Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2000/07/24M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2000\City Council\Council Packets\07-24-00\(Revised) Agenda--July 24, 2000, City Council Meeting.doc CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNCIL AGENDA Monday, July 24, 2000 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomason 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. June 26, 2000 B. June 12, 2000 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: 6. REPORTS 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims B. Licenses for Approval C. Resolution 5452 to Accept Grant Funding for Safe & Sober Traffic Enforcement Project D. Approval and Authorization of Edgewood Drive / City Hall Park Lighting Project E. Accept Local Surface Water Management Plan and Approve its Release to Various Agencies F. Set a Public Hearing for 7:05 p.m., Monday, August 14, 2000, to Discuss and Consider (1) Resolution 5453, a Resolution Approving the Wetland Alteration Permit and Development Review Stage of the Proposed Walgreens PUD; (2) Resolution 5454, a Resolution Approving the Preliminary Plat of the Proposed Walgreens Major Subdivision; (3) the First Reading (Introduction) of Ordinance 665, an Ordinance Rezoning Properties Associated with the Walgreens Development from B-3 and PF to PUD; and (4) the First Reading (Introduction) of Ordinance 666, an Ordinance Vacating the Old Edgewood Drive Right of Way Included within the Proposed Walgreens PUD. G. Set a Public Hearing for 7:10 p.m., August 14, 2000, to Discuss and Consider the First Reading (Introduction) of Ordinance 663, an Ordinance Creating Language to Administer and Regulate Tattoo and Body Piercing Establishments within the City of Mounds View. H. Set a Public Hearing for 7:15 p.m. relating to the proposal of the Mounds View Economic Development Authority (the “EDA”) to amend the Project Plan for the EDA’s Mounds View Economic Development Project (the “Project”) and to amend the tax increment financing plans for the tax increment financing districts heretofore established within the Project to reflect increased development goals, activities, expenses and bonded indebtedness; all pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through 469.047, 469.090 through 469.108, 469.124 through 469.134, and 469.174 through 469.179. M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2000\City Council\Council Packets\07-24-00\(Revised) Agenda--July 24, 2000, City Council Meeting.doc Council Meeting July 24, 2000 Page –2- 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 for the Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 658, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1103 of the Zoning Code Pertaining to Fences and Fence Heights – Jim Ericson 7:10 B. Public Hearing for the Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 664, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1106 of the Zoning Code Pertaining to Accessory Buildings -- Jim Ericson C. Consideration of business license applications-Givonna Reed D. Resolution 5456 approving Rice Creek Watershed District Ponding Concept Plan for Greenfield Park 11. Next Council Work Session: Monday, August 7, 2000 Next Council Meeting: Monday, August 14, 2000 12. ADJOURNMENT M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2000\City Council\Council Packets\07-24-00\Agenda -- July 24, 2000 City Council Meeting.doc CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNCIL AGENDA Monday, July 24, 2000 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomason 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. June 26, 2000 B. June 12, 2000 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: 6. REPORTS 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims B. Licenses for Approval C. Resolution 5452 to Accept Grant Funding for Safe & Sober Traffic Enforcement Project D. Approval and Authorization of Edgewood Drive / City Hall Park Lighting Project E. Accept Local Surface Water Management Plan and Approve its Release to Various Agencies 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 for the Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 658, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1103 of the Zoning Code Pertaining to Fences and Fence Heights – Jim Ericson 7:10 B. Public Hearing for the Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 664, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1106 of the Zoning Code Pertaining to Accessory Buildings -- Jim Ericson C. Consideration of business license applications-Givonna Reed M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2000\City Council\Council Packets\07-24-00\Agenda -- July 24, 2000 City Council Meeting.doc Council Meeting July 24, 2000 Page –2- 11. Next Council Work Session: Monday, August 7, 2000 Next Council Meeting: Monday, August 14, 2000 12. ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting June 26, 2000 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 7:00 P.M. 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Quick, Stigney and Thomason. Council Member Marty joined the meeting at 7:03 p.m. NOT PRESENT: None. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Monday, June 26, 2000, City Council Agenda. Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to add items to the agenda. MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Stigney. To accept the June 26, 2000, City Council Agenda as presented. Ayes – 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Council Member Marty was not present for this vote. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Monday, June 12, 2000, City Council Minutes. Mayor Coughlin stated the minutes were just received this afternoon and requested consideration be postponed until the next meeting. The Council agreed. 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS None. Mounds View City Council June 26, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 2 6. REPORTS Mayor Coughlin announced the second workshop of the North Metro I-35 Corridor Coalition Subregional Growth Study which is scheduled for this Wednesday, June 28, 2000, from 5:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. He noted they would like a Councilmember, the Mayor, the Community Development Director, and a Planning Commissioner to be in attendance. Mayor Coughlin offered an invitation to any interested Councilmember to join him. He indicated if no one is interested, he will attempt to recruit another commission member. He advised their discussion will center around smart growth and address where growth will happen to coordinate transportation, infrastructure, and technology to reflect anticipated growth. Council Member Marty arrived at 7:03 p.m. Council Member Marty reported on the recent Planning Commission workshop and discussion held on garages and sheds. He advised that this topic was referred to staff for summarization and preliminary report. Council Member Marty noted the Festival in the Park is coming up in several weeks, July 