course manager’s cell phone bill
be pulled from the consent agenda for discussion at one point because he felt the bill was
excessive. He then noted that Council had decided, at that time, that the bill needed to be paid.
He further indicated he was not sure whether there is a way to have the City reimbursed but said
he had raised the question on the cell phones.
Mayor Sonterre indicated that Council had asked City Administrator Miller to write a policy for
cell phone usage to assist the department heads in keeping cell phone usage in check.
Mounds View City Council October 8, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 3
Ron Huston, Bridges Golf Course, told Council that golf lessons have been provided and have
not been paid for. He then asked what the City is planning on doing for the rest of this year and
next year.
Mayor Sonterre asked City Administrator Miller to speak to the payment issue.
City Administrator Miller indicated the matter of Mr. Mathison’s compensation for golf lessons
had been before Council previously and was tabled for further information. She then indicated
that the remaining employees are under a status quo and the City is dealing with the union to
negotiate a contract placing everything on hold until that contract is negotiated.
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
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
Council Member Marty indicated he had a question in Item 6A.
Council Member Quick indicated that, in order to discuss the matter, Council Member Marty
would need to request that item be removed from the Consent Agenda.
Council Member Marty requested that Item 6A be removed from the Consent Agenda for
discussion.
Council Member Stigney requested that Items 6D and 6H be removed from the Consent Agenda
for discussion.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Approve Items B, C, E, F, and G of the Consent Agenda
as Presented.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Mounds View City Council October 8, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 4
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Approve Consent Agenda Item 6A as Presented.
Council Member Marty questioned whether the City would recover the $3,604.30 in attorney’s
fees for the Mounds View Animal Hospital matter.
City Administrator Miller indicated that the City usually does recover a certain amount of the
fees. She then asked the finance director to speak to the matter.
The Finance Director indicated that recovering legal fees is dependent on a number of factors and
said he is not sure of the exact situation and would need to research the matter and provide an
answer at the next meeting.
City Administrator Miller further stated that the City does recover a certain amount of the costs
but she is not sure how much. She then indicated she would check it out and get an answer for
Council.
Council Member Marty indicated he had learned through the Festival in the Park Committee that
the City recovers the attorney’s fees as a matter of policy.
Community Development Director Ericson indicated it is the City’s policy to make every attempt
to recover consultant fees and said the City has been doing that more diligently in the last year.
He then indicated that the redevelopment contract contains a line item indicating the City would
be reimbursed for attorney’s fees. He further indicated that contract has not been finalized but
should be shortly.
Council Member Stigney asked if the fees would be paid out of the general fund or the TIF fund
if the fees are not recovered.
Community Development Director Ericson indicated the fees were a TIF eligible expense and
would come out of the EDA budget.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Consent Agenda Item
D as Presented.
Council Member Stigney commented it would have been nice if the Consent Agenda had been
read. He then asked that Resolution 5617 be read.
Council Member Stigney read Resolution 5617, a Resolution Authorizing Certain Employee and
Volunteer Appreciation Events.
Mounds View City Council October 8, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 5
Council Member Stigney indicated he read the Resolution so residents would know what Council
is talking about. He then indicated that, at the work session, the decision was to give gift
certificates to retiring employees and now it has been changed to all employees.
Assistant to the Administrator Reed indicated she thought it was the intent of Council to give gift
certificates to all employees celebrating an anniversary in five-year increments.
Council Member Stigney indicated he thought giving gift certificates was not a responsible way
to spend taxpayer dollars. He then indicated he is opposed to having two separate events of
$1,000 each as he feels it is irresponsible spending. He further indicated that, in light of the fact
that the City is way over its budget, he feels it inappropriate to approve a new Resolution
approving an expenditure of funds. He then said he feels the timing is wrong.
Council Member Thomas clarified that Council had discussed that the City needed to have a
policy on the books for how to fund annual events that are already occurring. She then said
Council does not want this to be a horrible place to work. She also indicated that employees and
volunteers are two entirely different groups that deserve to be recognized as such. Council
Member Thomas indicated that the Resolution brought by Staff is exactly what Council had
asked for at the work session.
Council Member Quick concurred with Council Member Thomas.
Council Member Stigney indicated he did not support the Resolution.
Council Member Quick asked if Council Member Stigney was referring to next year’s budget
when he indicated the City was over budget. He then asked Council Member Stigney if the
budget had been finalized.
