Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2000/10/10M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2000\City Council\Council Packets\10-10-00\Agenda - City Council.doc CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2000 7:00 PM 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomason 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A September 25, 2000 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: 6. REPORTS 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims B. Licenses for Approval C. Award of Playground Equipment and Funding D. Year 2001 SCORE Funding Grant Application 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR A. Citizens: Before speaking, must give their full name and address for the minutes. Please limit your comments to three minutes. 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS 7:05 A. Public Hearing, Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 5476, a Resolution Regarding the Development Stage of the Proposed Mermaid PUD -- Jim Ericson B. Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 5458, a Resolution Approving the Mounds View City Hall Addition Final Plat -- Jim Ericson City Council Meeting M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2000\City Council\Council Packets\10-10-00\Agenda - City Council.doc October 10, 2000 Page –2- C. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 670, 2001 Minnegasco Franchise Fee -- Bruce Kessel 1. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance. 2. Vote: Stigney, Marty, Quick, Thomason, Coughlin D. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 671, 2001 NSP Franchise Fee -- Bruce Kessel 1. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 2. Vote: Thomason, Quick, Stigney, Marty, Coughlin 11. Next Council Work Session: Monday, November 6, 2000 Next Council Meeting: Monday, October 23, 2000 12. ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting September 25, 2000 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 7:05 P.M. 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Marty, Stigney, Thomason, and Quick. NOT PRESENT: None. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Monday, September 25, 2000, City Council Agenda. Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to add items to the agenda. Mayor Coughlin noted that Item 10C would be removed from the agenda. No further additions or corrections were noted. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomason. To accept the September 25, 2000, City Council Agenda as revised, dispensing with the reading of all ordinances and resolutions unless otherwise requested. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Monday, September 11, 2000, City Council Minutes. Council Member Stigney requested the following changes: On Page 1, where it reads “Council Member Stigney stated he was not in favor of holding over Consent Agenda Items 10F through 10J.” Please add “because the Mayor has stated in the newspaper that he is not in favor of any of the proposed amendments.” On Page 6 in the last paragraph change “they” to “she”. Page 7 and 8 “Lamm” should be “Lamb”. Mounds View City Council September 25, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 2 Page 10 after the motion where it reads “Council Member Stigney asked what type of levy increase this resolution assumed.” Change “type” to “amount”. Page 10 where it reads “Finance Director Kessel explained that if there will be an increase this year from last year the State requires a resolution approving the increase.” Change second “the” to “any”. On Pages 10 and 11 change “23.17” to “23.71”. Council Member Marty requested a comma on Page 9 line 3 after “about it” and before “and”. There were no further changes. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To accept the Monday, September 11, 2000, City Council minutes as corrected. Ayes – 4 Nays - 0 Abstain – 1 (Quick) Motion carried. Council Member Quick abstained from comment on the Minutes as he was not present at the meeting. 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS Mayor Coughlin acknowledged Mike Ulrich who was the Interim City Administrator for 5 or 6 months and commented he felt Mr. Ulrich has done a wonderful job filling in as Interim City Administrator while doing his own job. Mayor Coughlin said he has come to believe Mr. Ulrich is one of the most noble and genteel people at City Hall and he has come to rely on his wisdom, organization and common sense. Mayor Coughlin also welcomed Kathleen Miller who is the new City Administrator Community Development Director Jopke thanked Mike Ulrich for keeping “the ship afloat” and said he was very helpful on issues Staff had during his time as Interim City Administrator. Mike Ulrich thanked everyone for their kind words and said he had a lot of help from Staff. Council Member Marty thanked Mr. Ulrich for a job well done and said the Council did not feel as if they were “floundering” without an administrator while Mr. Ulrich was Interim City Administrator. Council Member Quick thanked Mr. Ulrich for his service to the City. Council Member Thomason thanked Mr. Ulrich for his service to the City. Mounds View City Council September 25, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 6. REPORTS Council Member Marty reported the Cable Commission met earlier on September 25, 2000 and discussed the goals the Commission wants to accomplish for Channel 98. He told the Council Channel 98 is up and running with 9 out of 10 of the “sister” cities on the air. He noted the Commission expects the last city to be on board shortly. He also noted the Commission would like to see an agenda on Channel 98 so viewers can review it and decide if they want to watch the meeting. Mayor Coughlin commended members of the Cable Commission for accomplishing this task. Council Member Thomason reported Northwest Youth and Family Services is in need of mentors to reach at risk children between the ages of 7 to 9 years old. Mayor Coughlin reported he attended the I-35 Corridor planning meeting and said it was a good meeting where some good ideas were exchanged. He informed members of the Council that he has informational materials available for anyone who is interested. He also reported to Council the I-35 Corridor group is working on a comprehensive plan for development in all cities on the I-35 corridor. Mayor Coughlin noted a person had not received notice of the opening on the Planning Commission and, therefore, the deadline will be extended to allow time for others interested in applying for the opening to do so. The deadline was extended to October 9, 2000. Assistant to the City Administrator Reed informed the Council she has been told by Ramsey County that the City must change the way they are running the election for the City Council positions. She indicated candidates must declare which term they are running for and this information must be on the ballot in November. She then clarified the City has three terms up for election and those are two four-year terms and one two-year term. She added the candidates have been notified of the need to declare which term they are seeking election to. Mayor Coughlin asked City Administrator Reed if she needed action of the Council on this matter. Assistant to the City Administrator Reed indicated at some point it may be necessary to change the City Charter to reflect the new requirement, but at this point no action of the Council is needed. No further reports were considered. 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims B. Licenses for Approval C. Adopt Resolution No. 5466 Establishing Fees for Tattoo and Body Piercing Licenses Mounds View City Council September 25, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to remove items for discussion. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Approve the Consent Agenda for Items A, B, and C, as presented. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR There was no resident input. 