7-9, 2000. He stated some information on this event has been advertised in local newspapers and he wanted, as the Co-Chair, to announce the golf tournament with registration being open until the June 30, 2000. He advised interested participants they can sign up for this event at the golf course. Council Member Marty commented that many good prizes will be awarded at the raffles and tournament which will be held July 8, 2000. Council Member Marty stated he attended the Cable Commission meeting where a report was received by Cora Wilson. He advised that two franchise applications are being considered, one from WideOpenWest (WOW) and the other from Everest Cable. If it goes through, it would offer the consumer additional choice in the marketplace beyond the current single offering of Media One. Council Member Marty commented that in the past multiple suppliers have proven to lower cable prices to subscribers since it is no longer a monopoly. Council Member Marty advised of the positions open for video production, a municipal access coordinator, and the numerous volunteer positions. Community Development Director Jopke reminded all of the community meeting scheduled on July 11, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss Highway 10. He encouraged residents to attend to provide comment on this issue. Mayor Coughlin asked interested residents who are unable to attend to call City Hall and advise Mr. Jopke of their comments and suggestions which can then be forwarded to the Steering Committee. He commented that it is essential to get as many comments on this key and comprehensive issue as possible. City Attorney Long advised that the Metropolitan Council has established an aviation task force. He noted that even though the airport issue is resolved, the task force was established to look at the future of regional airport locations. Task force membership includes cities that have traditionally been on the positive side with MAC. City Attorney Long advised that the cities of Mounds View City Council June 26, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 Blaine, Bloomington, and Eagan have representation on the task force. However, Mounds View and Richfield were not contacted. He suggested that City staff may want to monitor this group or, perhaps, the Mayor should contact the City’s Metropolitan Council representative to see if there can be a more diverse membership on this task force. He stated he does not know the mission of this task force and learned of its existence via the Internet. Mayor Coughlin stated that he will contact the Metropolitan Council representation if there is no objection by the Council. No objection was voiced. Mayor Coughlin stated he will report back at a future meeting. No further reports were considered. 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims. B. Licenses for Approval. C. Set Public Hearing for Monday, July 10, 2000 at 7:05 p.m. to consider Ordinance 660 Implementing Franchise Fee on Reliant Energy Minnegasco Natural Gas Operations within the City of Mounds View. 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. Mayor Coughlin commented that it is nice to have Council Member Thomason back at the meeting tonight. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR Sherry Gunn, 8120 Red Oak Court, Co-Chair of Festival in the Park, extended an invitation to residents to the upcoming weekend extravaganza. She read a list of activities which would start on Friday, July 7th, with the Senior dance to the Paul Hepron Band. The $2 tickets are available at Senior Dining or the Community Center. In addition, the 500 tournament will be held on Saturday at 1:00 p.m. with a registration deadline on July 6, 2000. Ms. Gunn read a schedule of events which included an all-day golf tournament, parade at 5:30 p.m. taking the usual route, bingo at the Community Center, a community dance with the Bordertown Band ($2 ticket), youth activities, child care sponsored by the teen program at the YMCA, a classic car show, all-day arts and crafts displays, and a non-denominational church service. She announced that the weekend of events will culminate with fireworks. Mounds View City Council June 26, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 Mayor Coughlin thanked Ms. Gunn for the update and advised that the schedule of events is available via a flyer and was published in the Mound View Matters. Ms. Gunn advised of their need for volunteers along the parade route, concession stand, and bingo event. Brad Jahnke, 8408 East River Road, stated he viewed last week’s meeting tape and was confused at the mention of a retreat. Mayor Coughlin explained that as the tradition of the Council, there are times when the Council as a whole plus the City Administrator and a variety of department heads get together to discuss communication in an effort to improve communication and facilitate dialogue. Mr. Jahnke asked if residents are invited. Mayor Coughlin stated it is a posted and published meeting and residents do attend from time to time. He stated the retreats have been held in Mounds View or at a retreat center that has been selected. Mr. Jahnke asked if it is televised. Mayor Coughlin stated it is typically not televised. Mr. Jahnke stated comments have been made about the Charter Commission meetings being televised and discussion held on the importance of that. There were no further requests or comments from the floor. 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. 1. Public Hearing to Consider Approval of Intoxicating Liquor Licenses. Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 7:20 p.m. Assistant to the City Administrator Reed explained that pursuant to Chapter 502.08 (Intoxicating Liquor) of the Mounds View Municipal Code, “Renewals of existing licenses issued under this Chapter…may be granted by the Council after a public hearing without the requirement of a prior published notice.” She advised that the intoxicating liquor licenses for the following establishments will expire on June 30, 2000. Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses Network Liquors Donatelle’s Budget Liquor Robert’s Off 10 ABC Liquor Mermaid, Inc. Mounds View City Council June 26, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 Each applicant for an intoxicating liquor license has submitted their application, fee, and proof of insurance. She advised that the following investigations and inspections have been conducted to determine whether there are any implications for issuing the above-mentioned licenses: Health Inspections (St. Paul-Ramsey County Department of Public Health) - The Department of Public Health conducts annual inspections of all businesses that sell food. Staff has requested health inspection reports for each of the above-mentioned establishments that sell food. While there were health violations, none would prevent the City from renewing the business licenses. Police Investigation (Mounds View Police Department) - The Mounds View Police Department has reported that none of this year’s business applicants have committed any violations that would preclude the City from approving their license applications. Utility Billing Investigation (City of Mounds View) - The Utility Billing Division has indicated that all utilities are paid for the above-mentioned applicants. Fire Inspection (City of Mounds view Fire Marshall) - In the past the City has conducted fire inspection for on-sale intoxicating liquor establishments (The Mermaid, Robert’s and Donatelle’s). The Fire Marshall has reported that while there were violations, none would prevent the City from renewing the business licenses. Department of Revenue Tax Clearance - The City regularly requests tax clearance information from business license applicants and in past years, the tax clearance forms have been kept on file but were not forwarded to the Minnesota Department of Revenue (DOR). Under the recommendation of the DOR, most cities submit to the DOR tax clearance forms for liquor license applicants (intoxicating and 3.2% Malt Liquor) because the penalties for violations by liquor licensees are so severe. Staff has submitted tax clearance forms for this year’s liquor license applicants to the DOR, and has been informed that based on its records, the DOR has no objection to the City awarding license renewals to this year’s liquor license applicants. Property Tax Status - Ramsey County Property Records and Revenue Department has informed staff that none of this year’s business license applicants owe delinquent property taxes. Assistant to the City Administrator Reed stated staff recommends that the above-mentioned intoxicating liquor licenses be approved. Should an issue arise with regard to the health or fire inspections, staff will bring the issue back to the Council for reconsideration. There was no further public input. Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 7:24 p.m. . MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To approve the licenses as indicated above and recommended by staff. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View City Council June 26, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 6 2. Consideration of Business License Renewals for 2000-2001. Assistant to the City Administrator Reed stated in mid-May, staff mailed letters to all City of Mounds View businesses indicating that their business license would expire June 30, 2000. Staff asked that the appropriate applications, tax clearance forms, worker’s compensation forms, fees, and proof of insurance be submitted by June 16, 2000 in order that the staff report could be completed by the June 26, 2000 Council meeting. Assistant to the City Administrator Reed stated staff has received the required information from the business license applicants listed in Exhibit A of the staff report. She advised that Wynnsong 15 and Superior Services have now submitted the appropriate license applications for renewal so she would ask that they be included in the Council’s consideration for approval. Assistant to the City Administrator Reed reported that utility reports and police reports indicate that there are no violations that would prohibit the approval of any license renewal. Pursuant to the Municipal Code, Section 509.05, Subd. 5, staff has requested the Fire Marshall investigate each of the gasoline stations in the City. Assistant to the City Administrator Reed stated staff recommends Council approval of the business license applications for the applicants listed in Exhibit A with the addition of Wynnsong 15 and Superior Services contingent upon satisfactory reports from the Fire Marshall. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To approve the licenses as listed in Exhibit A of the staff report with the addition of Wynnsong 15 and Superior Services as recommended by staff. Council Member Stigney asked if there is any way, during license consideration, to strengthen the requirement for increased security at certain businesses. City Attorney Long stated the City has the authority to impose conditions on licenses if there is concurrence with the business owner. So if that is the desire of the Council, the City would want to give notice to the applicant so they can talk about it as part of the public hearing process. He stated that would be difficult to accomplish at this time but, in the future, that policy could be established. Council Member Stigney stated he does not want to consider it at this time but, perhaps, in the future. Mayor Coughlin suggested the Police Chief, based on his records, be asked to advise the Council if that is warranted in the next licensing period. He stated he will talk to the Police Chief about that issue and request such a report. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View City Council June 26, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 7 B. Consider Renewal of Insurance Policies for the Period from July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001. Chuck Clysdale, Maguire Agency, stated they have already presented the insurance renewals to City staff. He noted his son Matthew is in attendance tonight and is now the owner and president of the Maguire Agency. Mr. Clysdale stated he plans to continue his work with the Maguire Agency with his son as the owner. Mr. Clysdale reviewed that the City’s insurance program and workers compensation which is placed through the League of Minnesota Cites, as it has been placed for many years. The overall total cost this coming year has remained the same, as it was approximately two years ago, in spite of the fact that the exposures have increased. He noted the City property values insured about $13.8 million and now that has increased to over $20 million in property values yet the overall total insurance costs have remained the same. The payroll and expenses have also increased, yet the insurance costs have remained which is a result of the competitive program offered by the League. Mr. Clysdale stated rates and all lines have remained the same or gone down nominally 2% to 3%. He advised that the City workers compensation premiums have increased, not because of a change in rates but because the experience modification went from 1.17 to 1.25 which is a debit of 25% to the workers compensation premiums. He advised this is a result of one serious workers compensation loss that occurred in 1996. Mr. Clysdale explained that every community is experienced rated by the Workers Compensation Rating Bureau considering the premiums paid and losses paid. A year from now, that loss will go out of the experience modification calculations and the City will get reduced modifications, eventually to a credit since during that time there was one year with no loses whatsoever. He advised that the League is now offering broadened limits and coverages to fit the needs of municipalities, which he has reviewed with City staff. He reviewed the areas which have been broadened without a specific cost increase to the City of Mounds View. Mr. Clysdale stated the City received dividends on its package