Council Member Stigney said, “no.”
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1(Stigney) Motion carried.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Approve Consent Agenda Item 6H as Presented.
Council Member Stigney indicated he would like the Resolution read.
Council Member Stigney read Resolution 5632, A Resolution Approving a Wage Adjustment for
Longevity Pay (9%) for Tom Kinney.
Council Member Stigney questioned whether Mr. Kinney was a member of Local 204 as an
investigator.
Assistant to the Administrator Reed indicated Mr. Kinney is an investigator but is paid under the
patrol contract as there is no separate agreement.
Mounds View City Council October 8, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 6
Council Member Stigney noted the employees at the Police Department receive annual wage
increases on a schedule and assuming they are cumulative they receive an additional 25% over
and above their base rate.
Assistant to the Administrator Reed indicated she did not have the contract with her but said she
trusts what Council Member Stigney read was from the contract.
Council Member Stigney indicated that under the current contract employees would be receiving
an additional $225.00 per month and under next year’s contract an extra $235.00 per month. He
then told Council it needed to watch what kind of contracts are approved.
The Deputy Police Chief indicated the clause had been in effect since he started in 1980 and
noted the pay increases are not cumulative. He also noted the college incentive credits are not
applicable to anyone on the force and need not be in the contract.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1(Stigney) Motion carried.
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. Public Hearing Considering the Reconstruction of County Road H2
Mayor Sonterre opened the public hearing at 7:31 p.m.
Barry Peters indicated this was a public hearing for the County Road H2 improvements and
asked Council if it wanted a formal presentation or a review of new information received via the
surveys.
It was the consent of Council to hear the new information received from the surveys.
Mr. Peters indicated the survey had been sent to 93 residents and he had received 39 responses.
He then indicated that of those 39 responses 31 wanted the road reconstructed to state aid
standards. He further indicated that there was an area on the survey asking if residents wanted
parking and 14 said no parking and 15 said yes to parking.
Mr. Peters indicated the costs had not changed nor had the assessments.
Council Member Thomas asked what the state aid requirements for the roadway were.
Mr. Peters indicated the state aid requirements are in regards to the width of the roadway. He
then indicated that the storm sewer and curb and gutter are a matter of good engineering practice.
Council Member Stigney questioned if curb and gutter was required.
Mr. Peters indicated that it was.
Mounds View City Council October 8, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 7
Council Member Marty indicated the former public works director had said it was prudent to do
sewer and water at this time so the City would not have to tear up the streets to repair something.
Mayor Sonterre asked how the issue of parking was phrased on the survey.
Mr. Peters clarified that the survey asked residents on the south side of H2 if they wished to have
parking as the City was considering it in various locations.
Mr. Peters indicated that the City and residents could discuss and determine where parking would
be allowed.
Council Member Thomas asked if there was any way to determine from the survey what area
wants parking and what area does not.
Mr. Peters indicated the survey was done by address.
Council Member Quick questioned whether it was in the best interest of the City to have parking
along the entire length of H2.
Mr. Peters indicated that some of the properties have deep driveways and do not need parking on
the street.
Ron Morgan of 2656 County Road H2 noted that in hearing the responses to the survey he is very
concerned because his comments relative to parking were not expressed. He then indicated that
another person also made comments and he did not see them.
Mr. Morgan indicated he lives in the townhouses across from Scotland Green which is compact
housing with three lanes out to H2. He then said he thinks it is bizarre that the City would allow
parking in that section.
Bill Rice of 2932 County Road H2 asked if his petition for no parking between Knollwood and
the Fridley line was still being considered.
Mayor Sonterre indicated Council would consider it when making a decision about parking.
Mr. Rice indicated it would be difficult to see when pulling out of his driveway if there were
parking on the street.
Council Member Thomas indicated the City could approve the reconstruction and get the process
moving while discussing the specifics of where to allow parking.
Mr. Rice indicated he was against any overlay that does not have curb and gutter as it needs to be
done.
Mounds View City Council October 8, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 8
Robert Mills of 2817 County Road H2 questioned whether the parking bays would actually work
as a traffic calming measure as suggested in the information.
Mr. Peters indicated that the parking bays may give a feeling of a roadway being wider in some
areas and narrower in others. He also indicated that some kind of vertical plantings could be
utilized on the south side in an effort to calm traffic.