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Public Hearing, Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 5476, a Resolution Regarding the Development Stage of the Proposed Mermaid PUD Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 7:25 p.m. There was no public input. Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 7:26 p.m. Economic Development Coordinator Parish told the Council he had been informed by representatives from the Mermaid project that the Mermaid has altered the scope of the project due to financial constraints. He went on to say the development will be smaller and will not include the Perkins restaurant site. Economic Development Coordinator Parish recommended the Council continue the public hearing to allow time for review of the new site development plans he expects to receive from the Mermaid sometime next week. A consensus was reached by the Council and declared by Mayor Coughlin to continue the public hearing and table any action on Resolution 5476 until the October 9, 2000, Council Meeting. B. Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 5477 a Resolution Approving a Minor Subdivision of 2468 and 2474 County Road H2, Requested by RTM Management, Inc. Planning Associate Ericson explained that Raymond McManus, representing RTM Management, Inc. and the property owners, James Kuphal and Danine and David Super, are requesting approval of a minor subdivision to subdivide the rear 80 feet from 2474 and 2468 County Road H2 to create a buildable lot fronting Irondale Road. Minor subdivisions are those divisions of land less than two acres in size in which only one additional lot is created. Mounds View City Council September 25, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 The area of the proposed subdivision is zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential. The minimum lot size in this district is 11,000 square feet for an interior lot and 12,500 square feet for a corner lot. The property at 2474 County Road H2 is a corner lot. The comprehensive plan designates this area as single-family detached. The applicant has submitted a certificate of survey describing the proposed subdivision which the City Council reviewed at its work session on September 18, 2000. The two existing lots on County Road H2 are 75 feet wide and 288 feet deep, both 21,600 square feet in area. The proposed subdivision would create an 80-foot wide and 149-foot deep, 11,920 square-foot lot fronting Irondale Road. The new lot would conform to all zoning code requirements and would be considered a buildable parcel. The two remaining lots, at 15,600 square feet, would satisfy the minimum lot size requirement. Staff has forwarded the Certificate of Survey to the City’s Engineering Technician as well as to the Director of Public Works. Other than dedication of the perimeter utility easements, the certificate of survey is in proper form. The City Attorney will review the Certificate of Survey and any documentation needed to record the subdivision with Ramsey County. This subdivision is subject to park dedication requirements. The 5% fee is based upon the Ramsey County assessed land value of the land subdivided, less the value of any land already improved with single-family residential dwellings. In this case, the fee would apply to 11,920 square feet of land at an assessed value of $1.23 a square foot. The extrapolated value for the lot would be $14,662, five percent of which would amount to a fee of $733. This fee would need to be paid prior to the City approving the subdivision. The Planning Commission reviewed this item and recommended its approval on September 6, 2000. The resolution requires the survey be updated to show the standard five and ten foot drainage and utility easements, and also requires the applicant dedicate such easements via a separate document. Staff recommends approval of Resolution 5477, a resolution approving a minor subdivision of 2474 and 2468 County Road H2, subject to stipulations. Planning Associate Ericson told the Council some of the stipulations have already been met by the applicant. The applicant has submitted a revised survey, language regarding the separate drainage and utility easements has been added, and he has received a check in the amount of $733.00 for the park dedication fee. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5477, a Resolution Approving a Minor Subdivision of 2468 and 2474 County Road H2 with the stipulations noted. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View City Council September 25, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 6 C. Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 5458, a Resolution Approving the Mounds View City Hall Addition Final Plat. This item was withdrawn from the agenda. D. Consideration of Charter Commission Resolution 2000-04. City Attorney Riggs noted based on the letter of summary drafted by City Attorney Long there may or may not be reasons, from a legal standpoint, to adopt the Charter Commission resolutions. He indicated the Council does have discretion to do as they wish. Council Member Stigney noted City Attorney Long’s summary letter did not address Resolution 2000-04. Mayor Coughlin asked the Council how they wished to proceed with Resolution 2000-04. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Approve Charter Commission Resolution 2000-04 as presented. The motion died for lack of a second. MOTION/SECOND: Coughlin/Quick. To refer Charter Commission Resolution 2000-04 back to the Charter Commission and direct the City’s legal staff to draft a cover letter explaining to the Charter Commission the purpose behind this resolution which was intended as a housekeeping measure to bring the language of the Charter into compliance with state law and recent Supreme Court rulings and to request the Charter Commission change the resolution to address the housekeeping issue and the policy change in two separate resolutions. Council Member Stigney inquired of the City Attorney as to what made the resolution in violation of state law. He said to the best of his understanding the resolution was not in violation of state law. Mayor Coughlin clarified this resolution was one of four that were presented for adoption by ordinance because there was some wording in the original Charter which was not in keeping with state statutes, laws, or recent supreme court rulings. Council Member Stigney noted the language changes were in the resolution. Mayor Coughlin further clarified by saying there are two separate elements in the resolution. One is the legal housekeeping issue, and the other is a policy change. Mayor Coughlin indicated this is why he moved to separate the two issues. Council Member Stigney explained to the Council that the Charter Commission addressed the housekeeping issue and added a sentence directly after the sentence that reads “During any of its public meetings the council shall not prohibit but may place reasonable restrictions upon citizens comments and questions.” That sentence is as follows: “Such restrictions shall be similar to restrictions that the Council places upon its members.” Mounds View City Council September 25, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 7 Council Member Stigney noted the reason behind the Charter Commission adding the sentence is because the Council has ruled to limit citizens to three minutes regardless of the issue they are speaking on. Council Member Stigney said both he and the Charter Commission feel the new sentence offers a courtesy to residents when they are making their point before Council. He then said the matter could be referred back to the Charter Commission but there is no need to make a separate resolution as this was merely intended as an enhancement to the language of the Charter. Mayor Coughlin clarified his motion was not in any way speaking to the merits of the proposed addition but it is in keeping with recognizing there is a policy change that has been included in a housekeeping document and the two issues should be separated. Council Member Quick noted he agreed with Mayor Coughlin on the matter and then called the question. Mayor Coughlin noted a motion was made to call the question and called for a vote. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mayor Coughlin called for a vote on the earlier motion to separate the housekeeping issues from the policy issue in this resolution. Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. E. Consideration of Charter Commission Resolution 2000-05. Mayor Coughlin asked the City Attorney to summarize the proposed amendment to the Charter. City Attorney Riggs noted this resolution attempts to clarify changes in compensation for the Mayor and City Council Members. He noted City Attorney Long feels this resolution is not entirely necessary but is allowed if the Council sees fit to add it. He explained if a change is made this Council would not be able to change their compensation so this would be in effect for newly elected Council. He then commented the one change calls for a public hearing but that is not entirely necessary as a public hearing would already be required MOTION/SECOND: Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Approve Charter Commission Resolution 2000-05 as presented. The motion died for lack of a second. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To deny approval of Charter Commission Resolution 2000-05 as presented. Council Member Stigney asked Council Member Quick his basis for denial. Council Member Quick declined to comment. Mayor Coughlin noted the request from the Charter Commission was to adopt these resolutions by ordinance which means to adopt them without any considerable public input. This resolution and the resolutions following are policy decisions and he believes whether he agrees or disagrees Mounds View City Council September 25, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 8 with the resolution the people of the City of Mounds View should have input. He then said the City Charter belongs to the people of the City of Mounds View not to the Charter Commission and not to the City Council and he cannot in good conscience approve the resolutions as presented without public input. Council Member Stigney clarified what City Attorney Riggs had said by saying the charter amendment goes further than is now required by requiring publishing at least once in the City’s official legal newspaper not less than ten days prior to the date of the public hearing. Mayor Coughlin noted this is the case with all ordinance changes. Council Member Stigney stated the requirement to publish in a legal newspaper is not part of the present charter which is why it is underlined as an amendment to the charter. He noted the resolutions were submitted to the Council on June 2, 2000 so the Council could review and make any language changes they deemed necessary. He stated the City has “drug its feet” and it is too late to put the resolutions on the ballot in November for the general election if the Council does not approve them by ordinance. He also said he feels it is a shame that the legal system or the political system works in this way. Mayor Coughlin called for a vote on the motion. Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. Mayor Coughlin inquired of the attorney if the remaining resolutions could be heard together or if they needed to be heard separately. City Attorney Riggs recommended the Council hear the resolutions separately. F. Consideration of Charter Commission Resolution 2000-06. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Approve Charter Commission Resolution 2000-06 as presented. The motion died for lack of a second. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To deny approval of Charter Commission Resolution 2000- 06 as presented. Council Member Stigney commented the resolution is talking about commissions of the City and it adds a sentence that states “Members of such boards and commissions shall serve without compensation.” He noted the reason it was added is at an earlier retreat it was mentioned by the Mayor that the City start paying commission members a salary. The resolution was adopted by the Charter Commission unanimously requiring the City not pay a salary to commission members. He noted in the City Code it specifies the members of the EDC, Park and Recreation, and Planning Commission shall serve without compensation. He indicated the resolution was intended to make it difficult for this Council to change the City Code and begin paying compensation to those members who serve on a commission. Mounds View City Council September 25, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 9 City Attorney Riggs noted there is typically not a need to have language governing compensation of commission members in a City’s Charter but if the City would like it added there would not be a problem doing so. Mayor Coughlin clarified the origin of this proposed resolution as stemming from a comment he had made at a brainstorming session at a retreat attended by City Council Members where he had commented it may be an idea to compensate those that serve on commissions. He noted it was his intention to do nothing more than a sandwich or something equivalent. He further clarified there was not much comment on the “idea” other than it was not well received and garnered no support. Mayor Coughlin stated for the record his comment was made at an “idea session” and he feels the matter could have been dealt with on a much smaller level rather than attempting to include it in the City’s Charter. Council Member Marty indicated it was his opinion the “idea” was just a brainstorming idea that got no discussion at all and he is surprised to see a resolution drafted addressing the idea. Council Member Stigney commented he had given opposition to it at the retreat, the resolution is before the Council because he is on the Charter Commission, and he and the Charter Commission felt the idea had a possibility of being enacted. Mayor Coughlin took exception and concurred with Council Member Marty there was virtually no discussion including opposition at the retreat. Mayor Coughlin called for a vote on the motion. Ayes - 4 Nays - 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. G. Consideration of Charter Commission Resolution 2000-07 MOTION/SECOND: Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Approve Charter Commission Resolution 2000-07 as presented. The motion died for lack of a second. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomason. To deny approval of Charter Commission Resolution 2000-07 as presented. Council Member Stigney explained the purpose of this amendment is to require the City to notify residents that the franchise fee is going to be changing and to what extent. The new section reads: “The Council shall hold a public hearing on any action to impose, modify or continue a franchise fee. Such action shall be enacted by ordinance. Notice of such hearing shall be published at least once in the City newsletter and in the official newspaper not less than ten days prior to the date of the hearing.” Council Member Stigney stated he takes exception to the motion of Council to deny the change calling for notification of the residents of a franchise fee. Mayor Coughlin took exception to Council Member Stigney’s comments as the motion to deny has nothing to do with the merits of the amendment to the Charter. Mounds View City Council September 25, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 10 Council Member Stigney asked the Mayor to clarify his statement. Mayor Coughlin referred him back to his earlier comment wherein he indicated neither he nor the Council is speaking to the merits of the resolutions. Mayor Coughlin commented any Council Member may, at any time, call for public notice and without getting into the merits of the resolution he stated for clarification of Council this resolution is something that could be dealt with without changing the founding documents of the City. Council Member Marty noted the current Council is following the lead of the previous Council when it comes to the franchise fees being approved for a one-year period. Council Member Marty noted he would prefer the franchise fee be addressed as part of the budget process every year. Council Member Quick noted the information on franchise fees is clearly addressed at the budgeting session every year. Council Member Stigney clarified the amendment is calling for notice to be published in the City newsletter and the official newspaper which is has not occurred because “the Charter does not require it.” Mayor Coughlin called for a vote on the motion. Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. H. Consideration of Charter Commission Resolution 2000-09 MOTION/SECOND: Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Approve Charter Commission Resolution 2000-09 as presented. The motion died for lack of a second. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To deny approval of Charter Commission Resolution 2000- 09 as presented. Council Member Stigney said the amendment is lengthy and noted the basic idea of the amendment is to establish some constraints on tax increment financing within the City as 22% of the City is in tax increment financing districts now which the City does not derive any tax benefits from until the districts are closed out. He acknowledged money goes into a pool for use on tax increment financing projects. This amendment states once the districts are closed out the City cannot open up new tax increment financing districts if it would exceed 15%. Council Member Quick inquired as to whether, when the district is set up, all the value in that district is taken into account and only the increase in value caused by that project is placed in the pool. Mounds View City Council September 25, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 11 Economic Development Coordinator Aaron Parish confirmed the statement of Council Member Quick. Council Member Quick noted the City is not losing 22% of the City’s worth but only the increase which the City receives 10% of to do with as the City sees fit within the constraints of state law. Council Member Stigney clarified he had stated that 22% of the City’s tax increment financing districts are property based and regardless of how much of the increment the City uses to put into a pool, if there was no Tax Increment Financing district, or if the district were closed out, there could be a development and all of the money from that development would go to the City. Economic Development Coordinator Parish said Council Member Stigney was correct in saying the City receives 22% of the annual tax levy in tax increment financing funds on an annual basis and Council Member Quick had correctly pointed out that it is the increase in taxes. He indicated what was there when the districts were certified still is distributed to the various taxing jurisdictions. He then explained the reason the City certifies TIF districts is to create a tax base. Council Member Quick inquired as to what projects had come into the City using TIF funds. Economic Development Coordinator Parish told the Council the Mounds View Business Park, Multi-Tech Systems Inc., CG Hill & Sons, Sysco, Zep, Midwest I.V., and some residential projects including Silver Lake Point which is a senior facility. He indicated some projects are done with tax increment financing assistance and then grow into developments that do not use tax increment financing assistance. Council Member Stigney noted the proposed amendment is not lowering the percentage of current TIF districts but limiting the creation of new TIF districts to 15%. City Attorney Riggs referred the Council to City Attorney Long’s summary letter on this resolution wherein Mr. Long indicated it may or may not be permissible to change the Charter to reflect this TIF restriction. He said it is questionable even if the resolution passes and is put in the Charter that the City could enforce it. Council Member Quick called the question. Mayor Coughlin called for a vote on the motion to move the question. Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. Mayor Coughlin called for a vote on the motion. Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. Council Member Stigney inquired as to if the Council is in violation of Minnesota Statutes Section 410.12, Subd. 1 by denying approval of the resolutions. Mounds View City Council September 25, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 12 Mayor Coughlin commented it was his understanding, after reading City Attorney Long’s letter, that City Attorney Long was concerned that the Charter Commission was asking first for this to be considered under one statute and, in the same document, is asking to have it considered under a different statute. Mayor Coughlin noted it was the opinion of City Attorney Long that this was not in order. City Attorney Riggs said the City was not in violation of Minnesota Statute Section 410.12, Subd. 1 because there is a dual purpose resolution before the Council from the Charter Commission and it is the opinion of City Attorney Long that it is questionable whether or not it can be presented this way to the Council. I. First Reading of Ordinance 669, an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Northern States Power Company Electric and Natural Gas Operations within the City of Mounds View. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Waive the Reading and Introduce First Reading of Ordinance 669, an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Northern States Power Company Electric and Natural Gas Operations within the City of Mounds View. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. J. First Reading of Ordinance 670, an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Reliant Energy Minnegasco Natural Gas Operations within the City of Mounds View. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Introduce First Reading of Ordinance 670, an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Reliant Energy Minnegasco Natural Gas Operations within the City of Mounds View. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. K. Closed Session. Harstad Lawsuit. Mayor Coughlin noted this item was heard in a closed meeting prior to the start of this meeting and indicated it should have been removed from the agenda. 11. Next Council Work Session: Monday, October 2, 2000 – 6:00 P.M. Next Council Meeting: Monday, October 9, 2000 – 7:00 P.M. 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Coughlin adjourned the meeting at 8:12 p.m. Transcribed and recorded by: Joan Lenzmeier TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No. 7B 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 9, 2000 Please consider the following contractor licenses for approval. The licenses listed will expire on December 31, 2000. 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 have not been licensed within the past two years. Those defined as “renewal” were licensed in the last half of 1999. HVAC Strohmayer Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. – New Boiler Services, Inc. – New Metro Sheet Metal, Inc. - New Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested. Item No. 7C Staff Report No. Meeting Date: October 9, 2000 Type of Business: C.B. 