insurance of over $18,000 and on its workers compensation package of over $8,000. That, combined with competitive premiums, makes this program very attractive for a growing municipality with good experience. The City also writes its coverage based on a $5,000 deductible for all losses (property and liability) which is a great risk management tool since the City manages its losses. This year’s savings for having this moderate deductible was $31,000 and has consistently saved premiums in excess of $30,000 annually since that program has been put into place. Mr. Clysdale stated in general Mounds View has again experienced a successful year of low losses and stable premiums which is a credit to the City’s interest in loss control and safety. He noted the City receives credits on the experience side of the program because of low losses. He stated they will bind coverage July 1st and deliver the policy subsequently. Council Member Stigney asked why the City is carrying Y2K coverage for next year. Mr. Clysdale explained it is a continuing on-going coverage since problems can still occur and remains a concern during Year 2000. Mounds View City Council June 26, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 8 Council Member Marty asked how long the City should keep that coverage. Mr. Clysdale recommended two to three years, noting it is a policy specifically written for municipalities by the League and he is relying on them as to how long it will be necessary since it is an unknown factor. Mr. Clysdale commented on a Y2K claim he is currently working on for one of his clients and his belief that it will be years before it is known how that will develop. He explained that claim is dealing with the huge amount of money spent to deal with Y2K issues and it is being litigated nationally. He noted there is no guarantee that claim will be paid but if paid by the litigation of large firms, it will open the issue for municipalities and private corporations to bring claims. Thus, it is an evolving process. Mayor Coughlin stated a few of his friends are in large corporations and it is true there is some exposure not only due to computer errors but also to other preparations. He explained that there may be areas of concerns that are not yet known related to Y2K. Mr. Clysdale stated his firm will continue to analyze and review this issue. City Attorney Long noted the municipality liability information and listing of three joint powers agreements. He stated the City has a contract with the YMCA to do work at the Community Center and asked if that relationship needs to be listed separately as the others are listed. Mr. Clysdale stated the YMCA contract does not need to be listed since it is not a joint powers agreement and an entirely different type of business contract. He stated the joint powers agreements are renewed each year and these three are the only ones the insurance company considers to be joint powers agreements so they are specifically covered. City Attorney Long noted the deductible is indicated to be $10,000 and asked if there is a $5,000 deductible for some claims and a $10,000 deductible for other types of claims. Mr. Clysdale corrected that the City’s deductible is $10,000. He stated he misspoke earlier and stated it is $10,000 per loss and a $50,000 annual aggregate is the most the City can pay. Council Member Marty asked if $50,000 is the most the City can pay or the most the insurance company can pay. Mr. Clysdale stated that $50,000 is the most the City can pay for all deductibles in one year. Council Member Marty asked what the difference in premium would be between a $5,000 deductible and a $10,000 deductible. Mr. Clysdale stated he did not obtain a quote on that but could do so. He stated there are various options available and he can obtain an alternate consideration and provide that information to staff. Mayor Coughlin stated that was looked at previously and it was found that the cost would be significantly higher. Since the City has had a very good track record, it has saved the City a significant amount of money over time. Mounds View City Council June 26, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 9 Mr. Clysdale noted that in 1994-1995 there was a $5,000 deductible and the credit was $20,000. The following year, the deductible was increased to $10,000 and the credit was $36,000, or a $16,000 “swing” to assume another $5,000 of exposure. City Attorney Long commented on two other potential joint powers agreements for GIS data with Ramsey County for land use planning and another with the Blaine National Sports Center Super Rink for financing. Mr. Clysdale stated he will check with staff about those two issues to verify the status. He stated there would be no problem or additional cost to include them, if appropriate. Community Development Director Jopke stated another joint powers agreement is with the North Metro I-35W Coalition. Mr. Clysdale stated he will talk with staff about that agreement and add it, if appropriate. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To approve the renewal of insurance policies for the period from July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001, as presented. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 11. Next Council Work Session: Monday, July 17, 2000 – 6:00 P.M. Next Council Meeting: Monday, July 10, 2000 – 7:00 P.M. Mayor Coughlin recessed the meeting at 7:45 p.m. to a closed session to discuss pending litigation. 12. Closed Session: Update on Harstad Lawsuit 13. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Coughlin adjourned the meeting at ___ p.m. to a closed session. (Joan, please fill in the time of adjournment) Transcribed and recorded by: Carla Wirth TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting June 12, 2000 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 7:00 P.M. 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Marty, Quick, and Stigney. Council Member Marty joined the meeting at 7:03 p.m. NOT PRESENT: Thomason. Mayor Coughlin stated Council Member Thomason has been granted a medical leave of absence for the entire month of June. The Council wished her Godspeed in her return. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Monday, June 12, 2000, City Council Agenda Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to add items to the agenda. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Coughlin. To Accept the June 12, 2000, City Council Agenda as presented. Ayes – 3 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Council Member Marty was not present for this vote. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Monday, May 8, 2000, City Council Minutes MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney. To accept the May 8, 2000 City Council minutes as presented. Council Member Stigney stated he was not aware if he had received the May 8th meeting minutes. Mayor Coughlin explained that these minutes had been provided in the Council packets, however, because they were submitted late, it was requested that the Council have an additional two weeks in which to review them. Mounds View City Council June 12, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 2 Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. B. Monday, May 22, 2000 City Council Minutes Council Member Marty requested a correction to Page 17, second sentence to indicate “opposed to this.” MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To accept the May 22, 2000 City Council minutes as corrected. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. C. Monday, June 5, 2000 Special City Council Meeting Minutes MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To accept the June 5, 2000 Special City Council minutes as presented. Council Member Marty commended the recording secretary on the meeting minutes, which appear to consistently improve. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS None. 6. REPORTS Council Member Marty reported the Cable Commission has not held any formal meetings in some time, however, as he had previously reported, a proposal was initiated by this Cable Commission and forwarded on to Cable Television to air the neighboring cities’ City Council meetings on Sundays. He advised that this project is still moving forward, and the Cable Commission is currently working with Media One in this regard. He indicated the City Council meetings are scheduled for broadcast on Sunday afternoons, and he would provide further information as it becomes available. Mayor Coughlin stated he has received several telephone calls from interested residents who had inquired regarding the status of these broadcasts. He noted he had mentioned this particular idea to an area Mayor who commented that the City of Mounds View was already far advanced of other cities in terms of the amount of television and Internet coverage that is taking place. Council Member Marty advised that some of the issues facing the surrounding communities could be beneficial to Mounds View and its residents. He explained that New Brighton is currently reconstructing Silver Lake Road from Interstate 694 and north, and it would be helpful to keep abreast of this project, as well as the progress of the arsenal project that is currently underway in Arden Hills. Mounds View City Council June 12, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 Council Member Marty read a prepared statement as follows: “I am hereby submitting my resignation to the Charter Commission. I have previously voiced concerns about the direction that this Commission is taking, and I feel even more strongly about it at this time. I had originally campaigned to make all City business public business, and it greatly distressed me that the Charter Commission refused to be televised, and met away from City offices to ensure this. I do not feel that it is the business of the Charter Commission to run the City, as the Charter Commission members are appointed by a Ramsey County Judge, which is similar to the Metropolitan Airport Commission and the Metropolitan Council in that the members are appointed, however, in those cases it is the Governor that makes the appointments, and I also have a problem with that because I feel that those governing bodies should also be publicly elected by the people, so that the citizens can ultimately have some control or say in their decisions. I believe in our Charter and I believe in our City, and I do not wish to be associated with, or affiliated with, a small group of our un-elected citizens, who as I see it, wish to try to run or control our City. Under the wrong direction I feel that this could be dangerous and could put our own Charter in possible jeopardy, and this greatly concerns me, as many people have invested much time and effort into our Charter. We have good people on our Charter Commission, but once again, I implore you to try to work with the rest of the City, the commissions, City Council and City Administration, to attempt to make our City even better and stronger, without attacking various elements in our City. I wish you well, and please try to work toward the betterment of our City so that we can all move in one direction; forward, together, in strength and unity. We won’t always agree, as I well know, however, oftentimes the best decisions come out of forums such as this, in which disagreement is present but compromises are made by all in order to try to incorporate differences of opinion to achieve the best all around goal or outcome for our City and neighbors. Thank you, and please do not be led into confrontational positions with the rest of our good City and neighbors.” Council Member Stigney stated as a member of the Mounds View Charter Commission, he took umbrage with some of these statements. Mayor Coughlin stated Council Member Marty has chosen to use his report to offer his resignation, and he would prefer that this not degenerate into a situation of “he said, she said,” therefore, with this advise in mind, Council Member Stigney could make his statements, however, he did not desire the subject to be debated at this time. Council Member Stigney stated, as Council Member Marty was well aware, this resignation must be submitted to the Chair of the Charter Commission or to the Judge. He indicated he took Mounds View City Council June 12, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 exception to the fact that Council Member Marty had questioned the manner in which the Charter Commission is formed. He advised that the Charter Commission is formed under State Legislative law, and is set up in a manner in which a District Court Judge makes appointments to the Charter Commission based upon who he feels would best serve the residents’ interests Council Member Stigney stated he believed the Charter Commission was proceeding in exactly the direction it should be, in attempting to preserve the Charter that is currently in place, and attempting to strengthen its rights for the residents of the City. He indicated any proposals the Charter Commission makes, such as amendments to the Charter, are required to come back before the Council, and if the Council wishes to accept them, they are unanimously adopted or put to the voters. He advised that the voters of the City are the persons who make such decisions, and the appointed body of Charter Commission members that are currently in place are elected to preserve and enhance the Charter for the residents of the City, as a protection for the City. Council Member Stigney stated this was his second term on the Charter Commission, and he was very proud to serve on this body. He advised that this was a great organization for the City, and probably the only organization in the City, which establishes the bylaws in the Constitution under which the City operates with regard to residents’ rights. Council Member Quick clarified that the Charter Commission members were not elected, but rather, appointed by a Judge. Council Member Stigney accepted this clarification. Mayor Coughlin stated he received a telephone call from a