Mayor Sonterre asked if the comments reflect parking comments.
Council Member Thomas indicated that parking comments were mentioned.
Mr. Peters indicated he had made the overview of the comments somewhat general and then
indicated that Council had received a spreadsheet in its packets containing all of the responses.
Mayor Sonterre indicated he had wanted it clarified that all comments were provided and will be
considered.
Council Member Quick noted that if there are cars parked along the roadway there is still a 26
foot wide visual.
Council Member Marty asked if the costs would go down if the City decided not to have parking
bays.
Mr. Peters indicated the costs would go down as the estimate includes the parking bays but said
the assessment rate would stay the same because it is at the minimum amount.
Council Member Marty commented the City would not use as much of the state aid funds if there
were no parking.
Council Member Thomas asked if there had been any research done on whether having cars
parked along the street slows down traffic.
Mr. Peters indicated he was not a traffic engineer but stated he felt having cars parked along the
street would slow traffic some.
Council Member Quick questioned whether H2 is posted no parking now.
Council Member Marty indicated there is 30 minute parking by Scotland Green.
Mr. Pittman indicated that there are constantly people parked in front of Scotland Green.
Council Member Marty asked if Council approves the Resolution when the quote with possible
parking pullouts would be coming back for approval.
Mounds View City Council October 8, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 9
Mr. Peters indicated that if the project were approved at this meeting there would be a 60-day
period where nothing can be done which should allow time for research and discussion as to
where parking should be allowed.
Council Member Thomas indicated that parking could be discussed during the design phase.
Mr. Peters indicated it would be nice to have direction when doing the design as he would like to
do it one time. He then indicated that minor changes can be made once the design is completed.
Robert Mills of 2817 County Road H2 questioned whether the parking bays would add to the
cost of maintaining and plowing the roadway.
Mr. Pittman indicated that a new roadway would be a delight to plow and indicated that there
should not be extra cost to plow it.
Mr. Mills indicated if a person were lying on the street and looking down the roadway would
appear narrower but said the angle most people see is from above. He also indicated that the
snowplow operators are paid by the hour and it would take more time to plow the parking bays
thereby costing more money in snowplowing.
Mr. Rice indicated that he and his neighbors need the curb and gutter to take care of the water
problem in their garages. He also said he did not want any parking in his area.
Mayor Sonterre closed the public hearing at 7:59 p.m.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5621, a
Resolution Approving the Reconstruction of County Road H2.
Council Member Stigney asked that Council honor the residents’ wishes concerning parking be it
for parking or against parking.
Council Member Marty noted that if the residents in the area of Scotland Green would come in
with information concerning whether they would like parking it would be helpful.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
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.
Community Development Director Ericson indicated that Clear Channel Outdoor has requested
permission to expand the billboard located on City-owned property. He then indicated that Clear
Channel Outdoor has a perpetual easement on the property and would like to expand and
improve the aesthetics of the billboard making it a type of monument style sign.
Mounds View City Council October 8, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 10
Director Ericson indicated that the Planning Commission had indicated that the current billboard
is ugly and, since the billboard will be there forever through the easement in perpetuity, it would
be nice to have a sign with an improved appearance.
Director Ericson indicated the Planning Commission had voted unanimously for approval of the
expansion of the billboard.
City Attorney Riggs noted Clear Channel Outdoor has an easement not a lease.
Director Ericson explained that Clear Channel Outdoor currently has an easement for a 40 x 40
section of the property and, in order to expand, would need a 55 x 55 piece of property. He then
noted that Clear Channel Outdoor had submitted an offer of $100,00. He further indicated that
Staff did not feel that an offer that did not provide for a yearly payment was adequate and
countered with an up front payment of $50,000 and a payment of $7,000 per year forever.
Director Ericson indicated that the Resolution of approval to allow for the expansion of the
billboard contained the following conditions. The utilities must be placed underground; a City
Wetland Alteration Permit must be obtained; a Rice Creek Watershed District Permit, if required,
must be obtained; a materials board must be submitted to the City; all legal fees and other fees
associated with the easement must be paid by Clear Channel Outdoor; the City Forester needs to
review the landscape plan; and, an executed Purchase Agreement must be signed by both Clear
Channel Outdoor and the City.