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: Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works Item Title/Subject: Approval of Playground Equipment and Funding Date of Report: August 29, 2018 At the October 2, 2000, Council work session, staff presented the quotes for the playground equipment for Woodcrest Park. Council concurred with staff that purchasing a structure that would provide activity for a wider range of age groups would be a better utilization of funds. Therefore staff recommends the purchase of the equipment from Minnesota / Wisconsin Playground for a total of $30,368.59. An additional $12,368.59 will be transferred from the Park Dedication Fund to the Park Capital Equipment Fund, 100-4360-7030. _________________________________ Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works RECOMMENDATION: Council award the quote for playground equipment to MN. / Wis. Playground for $30,368.59 and transfer an additional $12,368.59 from the Park Dedication Fund to the Park Capital Equipment Fund, 100-4360-7030. C:\Mike's documents\staff reports\Parks\Woodcrest Play award.doc Item No. 7D Meeting Date: October 9, 2000 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: Tracy Juell, Administrative Assistant Item Title/Subject: Resolution No. 5479, Approving the 2001 SCORE Recycling Grant Request to Ramsey County Date of Report: August 29, 20182000 In conjunction with Ramsey County and the State of Minnesota SCORE Program, the City of Mounds View is eligible to apply for grant monies to fund 2001 recycling activities. As a part of the grant application, the City Council must formally request the funding. The attached 2001 SCORE funding grant application describes Mounds View=s recycling program and proposed budget allocations. Please note, SCORE funds may only be used for their allocated purposes (i.e., administration funds may not be used for publicity costs.) Tracy Juell, Administrative Assistant RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 5479 Approving the 2001 SCORE Recycling Grant request to Ramsey County. RESOLUTION NO. 5479 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2001 SCORE RECYCLING GRANT REQUEST TO RAMSEY COUNTY WHEREAS, Ramsey County is accepting applications for use of SCORE funds to improve recycling participation by the public; and WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View is eligible to apply for a grant to provide administrative and promotional activities intended to improve recycling participation among city residents through education, awareness, and incentives; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mounds View has determined that this is an appropriate use of city resources and that increasing recycling participation benefits the public health, safety, and welfare of the community as a whole. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mounds View approve the application for 2001 SCORE funding (attachment) and authorize acceptance of any allocated funding. Adopted this 9th day of October, 2000 (SEAL) Mayor Dan Coughlin ATTEST: Kathleen Miller, City Administrator Item No: 10A Meeting Date: October 10, 2000 Type of Business: PH & CB WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor & City Council From: James Ericson, Planner Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing, Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 5476, a Resolution Approving the Development Stage Plans for the Proposed Mermaid PUD Consisting of a Hotel and Banquet Center Addition to the Mermaid Entertainment Complex, 2200 Highway 10. Date of Report: October 5, 2000 Background: Dan Hall is seeking City approval of development stage plans for the proposed Planned Unit Development which contemplates a 70-room hotel and a 500-seat banquet center to be attached to and integrated with the existing complex. On September 6, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a set of development stage plans date-stamped August 10, 2000. Prior to City Council review, however, the plans were amended to such a degree that reapproval by the Planning Commission was deemed necessary. The Planning Commission reviewed the revised plans and on October 4, 2000, approved Resolution 637-00 which recommends approval of the Mermaid’s development stage plans. Discussion: As mentioned at the Worksession meeting on October 2, 2000, there are a number of changes contemplated by the revised development stage plans. The most noticeable change is that the hotel has been scaled back to three stories and 70 rooms from the initial four-story, 96-room plan and that the Perkins site is no longer a component of the Mermaid expansion. (It has been proposed that the restaurant building will be converted to an office use.) The water park, which was a separate building located in the hotel courtyard, is now shown to be attached to the east wing of the hotel, replaced with parking in the courtyard area. The total area of the revised PUD is approximately 9.36 acres, which includes the three existing Mermaid Parcels, the Rent-All parcel, Music Off 10 and the dry holding pond associated with the business park development. (The minimum requirement for a commercial PUD is 5 acres.) The existing business park access drive from County Road H would be shifted to the west to maximize the contiguous parking area for the proposed development. Mermaid Report October 10, 2000 Page 2 The City Council has been provided with a set of plans date-stamped September 28, 2000, for the proposed expansion. The plans include a preliminary site plan, a preliminary utility plan, a preliminary grading plan, a preliminary landscape plan, an existing conditions plan, an overall floor plan, exterior elevations, an enlarged banquet floor plan, hotel floor plans, and a revised photometric analysis of the site. Dimensional Requirements: Parking: The site plan (Page C-2 of the submitted plans) indicates the proposed and anticipated configuration of the development. As shown on this plan, a total of 828 parking stalls would be required with the addition of the hotel and the banquet center. The plans indicate that a total of 832 spaces can be provided on the site, but only if the parking lot setbacks are reduced from the B-3 zoning district-required 30 feet to five feet along Highway 10 and County Road H. Such a reduction in the setback requirement is allowed via the PUD process, which explicitly states that a purpose and intent of the PUD is to allow for variation from the provisions of the Zoning Code, including setbacks, parking, height, lot area, etc. Because of the number of complimentary uses, staff and the Planning Commission believe that 828 stalls may be more parking that what is necessary. For this reason, Staff and the Planning Commission would suggest that the minimum parking required for this site—according to the specifications and area indicated on the plans date- stamped September 28, 2000—be reduced from 828 to 808. This will be addressed within the PUD Document. Parking lot setback: As mentioned above, the setback of the parking lot can be reduced via the PUD process. Approaching this in the strictest sense, if the setbacks requirements were to be enforced without deviation, as many as 175 parking stalls would be lost. The net effect of such a loss would mean either the banquet center would be reduced in size and capacity by 50 percent or more, or the hotel would need to be completely eliminated. Neither scenario would be feasible based upon the already submitted cost and earnings projections. This setback configuration met with the approval of both the Planning Commission and City Council at the concept stage of this development. Building setbacks: The Building setbacks are different from point to point, but generally speaking, the bowling area would remain unchanged at a minimum setback of 60 feet, the dining and bar area would be more than 200 feet, the hotel addition would be a minimum of 100 feet, while the banquet center would be setback 50 feet. All of these setbacks satisfy the current B-3 zoning requirements. Building Design: The proposed hotel expansion would be professionally designed to be aesthetically pleasing and would tie in to the existing facility. The hotel addition would be constructed of prefabricated concrete walls and would be finished with maintenance-free siding accentuated with sections of Exterior Finish Insulation System (EFIS). A materials board has been submitted and will be available for viewing at the meeting. Other than the relocated main entrance and the painting of the existing exterior walls to match the new additions, no other changes to the existing building are planned. Mermaid Report October 10, 2000 Page 3 Signage: The applicant plans to retain the multi-colored electronic sign along Highway 10 and proposes three directional signs along County Road H. The additional signage is indicated to be of a monument design, which should be encouraged over a pylon type of sign. Refer to Figure 1 for an example of the proposed directional monument signage. The applicant proposes four building signs total; one for the AmericInn (Figure 2), one for the Mermaid Nightclub (Figure 3), one for the Mermaid Restaurant and one for the Mermaid Lanes. Table 1 on the following page indicates the total sign area proposed by the applicant. Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Mermaid Report October 10, 2000 Page 4 The applicant has indicated that the corner of the property adjacent to Highway 10 and County Road H would be reserved for the City to install a gateway entry sign. The site plans have been revised to indicate this easement area. A separate easement document will need to be executed by Mr. Hall and recorded with the Ramsey County to make it official. Table 1. Proposed Site Signage Area. Sign Type Sign Text Area Sign 1. Wall Mounted Mermaid Nightclub 255 square feet Sign 2. Wall Mounted Mermaid Restaurant 270 square feet Sign 3. Wall Mounted Mermaid Lanes 195 square feet Sign 4. Wall Mounted AmericInn 69 square feet Sign 5. Directional Monument Entrance – Hotel, Restaurant, Night Club 20 square feet Sign 6. Directional Monument Entrance – Cabot Properties 20 square feet Sign 7. Directional Monument Entrance – Banquet Center 20 square feet Total Proposed Signage: 849 Square feet Under the B-3 zoning provisions, the amount of signage that would be allowed for this development would be limited to 340 square feet for a pedestal sign and 100 square feet for each building occupant. Given the five uses within the building (hotel, bowling lanes, restaurant, night club and banquet center) a total of 840 square feet of signage could be allowed. The Mermaid has an existing 162 square-foot, multi- colored, electronic changing message pedestal sign along Highway 10 which would bring the total signage on the site to 1,011 square feet. Staff feels the directional monument signs to be a necessary component of the signage package yet considers the amount of signage devoted to the Mermaid uses to be excessive. Staff recommends that the total amount of signage on the property—including the existing pedestal sign--be limited to 850 square feet. The applicant has agreed to this request. Landscaping: The landscape plan submitted with the site plans indicates conceptual plantings of trees in the parking lot islands and along the front of the building facing Highway 10. While any proposed landscaping is an improvement over what is currently present on the site, the PUD requirements stipulate that the landscape plan shall identify the specific types and numbers of plantings to be utilized and shall be reviewed by the City Forester. The plan indicates the planting of 25 deciduous trees and 4 coniferous trees with additional unnamed plantings in the courtyard area. Staff will seek input from the City Forester as to appropriate species from those listed and for any other suggestions to improve the landscape plan. Trailways: To comply with the proposed Comprehensive Plan and the Mounds View Trails and Sidewalk Plan, the applicant shall be responsible for installing a bituminous trailway along its Highway 10 property frontage. As with the discussion concerning Walgreens, Dan Soler with Ramsey County has verbally indicated that the trailway could be located within the Highway 10 right of way as close to the Mermaid property as possible. The site plan shows the trailway extending north beyond the project area Mermaid Report October 10, 2000 Page 5 in front of the Perkins site. While Perkins is no longer part of the PUD, staff would recommend that the trailway and lighting remain as shown on the plan. Lighting: A photometric analysis has been submitted in conjunction with the development stage plans. The City Code requires that any lighting used to illuminate off-street parking be hooded to eliminate glare on public streets. In addition, the light shall not exceed 1.0 footcandles at the centerline of any adjoining street. It appears as though the footcandle readings comply with this requirement. The applicant intends to utilize the existing parking lot lighting where possible with the addition of new light fixtures at the southern end of the building. No specifications were provided for the proposed new lighting. The site plan does indicate the location of six decorative lights along the Highway 10 trailway. Because the City is working with NSP to install these lights, the applicant will need to submit a payment directly to the City to cover the cost of installation. Such amount would then be deducted form any required letter of credit or cash surety involved with the financial guarantee of the public improvements. Access: The proposed site plan indicates two Highway 10 accesses and two County Road H accesses. While this would not represent a change from the existing configuration, the two accesses serving the Rent-All property would be eliminated. No new accesses, other than the relocated access to the business park, are contemplated with this proposal. The northern Highway 10 access is actually located on the Perkins property, although there is a joint use agreement filed regarding the access. Drainage and Utility: Staff and the City’s engineer have been working closely with the applicant and Rice Creek Watershed District to create a regional stormwater holding pond that would be located partly on the Metro Waste Control property and partly on Edgewood Middle School property. While the final drainage plans and use agreements are still being drafted, all indications are that all parties--including Rice Creek Watershed District--will approve the stormwater project. The benefits of this proposed stormwater pond would be immense, in that stormwater runoff from the Mermaid site currently drains untreated directly into Rice Creek. Recommendation: Review and discuss the revised development stage plans and consider action on Resolution 5476, a resolution approving the development stage plans for the proposed Mermaid PUD subject to the following stipulations: 1. The lighting plan shall be revised to show the light fixture specifications and light standard heights to be used for the new exterior building and parking lot illumination. 2. The total building, monument and pedestal signage to be used on the development shall be limited to 850 square feet. 3. The applicant shall execute a sign easement document which dedicates to the City the area to be used for a gateway sign at the corner of Highway 10 and County Road H. Mermaid Report October 10, 2000 Page 6 4. As required by the Planned Unit Development section of the City Code, the applicant shall execute a development agreement pertaining to the Mermaid PUD, which will serve as the guiding and controlling document for this development. 