resident who had inquired regarding the special meeting of the Charter Commission, and why it was not televised. He requested either of the Charter Commission members present to respond to this inquiry. Council Member Stigney stated the Commission had expected to be broadcast, however, no one was present to televise the meeting. Mayor Coughlin stated because of the resident’s telephone call, he had inquired and was informed that the Video Producer was never contacted and advised that a special meeting had been scheduled. He stated the resident had desired to know at what point the Charter Commission voted to put its meetings on television, and he could not answer this, but indicated he believed this vote was taken on the date the Charter Commission met at the library. He added that if memory serves correctly, someone had commented there was so much interest in this particular meeting that once the library was closed, the meeting was continued out in the library parking lot simply to address this issue. He inquired if Council Member Stigney was present for this vote. Council Member Stigney stated he was, adding that he attends all of the Charter Commission meetings if at all possible. He stated Mayor Coughlin was well aware of this, as the minutes come to the City and are available for review. He indicated the vote was taken at the meeting, which was held at the library, and since that time, all Charter Commission meetings should be televised, however, he was not aware of who controls the broadcasting of the meetings or how this is set up. He stated this was a very interesting meeting, and he was disappointed it had not Mounds View City Council June 12, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 been broadcast. He noted members of the Charter Commission were presently in the audience, and they had attended this particular meeting. He stated it would have been very beneficial for the residents to see this meeting, and he hoped they would view all of the future meetings. Council Member Quick inquired in what area of the library the meeting took place. Council Member Stigney stated it was held in the meeting room. Council Member Quick inquired how late the meeting was in session. Council Member Stigney stated he believed the library closed at 9:00 p.m. Council Member Quick inquired if this was the end of the meeting. Council Member Stigney stated the meeting was officially adjourned somewhat after that time, as the Charter Commission was required to vacate the meeting room. Council Member Quick requested clarification. He inquired if the Charter Commission left the library building at 9:00 p.m., and after leaving the building the meeting was adjourned. Council Member Stigney stated the meeting was not officially adjourned until the Charter Commission vacated the meeting room. Council Member Quick stated therefore, the Charter Commission continued the meeting outside of the meeting room. Mayor Coughlin indicated the resident who had contacted him requested clarification regarding who was in attendance at that meeting, and who voted in favor or opposition to the broadcasting of the meetings. He inquired if the Charter Commission minutes reflect that vote, or, in order to avoid his having to look this up, possibly Council Member Stigney could share this information. Council Member Stigney stated he would prefer Mayor Coughlin review the minutes, which are forwarded to the City following each meeting. Mayor Coughlin stated if the resident who contacted him had further questions, he would attempt to determine this information from the meeting minutes, or this individual could contact Council Member Stigney in this regard. Council Member Stigney suggested this individual contact that Chair of the Charter Commission. Council Member Marty stated he had asked Video Coordinator Patrick Toth why the special meeting was not televised, and Mr. Toth responded with a memorandum, indicating he had spoken with Julie Olsen, Chair of the Charter Commission, who made a comment to the effect that the Charter Commission was not a part of the City, but rather Ramsey County, therefore, they did not feel responsible to notify anyone, and they thought the broadcasting was done automatically. Council Member Stigney stated it has been reiterated and emphasized by this Council that the Charter Commission is not a part of this City, contrary to his personal beliefs. He indicated that if there is a problem with the procedure beyond the posting of meetings and where they are to be held, it should be better established. He stated this should be resolved and if there is some Mounds View City Council June 12, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 6 confusion in the matter, he would suggest someone contact the Charter Commission Chair. He stated everyone was present at this meeting, and expected to be televised however, they were not because the Video Producer was not present. Mayor Coughlin stated he believed it was incumbent upon the Chair of the Charter Commission to contact the City, rather than vice versa, adding that the Video Producer was not a mind reader. Mayor Coughlin reported he had participated in the I-35W Corridor Coalition Buildout Study, which involved working with a variety of the principals in the seven cities of the Coalition attempting to determine some of the points of interest in our respective cities, and how we, as communities, can work together in our efforts to ensure that our plans are compatible. For example, one city might be considering a factory on their border, while their neighboring city might be planning single-family housing development in the same area, and the objective of this discussion was to attempt to coordinate efforts so all were pulling in the same direction. He stated this meeting was a good time. He indicated Community Development Director Jopke, and Planning Commission Chairperson, Jerry Peterson had also attended, and he thanked them both for taking the time to represent Mounds View in this regard. No further reports were considered. 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims. B. License Approval. C. Set Public Hearing for June 26, 2000, 7:05 p.m. to Consider Business License Renewals for Establishments that Sell Intoxicating Liquor. Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to remove Items for discussion. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Approve the Consent Agenda for Items A, B, and C, as presented. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mayor Coughlin requested Community Development Director Jopke provide a brief update regarding the Highway 10 Steering Committee proceedings. Community Development Director Jopke stated the Committee has meet twice in the past few weeks. He indicated the Committee examined the previous studies that have been done on Highway 10 at their first meeting, as well as some of the plans that have been developed. He stated there was a presentation by Bill Moorish of the University of Minnesota Design Center pertaining to arterial roadways and some different ways to look at it. He stated this was a very informative meeting in terms of reviewing the background of this issue, and the Committee concluded that the past studies have essentially identified the issues, which appear to be Mounds View City Council June 12, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 7 categorized into four areas, including safety, community appearance and identity, preserving environmental resources and encouraging economic development. Community Development Director Jopke advised that at their second meeting, the Steering Committee began examining those four areas, in terms of prioritizing those issues. He indicated this information would be presented at a community meeting which would be held in Council Chambers at on Tuesday, July 11th, at 7:00 p.m. He encouraged all members of the community to attend this meeting or view the broadcast, so that they might learn what those issues and priorities are, and offer their thoughts and opinions, as the City would like to ensure that this effort reflects the sentiments of the community. Community Development Director Jopke stated this information would be presented to the City Council following the second meeting, at which time, the Council would be requested to proceed to the next step, which would be to develop a specific action plan. He indicated an important part of this would be to determine short and long-term financial planning to assist in carrying out those actions. He advised that the emphasis in this particular effort is to go beyond the study stage, and make the necessary improvements to Highway 10, which is the focus of the Committee at this point. He extended his appreciation to Dan Solland, Ramsey County Traffic Engineer, for his participation in the Steering Committee meetings, adding that these have been good meetings with very good dialogue at this point. Mayor Coughlin advised that the Steering Committee meetings have been broadcast and were being rebroadcast for citizens whose schedules do not allow them to attend in person. He stated those who are unable to attend could contact the City, and contribute their input via voice or e- mail, as the City would like their voice to be heard as well. He advised that this issue is of very high priority, and the efforts of the entire community were required in order to accomplish these goals. He extended his appreciation to Community Development Director Jopke, as well as the members of the Steering Committee, most of whom were already involved in other commissions, however, were taking additional time in their schedules to meet in this forum during the month. Council Member Marty stated he had the opportunity to view the broadcast of the first Steering Committee meeting, and was very impressed with the dialogue and exchange of information, as well as the direction that was taken. He extended his appreciation to Community Development Director Jopke and all members of the Steering Committee for their efforts in this regard. 9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR Brad Jahnke, 8408 Eastwood Road asked Council Member Marty if there was any particular reason he felt he must offer his resignation at this time, and in this public forum. Council Member Quick advised that all comments must be directed to the Chair. Mayor Coughlin granted Council Member Marty the opportunity to respond to this inquiry. Council Member Marty stated he had desired to make some points. He explained that he had first voiced his concerns with the Charter Commission when they met offsite at the Mermaid, at which time, City sites, i.e., Council Chambers and the Community Center, were available. He Mounds View City Council June 12, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 8 stated he had written a letter to the Charter Commission after that meeting and advised that one of his platform issues was to make all City business public business, however, the Charter Commission had refused to be televised. He explained that he had attended that meeting with the understanding that the Commission would be voting on the issue of televising the Charter Commission meetings at that time, however, since this meeting was not televised, he felt that if he continued to attend the meetings that were not televised, he would not be standing up for what he had stated during his campaign for office, and due to this, he has not attended any non- televised Charter Commission meetings since that time. Council Member Marty stated he had concerns about the City, and concerns about the Charter Commission. He indicated there are very good people on the Charter Commission, and very good people in the City and on the City commissions. He stated he is very proud of the commissioners, and feels that the City is run very well. He stated he took exception to the fact that from his perspective, the Charter Commission is, in some manner, attempting to run the City. He pointed out that if the Charter Commission follows the Charter without amending it to attempt to run the City, he would have no problem with this. He advised that the Charter/Constitution of the City is important, and he believes in it, however, he is concerned about a number of issues, and the tact that the Charter Commission is taking. Mr. Jahnke stated in addition to attending the City Council meetings, he recently began attending the Charter Commission meetings, and he was confused with regard to Council Member Marty’s statement, in that the Charter Commission has consistently reiterated that they do not desire to run the City or to tie the City Council’s hands in any of this. Mayor Coughlin stated their opinions are their own, and Council Member Marty’s opinions are his own. He advised that he would not attempt to get into the minds of others. Mr. Jahnke inquired if the City Council had voted to increase their salaries. Mayor Coughlin stated no. He indicated this subject was discussed simply as an idea during a dialogue session approximately six to eight months prior. Mr. Jahnke inquired if a Special Meeting was held at the City Council Work Session. Mayor Coughlin stated this was correct. He explained that it had been announced on camera at the previous meeting that there was a potential for this Special Meeting take place. Mr. Jahnke requested clarification regarding the purpose of the Special Meeting. Mayor Coughlin stated this meeting was held to consider a variety of issues, primarily the proposed amendment to the Charter that would then be forwarded on to the Charter Commission for review. He advised that this item was addressed at that time in consideration of the timing issue, in that if it was not addressed at that point, the timing could be such that a special election would be required to take place one week after the general election. He advised that a special election would cost in excess of $5,000, and therefore, it was determined that if it was the consent of the Council to move forward with this proposal, and if the timing was indeed an issue, Mounds