Director Ericson indicated that Mr. McCarver from Clear Channel Outdoor was present at the
meeting to answer any questions of Council.
Council Member Marty asked if the City presently gets any revenue from the billboard.
Director Ericson indicated the City does not receive revenue from the billboard.
Council Member Marty asked whether Clear Channel Outdoor would be willing to improve the
billboard without being allowed to expand the size.
Director Ericson indicated he did not believe Clear Channel Outdoor would be willing to
improve the billboard without the expansion.
Council Member Marty noted the billboard, as presented, is much nicer than what is currently
there but noted it was different from the proposed billboards at the golf course. He then
suggested having Clear Channel Outdoor obtain the drawings from Eller Media for the golf
course billboards for comparison.
Mayor Sonterre clarified that Eller Media and Clear Channel Outdoor are the same company.
Mounds View City Council October 8, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 11
Director Ericson indicated he had discussed with Clear Channel Outdoor the possibility of using
the same type of sign as is proposed for the golf course but it had been determined that a more
formal sign would fit better with the existing signs in this part of town.
Council Member Marty agreed the design for the billboard is more formal but said he feels the
signs designed for out at the golf course blended in more with the surroundings and were more
aesthetically pleasing.
Mayor Sonterre indicated he had discussed the matter with Mr. Ericson and it was explained that
Staff felt using this type of billboard sign would provide some commonality in the area as it
closely resembles the Walgreens and the Wynnsong Theatre signs.
Council Member Thomas indicated there had been some discussion concerning establishing a
sunset clause for the billboard and asked if that may be possible.
Director Ericson indicated that Clear Channel Outdoor has a permanent and perpetual easement
for the area with no expiration date and, as such, Clear Channel Outdoor is not interested in
agreeing to a sunset provision in the new easement.
Council Member Quick asked when the current billboard sign was installed.
Director Ericson indicated he thought perhaps 1983 or 1984.
Michael Cronin of Clear Channel Outdoor, 8809 West Bush Lake Road indicated it was installed
in the late 1980s.
Mr. Cronin indicated that Clear Channel Outdoor understood and accepted each of the conditions
recommend by Staff and the Planning Commission and then respectfully requested that Council
adopt the Resolution. Mr. Cronin indicated that in order to preserve line of sight the Company
had determined a more horizontal sign would be appropriate. He then noted that the billboard
would be 25 feet high and the golf course billboards are 35 feet high. He further indicated that
the sign is lower and more formal than what is proposed out at the golf course and the company
feels it is a good solution for the site.
Mr. Cronin indicated that it was a challenge for his company to come up with a value for the
property needed for the expanded easement. He then noted that it is a neighbor to neighbor sale
of a small sliver of land not the sale of developable property so the company came up with $70
per square foot which is how the $100,000 was arrived at. He further noted that when Staff
presented the $50,000 and $7,000 per year the company felt it could live with that.
Council Member Stigney questioned how much revenue the City would obtain from each
billboard at the golf course.
Director Ericson indicated he did not have the information with him to answer that question.
Mounds View City Council October 8, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 12
Council Member Stigney indicated he needs to know that figure before determining if the offer
from Clear Channel Outdoor is appropriate.
Council Member Stigney asked Clear Channel Outdoor why the conceptual drawings were so far
out of scale and noted it makes the billboard look smaller than it really is as this billboard is
humongous. He then further commented that he thinks the drawing is a little misleading.
Mr. Cronin indicated that the person that did the drawing was a professional landscape engineer
and said his drawing was based on a picture taken with a 50 mm lens on a 35 mm camera and
that is considered a normal lens. He then noted that the drawing is in scale from standing on that
site. He also noted the picture was taken when driving down the road moving forward and that is
how it is in proper context.
Mr. McCarver indicated the drawing does reflect accurately the scale of the billboard.
Council Member Stigney held up a drawing and indicated that it was more to scale than the
rendering on the easel.
Mr. McCarver indicated that the drawing Council Member Stigney held up is to show exact sign
dimensions and is a close up view. He then indicated that the rendering on the easel is not a
close up and the drawing on the dais is.
Council Member Stigney indicated he disagreed with the conceptual drawing being to scale.
Council Member Stigney indicated he feels he needs to know how much revenue the City was
looking at deriving from the golf course billboards before agreeing to an amount. He then
indicated that he feels the yearly payments need to consider inflation.