5. The landscape plan shall be further revised to show the specific types and numbers of plantings to be used within this development and shall be approved by the City Forester. _____________________________________ James Ericson, Planner Attachments: 1. Development Stage Plans, date-stamped 9/28/00 (Separate Attachment) 2. Resolution 5476 P:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\Mermaid Hotel (ZC00-003, DE00-003, MA00-002)\Mermaid Report - Oct 10, 2000.doc Mermaid Report October 10, 2000 Page 7 RESOLUTION NO. 5476 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANS FOR THE PROPOSED MERMAID PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, 2200 HIGHWAY 10; PLANNING CASE NO. PD00-002 WHEREAS, Dan Hall, representing The Mermaid, Inc., has made application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and is requested approval of the PUD development stage plans; and, WHEREAS, The Mermaid is located at 2200 Highway 10 and is currently zoned B-3, Business Commercial; and, WHEREAS, the PIN numbers of the properties associated with this PUD proposal are as follows: 08-30-23-43-0006 - Mermaid 08-30-23-43-0007 - Mermaid 08-30-23-43-0008 - Mermaid 08-30-23-43-0009 - Rent All 08-30-23-43-0005 - Music Off 10 08-30-23-43-0023 - Mounds View Business Park South Condo (part) WHEREAS, on August 14, 2000, the Mounds View City Council approved the Mermaid PUD general concept plan and on October 4, 2000, the Mounds View Planning Commission recommended approval of the development stage plans; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed Chapter 1120 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to planned unit developments; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the land use component of the Comprehensive Plan relative to this request; and, WHEREAS, The Mounds View City Council has reviewed the site plans date-stamped September 28, 2000, relative to this request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council finds that the development stage plan of the proposed planned unit development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Municipal Code and approves said plans with the following stipulations: Mermaid Report October 10, 2000 Page 8 6. The lighting plan shall be revised to show the light fixture specifications and light standard heights to be used for the new exterior building and parking lot illumination. 7. The total building, monument and pedestal signage to be used on the development shall be limited to 850 square feet. 8. The applicant shall execute a sign easement document which dedicates to the City the area to be used for a gateway sign at the corner of Highway 10 and County Road H. 9. The landscape plan shall be further revised to show the specific types and numbers of plantings to be used within this development and shall be approved by the City Forester. 10. As required by the Planned Unit Development section of the City Code, the applicant shall execute a PUD Document and Development Contract pertaining to the Mermaid PUD, which will serve as the guiding and controlling documents for this development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council approves of a rezoning of the associated properties from B-3 to PUD and directs staff to prepare an ordinance to effectuate such a rezoning and to set a public hearing for such action. Adopted this 10th day of October, 2000 _________________________________________ Dan Coughlin, Mayor Attest: ________________________________________ Kathleen Miller, City Clerk - Administrator P:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\Mermaid Hotel (ZC00-003, DE00-003, MA00-002)\Resolution 5476.doc Item No: 10B Meeting Date: October 10, 2000 Type of Business: CB City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor & City Council From: James Ericson, Planner Item Title/Subject: Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 5458, a Resolution Approving the Final Plat of “Mounds View City Hall Addition” Date of Report: October 5, 2000 Discussion: The applicant, Bob Cunningham, representing TOLD Development Company, has submitted a revised and corrected final plat date-stamped October 4, 2000, for the proposed Mounds View City Hall Addition major subdivision. The plat encompasses the entirety of the City Hall campus, the Public Works buildings, the Community Center, the remnant parcel created by the realignment of Edgewood Drive, and the Midland Videen open space. The plat creates two buildable lots, one of which would be utilized for a Walgreens and the other for a restaurant use, as allowed by the approved Planned Unit Development (PUD). The plat also creates an outlot (which will be transferred to the City) and creates a lot for the Community Center and for the entire City Hall campus. On August 14, 2000, the City Council approved Resolution 5454, which approved the preliminary plat of the Mounds View City Hall Addition. The resolution required that the plat be revised to show (1) a drainage and utility easement around the relocated and enlarged stormwater pond, (2) a five-foot drainage and utility easement around the outer-perimeter of proposed Lots 2 and 3, Block 2, and (3) notations pertaining to the vacation of the old Edgewood Drive. These changes have been made. A copy of the final plat has been forwarded to the City Attorney for review, who finds it consistent with the preliminary plat , the City Code and Minnesota platting requirements. The resolution approving the final plat is subject to County approval and stipulates that before City signatures are placed upon the final plat, the developer shall have paid the $44,529 park dedication fee. Recommendation: Approve Resolution 5458, a resolution approving the final plat for the Mounds View City Hall Addition major subdivision, with stipulations as noted. ____________________ James Ericson, Planner F:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\Walgreens (MA00-001, ZC00-002, DE00-002)\Final Plat Report - Sept 25, 2000.doc Resolution No. 5458 October 10, 2000 Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 5458 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT FOR THE “MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL ADDITION” PROPOSED BY TOLD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY; PLANNING CASE NO. PD00-001 WHEREAS, TOLD Development Company (hereinafter the “Developer”) has applied for a Major Subdivision to subdivide and reorganize properties within its proposed planned unit development at the northeast corner of Highway 10 and Edgewood Drive; and, WHEREAS, a final plat date-stamped September 18, 2000, entitled “MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL ADDITION” has been submitted by the applicant; and, WHEREAS, the properties included with the Major Subdivision are legally-described as follows: (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT 1) WHEREAS, on January 10, 2000, the City Council of the City of Mounds View approved Resolution 5409 which gave authority to the Developer to submit an application for a Planned Unit Development and Major Subdivision inclusive of City-owned property; and, WHEREAS, on August 14, 2000, the City Council of the City of Mounds View approved Resolution 5454 which approved the preliminary plat of the proposed Mounds View City Hall Addition major subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan recommended for approval by the Mounds View Planning Commission designates the parcels associated with the PUD as CC-PUD, Community Commercial Planned Unit Development; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the proposed final plat of the Mounds View City Hall Addition and finds it to be consistent with the preliminary plat and in conformance with Resolution 5454 and with all applicable sections of the Mounds View Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the following documents relative to this proposal: 1. Application, dated May 8, 2000 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map Resolution No. 5458 October 10, 2000 Page 3 4. Property Survey, prepared by Loucks Associates, date-stamped June 30, 2000. 5. Preliminary Plat, prepared by Loucks Associates, date-stamped August 10, 2000. 6. Final Plat, prepared by Loucks Associates, date-stamped Oct. 4, 2000. 