Mr. McCarver restated the offer he had made to Mr. Ericson and noted that his company has a
perpetual easement and is not interested in accepting a sunset clause on the agreement with the
City.
Council Member Stigney indicated he would like the yearly payments to include a CPI. He then
commented that the residents own the property around the billboard and could potentially plant
pine trees to make it less of an eyesore.
Mayor Sonterre noted he is a big supporter of Commissions and said he feels the Planning
Commission did a great job of reviewing this matter. He further indicated that the billboard will
be there forever and it would be in the best interest of the City to have the billboard look better
and it is even better that the City can generate revenue from it.
Council Member Marty indicated he was interested in exploring a sunset clause in exchange for
the larger billboard and suggested 20 or 30 years. He then indicated that he feels the yearly
payments should start at $6,000 per year and slowly climb over time.
Mounds View City Council October 8, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 13
Council Member Thomas noted the sign would be twice as wide as it is currently and asked if it
would be any closer to the road.
Mr. McCarver indicated it would not be any closer to the road than it is now.
Council Member Thomas noted that she wished the trees at the site were as big as shown on the
rendering of the sign and said it is very distracting to the eye because what is behind the sign is
Walgreens and City Hall not a forest. She further indicated that the sign will seem more
predominant when there is nothing behind it and pointed out she can see where the scale gets
distorted because the drawing is not accurate for what is behind the sign.
Council Member Thomas indicated she did not feel the golf course type signs would be
appropriate for the area. She then indicated that this matter has been an issue since she was on
the Planning Commission and said she feels this is the first workable plan she has seen for the
sign.
Council Member Quick noted he felt the yearly payments needed to include an inflation factor.
He then indicated he would like to see a higher yearly fee and eliminate the front-end figure.
Mayor Sonterre asked if it would be appropriate to table this matter for future consideration.
Mr. McCarver indicated that it is difficult to know what the protocol is for buying an easement or
buying property like this. He then expressed a willingness to sit down with Staff to discuss the
matter. He further commented it would be nice to come to resolution on this sign more quickly
than the other sign issue.
Mr. Linke of 2319 Knoll Drive asked how much larger the sign would be and how much more
property was needed for the easement.
Director Ericson indicated the company has a 40 x 40 square and would need a 55 x 55 meaning
they need seven and a half (7 ½) additional feet all the way around the sign in order to expand the
sign.
Mr. Linke asked how much they were willing to pay.
Director Ericson indicated the original offer was for $100,000 but said Staff felt that payment
without annual rental would be inadequate so suggested $50,000 with an additional $7,000
payment each year.
Mr. Linke asked if the City had considered purchasing the sign to get rid of it. He then indicated
that there are wetland issues that will need to be considered.
Director Ericson indicated it was doubtful that the City could afford to purchase the sign from
Clear Channel Outdoor.
Mounds View City Council October 8, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 14
Council Member Stigney indicated he would not support any resolution that did not call for a
sunset clause for the billboard.
Council Member Marty indicated he would like to see a sunset clause for the billboard.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Quick. To Direct Staff to Renegotiate the Purchase Agreement
with Clear Channel Outdoor and Provide a Resolution to Council or, in the alternative, Bring the
Matter to the Next Work Session for Discussion.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
City Administrator Miller indicated that Mr. Alseth from Kennedy and Graven was in attendance
for the executive session later in the agenda and had been waiting since 8:00 p.m. She then
asked if Council would consider moving the executive session up in the agenda.
Council Member Thomas noted that the executive session had the potential to be very long and
suggested Council move along on the agenda.
C. Continued Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 5622, a Resolution
Authorizing the Abatement of the Hazardous Building Located at 8217 Long
Lake Road.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5622, a
Resolution Authorizing the Abatement of the Hazardous Building Located at 8217 Long Lake
Road.
Jeremiah Anderson indicated he had received a telephone call this afternoon and was told that the
documents Mr. Wolfgram was waiting for had been returned without the proper notary
information.
Mr. Wolfgram told Council there is a closing date set for October 17, 2001 and indicated the
documents were prepared for a Minnesota notary and should have been prepared for an Arizona
notary making them not able to be recorded. He then indicated the documents were sent back
and should be returned shortly. He then requested that Council not take action on the Resolution
until after October 17, 2001 as he feels the matter will be resolved and Council would be
incurring costs for no reason.
Jeremiah Anderson indicated that, if the Resolution is approved in its current form, there would
be some time as it takes time for title work and service on the responsible parties.
Mr. Wolfgram indicated that title work and service would involve legal fees and suggested
holding off on taking any action until October 17, 2001.
Mounds View City Council October 8, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 15
Council Member Quick asked if any of the other Council Members had looked at the property.
He then commented that he does not feel the building is salvageable and said the City has
condemned buildings in better shape.
Mayor Sonterre asked if Mr. Anderson’s recommendation remained the same hearing the
comments of Mr. Wolfgram.
Jeremiah Anderson indicated that his recommendation remains the same.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
D. Management of the Mounds View Banquet and Conference Center
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.
Assistant to the Administrator Reed indicated this matter had been discussed at the work session
and Staff had reported that Elegant Thymes had been managing the Banquet Center since March
27, 2001 and had not received payment. She noted that Council had directed Staff to pay Elegant
Thymes based on the current contract with Innovative Images and had further directed Staff to
pay Elegant Thymes 50% of the amount being paid to Innovative Images. She then indicated that
the City Attorney had recommended that Council consider paying Elegant Thymes per the
contract rather than cutting that amount in half.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Sonterre. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5611, a
Resolution Approving Payment to Elegant Thymes Management Company for Management of
the Mounds View Banquet and Conference Center.
Council Member Quick asked how long Elegant Thymes had been working without receiving
payment.
Assistant the Administrator Reed indicated Elegant Thymes had been working since March 27,
2001 without payment.
Council Member Quick commented it was time to act.
Council Member Marty commented that he feels whomever booked and solicited the events
should be paid for those events. He then questioned whether Elegant Thymes had been working
to market the banquet center in an effort to book more events because when looking at the
bookings for the month of July there were only three events the entire month. He further
commented that May, June and July are typical wedding months and he would have thought there
would be more bookings.
Mounds View City Council October 8, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 16
Mayor Sonterre commented he was not sure when Council Member Marty last had to plan a
wedding but noted, that booking a wedding reception hall is done at least six months in advance
and possibly as long as a year in advance. He then indicated that, if the numbers are down, there
is some shared blame to go around.
Dabney Brown, President of Elegant Thymes, commented that paying based on bookings is not
the way things should be done because the real work, and the money, come into play when the
event is actually held. He then indicated there had been some cancellations and rebooking.
Mr. Brown indicated he has a good relationship with the City of Mounds View and said when the
City came to him and asked him to manage the banquet center he had agreed to do so without a
contract. He then indicated he has not been paid for six months and is not running a nonprofit
company.
Mr. Brown indicated he had calculated his hourly rate to be $4.32 based on what the City is
paying him for doing the job. He then said he takes offense that it has been six months without
payment. He further indicated he had come to the City Administrator to recommend that
payment be figured on a quarterly rather than a monthly basis as it is too difficult to do every
month due to the nature of the business.
Council Member Stigney indicated that Innovative Images was spending time marketing and
asked if Mr. Brown was putting in the same effort.
Mr. Brown indicated that when there are cancellations there is an effort to rebook them.
Council Member Stigney questioned whether Mr. Brown was having any luck in booking events.
Mr. Brown indicated that he did not have direction of the City as to how to proceed other than to
manage the banquet center on an interim basis. He further commented he was uncomfortable
with marketing the banquet center and spending City money without some direction. He again
said that, whomever the City gets to run the banquet center, should be paid to do so.
Assistant to the Administrator Reed indicated that Resolution 5612 would provide direction to
Mr. Brown as he had requested.
Council Member Stigney asked, if by taking over the contract, Mr. Brown felt he could fulfill the
conditions of the contract.
Mr. Brown indicated he did not have problems with the conditions of the contract and indicated
he has been doing this for 23 years. He then asked that the City restructure how the payments are
made to quarterly rather than monthly.
Council Member Marty questioned how Mr. Brown’s role would change now that he is
authorized to manage the banquet center rather than just cater the events.
Mounds View City Council October 8, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 17
Mr. Brown indicated that managing the banquet center would require more time spent on
marketing it to not only private wedding parties but to corporate clients as well. He then
indicated he has worked with the City to get accounting software installed and a reservation
system enhancing and improving what was over at the banquet center.