7. Resolution 5409, adopted January 10, 2000 8. Resolution 5454, adopted August 14, 2000 9. Planning Commission Resolution 623-00, approved July 19, 2000 WHEREAS, the City Attorney has reviewed the final plat and finds it to be in conformance with all applicable sections of the Mounds View Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the conditions and requirements regarding the proposed exchange of real property between the City and the Developer are fully addressed in the Contract for Private Development; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has received a recommendation of approval from the Mounds View Planning Commission as stated in Planning Commission Resolution No. 623-00. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council, having already approved the preliminary plat, approves the final plat for the Mounds View City Hall Addition subject to the terms and conditions as stated in the Contract for Private Development and subject to stipulations as follows: 1. The developer shall submit the park dedication fee in the amount of $44,529 prior to City signatures being placed upon the Mounds View City Hall Addition plat. 2. The developer shall have executed the Contract for Private development prior to City signatures being placed upon the Mounds View City Hall Addition plat. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that approval of this final plat is subject to approval by and recordation with Ramsey County, which shall occur within four months of Council approval. The developer shall furnish the City with a reproducible copy of the final plat showing evidence of the recording; otherwise the approval of the final plat shall be void. Resolution No. 5458 October 10, 2000 Page 4 Adopted this 10th day of October, 2000. ______________________________ Dan Coughlin, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Kathleen Miller, City Clerk/Administrator (SEAL) X:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\WALGREENS (MA00-001, ZC00-002, DE00-002)\RESOLUTION 5458 - FINAL PLAT.DOC Exhibit 1. Legal Descriptions for Major Subdivision: City Hall: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23, lying North of State Highway 10- 62, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota. AND The North 30 feet of the West 254 feet of the South 15 Acres of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 30 North, Range 23 West, and all that part of the South 15 Acres lying Northeasterly of State Highway 10-62 Except the West 254 feet thereof, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota. Community Lots 19, 20, 21, and 22; That part of Lot 16, lying North of a line drawn between Center: the Southeasterly corner of Lot 19 and the Southwesterly corner of Lot 4, except the East 66 feet of said Lot 16; all in Block 5, Pinewood Terrace No. 2, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota. Midland All of Lots 17 and 18 and that part of the East 66 feet of Lot 16 lying North of a Videen: line drawn between the Southeasterly corner of Lot 19 and the Southwesterly corner of Lot 4, also that part of Lot 16 lying South of a line drawn between the Southeasterly corner of Lot 19 and the Southwesterly corner of Lot 4, all in Block 5, Pinewood Terrace No. 2, according to the recorded plot thereof, and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota. AND The tract described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 17, Block 5, Pinewood Terrace No. 2, Village of Mounds View, Minnesota, according to the recorded plot thereof; thence South along the West line of said Lot 17 a distance of 55.19 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence on a curve to the left with a radius of 20 feet and delta angle of 90 degrees 32 minutes 30 seconds a distance of 31.61 feet; thence East along the South line of said Lot 17 a distance of 72.19 feet; thence South on a line parallel to the West line of said Pinewood Terrace No. 2 a distance of 66.91 feet; thence on a curve to the right with a radius of 62.5 feet and delta angle of 90 degrees 32 minutes 30 seconds a distance of 98.77 feet; thence West on a tangent to last said curve a distance of 28.91 feet; thence North on a line parallel to and 33 feet East of said West line a distance of 149.81 feet, more or less, to the actual point of beginning, according to the recorded plot thereof, and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota. M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2000\City Council\Council Packets\10-10-00\Item 10C--Ord 670, Minnegasco Franchise Fee 2001-- Bruce Kessel.doc SJR-186449v1 MU210-14 ORDINANCE NO. 670 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING A FRANCHISE FEE ON RELIANT ENERGY MINNEGASCO NATURAL GAS OPERATIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 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 Minnegasco (“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 Minnegasco under its natural gas Franchise in the amount of four (4.0) percent of Minnegasco’s gross revenues, as defined in Section 4.1 of the Franchise commencing with Minnegasco’s January 2001 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. Minnegasco shall make each payment when due and shall quarterly furnish a complete and correct statement of gross revenues for said quarter. Minnegasco 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. M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2000\City Council\Council Packets\10-10-00\Item 10C--Ord 670, Minnegasco Franchise Fee 2001-- Bruce Kessel.doc SJR-186449v1 MU210-14 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 Minnegasco by certified mail. Subd. 8. Sunset Clause. This ordinance shall automatically sunset on December 31, 2001. SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect as provided herein. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 25th day of September, 2000. Read and passed by the City Council of the city of Mounds View this 10th day of October, 2000. _____________________________________ Dan Coughlin, Mayor _____________________________________ Kathleen F. Miller, City Clerk-Administrator APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ City Attorney M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2000\City Council\Council Packets\10-10-00\Item 10D--Ord 671--NSP Franchise Fee 2001--Bruce Kessel.docSJR-186450v2 MU125-63 ORDINANCE NO. 671 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING A FRANCHISE FEE ON NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY ELECTRIC AND NATURAL GAS OPERATIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 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 Northern States Power Company (“NSP”), a franchise fee of not more than four (4.0) percent of NSP’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 NSP under its electric and natural gas Franchise Agreements in the amount of four (4.0) percent of NSP’s gross revenues, as defined in Section 4.2 of the Franchise Agreements, commencing with NSP’s January 2001 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. NSP shall make each payment when due and shall quarterly furnish a complete and correct statement of gross revenues for said quarter. NSP shall permit the City and its designated representative free access to the company’s records for the purpose of verifying such statements. M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2000\City Council\Council Packets\10-10-00\Item 10D--Ord 671--NSP Franchise Fee 2001--Bruce Kessel.docSJR-186450v2 MU125-63 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 NSP by certified mail. Subd. 8. Sunset Clause. This ordinance shall automatically sunset on December 31, 2001. SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect as provided herein. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 25th day of September, 2000. Read and passed by the City Council of the city of Mounds View this 10th day of October, 2000. _____________________________________ Dan Coughlin, Mayor _____________________________________ Kathleen F. Miller, City Clerk-Administrator APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ City Attorney