Council Member Marty indicated he had asked the question because Mr. Brown had indicated his
hourly rate was down to four dollars an hour. He then questioned whether Mr. Brown’s wife
would be helping him manage the banquet center.
Mr. Brown indicated that he has a business partner but she is not his wife. He then indicated that
he and his business partner would like to put together a whole management package but said he
has no direction to do so.
Council Member Quick reminded Council of the request to move things along.
Mr. Linke of 2319 Knoll Drive indicated he was the Vice President of Innovative Images and
commented he has an issue with indicating that Elegant Thymes has generated $20,000 in gross
revenues because Innovative Images had brought in the business. He then reminded Council that
the City has a legal and binding contract with Innovative Images and suggested talking to the
City’s attorney about having a second contract.
Assistant to the Administrator Reed indicated that the contract specifies that gross revenues are
realized when the event takes place not when it is booked. She then clarified that Mr. Brown is
not looking for a contract just a Resolution to outline what his duties would be.
Council Member Thomas clarified that the Resolution would merely formalize the interim
agreement.
Council Member Marty commented that he does not feel the gross revenue issue has been
appropriately sorted out between Innovative Images and Elegant Thymes.
Ayes - 4 Nays – 1(Marty) Motion carried.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5612, a
Resolution Naming Elegant Thymes Management Company as Interim Manager of the Mounds
View Banquet and Conference Center.
Council Member Stigney clarified that this is filling an interim position and not establishing a
contract.
Council Member Marty indicated he feels the interim agreement is clearly spelled out and should
have been taken care of at an earlier date.
Mr. Brown indicated he did not want a contract just direction.
Mounds View City Council October 8, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 18
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
8. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
None.
9. REPORTS
Council Member Marty indicated he was curious as to why City Administrator Miller had not
received her six-month review and noted she has come up on her one-year anniversary date.
City Administrator Miller indicated she had brought the matter to the Mayor’s attention as she
would like to receive her review.
Mayor Sonterre indicated that not all Council Members had completed the surveys and noted he
would have the surveys given to those that did not complete them and asked that they be turned
in as soon as possible.
Mayor Sonterre indicated that there is an opening on the Economic Development Commission.
Council Member Marty questioned whether the YMCA issue would be placed on a work session
for discussion.
City Administrator Miller indicated the matter was on the agenda at the last work session and
then noted that she had received a call from Pat at the YMCA when she was on her way out the
door for a meeting and said she will return the call. She then indicated she would like to give the
Finance Director some time to put some numbers together. She further noted she did not think
the matter would be ready for discussion at the next work session.
Community Development Director Ericson indicated he had contacted Delight Outdoor
Advertising and had been told the company is willing to come to the work session in November
to discuss the Sysco billboards.
Director Ericson asked if the request from Clear Channel Outdoor concerning the golf course
billboards would be heard in the open or closed session.
City Attorney Riggs indicated it would be discussed at the closed session.
Director Ericson requested that Council convene as the EDA prior to the closed session.
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. September 24, 2001 City Council Minutes.
Mounds View City Council October 8, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 19
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Quick. To Approve the Minutes of the Monday, September 24,
2001 Council Meeting as Amended.
Council Member Marty requested the following changes: On Page 6, third paragraph from
bottom omit the extra “d.” On Page 9, second paragraph indicate that Mr. Decheine had said he
highly regarded Mike Ulrich.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
B. August 27, 2001 City Council Minutes
Council Member Stigney indicated he had made his corrections to the minutes based on the
previously provided copy and not the new copy. He then asked that the matter be held to the next
meeting to allow time for him to review the new format of the minutes.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Table Consideration of the August 27, 2001 City
Council Minutes to the Next Council Meeting.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
The Council Meeting was recessed at 9:14 p.m.
Council reconvened the meeting at 9:23 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 9:23 p.m.
Mayor Sonterre thanked Staff for its due diligence.
City Administrator Miller indicated there would be a special work session on October 29, 2001.
Community Development Director Ericson indicated the Highway 10 Corridor meeting would be
held on October 15, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. at the Community Center and invited all residents to
attend.
Council Member Stigney indicated there would be a special Council Meeting on October 11,
2001.
11. CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING LITIGATION
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, November 5, 2001
Mounds View City Council October 8, 2001
Regular Meeting Page 20
Next Council Meeting: Monday, October 22, 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.