View City Council June 12, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 9 it would be the course of the Council to hold the Special Meeting, in order to save the taxpayers money and to avoid the necessity for special elections directly following the general election. Mr. Jahnke inquired if the Council had also considered extending the Mayor’s term of office at this time. Mayor Coughlin stated the two items discussed at the Special Meeting, that would be sent on to the Charter Commission for consideration, were the proposals to convert the Clerk Administrator form of government to the City Manager form of government, and to adjust the term of Mayor to a four-year position, to reflect that of any other Council Member. Mr. Jahnke inquired if the form of government would be changed upon the hiring of a City Manager. Mayor Coughlin stated this was correct. He explained that this was previously attested to, and copies of that paperwork could be provided to Mr. Jahnke to address any further questions he might have in this regard. Mr. Jahnke stated his questions pertain to the role and powers of the City Manager, in addition to hiring and firing. Mayor Coughlin stated this has been clarified in the documentation, and at this time, he would not desire to go back into the same discussion. He advised that this proposal would go before the Charter Commission, and therefore, Mr. Jahnke would certainly hear this from that perspective as well. He stated this has all been spelled out in the Second Reading, and legal staff could provide Mr. Jahnke with that entire document, which clarifies the roles of the City Manager and the Council. He indicated that if Mr. Jahnke had further questions, he would be available to discuss this after the Council Meeting, or Mr. Jahnke could discuss this with the City Attorney. Mr. Jahnke stated he would prefer to make his inquiries in public, on television, rather than discuss them with Mayor Coughlin in private. He stated one of the reasons he liked the Charter Commission was that this does not happen in that forum. Mayor Coughlin thanked Mr. Jahnke for his comments. There were no further requests or comments from the floor. 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Discussion and First Reading of Ordinance 660: Franchise Fee Ordinance Amending Ordinance 643. City Attorney Long stated the Council adopted a Franchise Ordinance regulating Reliant Energy/Minnegasco in the fall of 1999. He advised that before the Council could adopt the Franchise Fee Ordinance, the Franchise Ordinance had to take effect, and therefore, it was required to go through a publication process. He indicated that staff reviewed this paperwork to ensure it was in proper order prior to beginning to collect the franchise fee, and during this Mounds View City Council June 12, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 10 review it was discovered that the Franchise Fee Ordinance had not been placed back on the Agenda for adoption. He explained that this item was to put things in proper order so that the City could begin to collect the franchise fee. He advised that the blank space in Subd. 2 of the ordinance should indicate January 1, 2000. Mayor Coughlin inquired if this ordinance would therefore be retroactive to the first of the year. City Attorney Long stated this was correct, adding that this had all been approved in December of 1999. He advised that by State Statute, the City must receive a written consent from the Utility, and Reliant Energy/Minnegasco had provided its written consent in December of 1999, however, the item was never placed back on the Agenda. Council Member Quick requested clarification regarding the date to be inserted into the blank space in the ordinance. City Attorney Long stated January 1, 2000. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Waive the Reading and Approve the First Reading of Ordinance No. 660, an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Reliant Energy Minnegasco Natural Gas Operations within the City of Mounds View. ROLL CALL: Marty, Quick, Stigney, Coughlin Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. B. Resolution 5451 Establishing a Park Dedication Fund and Transferring Park Dedication Funds from the General Fund and the Recreation Fund to Said Fund. Finance Director Kessel stated approximately one month ago, the Council discussed the transfer of the Park Dedication Fund out of the General Fund to provide that it could be more easily tracked. He added that because the YMCA is now managing Recreation Programming, this account is no longer necessary, and the Council had discussed transferring the remaining balance of $103,000 to the Park Dedication Fund. He advised that of this newly created Park Dedication Fund, only the interest would be utilized for enhancements to park facilities. He advised that this item was to formalize what the Council had agreed to approximately one month earlier. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution No. 5451, a Resolution Authorizing the Establishment of a Park Dedication Fund and Transferring In Various Funds to Initially Establish Said Fund. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. C. Acceptance of Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Year Ending December 31, 1999. Finance Director Kessel stated Steve Wischman of Kern, DeWenter, & Viere, manager of the audit, has provided a management letter which summarizes the audit, and would present this item at this time. Mounds View City Council June 12, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 11 Steve Wischman, Kern, DeWenter, & Viere, stated his firm has developed a document that summarizes this item in approximately 10 pages, as well as a larger Comprehensive Report, in which they have provided an audit opinion. He advised that they provide the City with an unqualified opinion, which is the highest opinion the City can receive, and this is a fairly comprehensive document, which contains a significant amount of information. He stated this presentation would provide the Council with an overview of the management letter, which reflects some of the trends and changes in the City. Mr. Wischman stated at the beginning of the year, the City had $11,209,000 in cash investments, and at the end of the year, this amount was $10,514,000. He explained that most if not all of this is comprised of short-term investments, i.e., very secure government securities and money market type funds. He indicated the cash in the checking account was relatively insignificant compared to the investment balance, however, at $118,595, it was slightly higher at the end of 1999. Mr. Wischman advised that the General Fund is the general operating fund of the City, and the majority of the dollars flow through that fund. He indicated the Special Revenue Funds are the Park Dedication Funds and other funds, which are utilized for special purposes. He stated the Debt Service Funds accumulate the resources to pay the City’s general long-term bonds, and the Capital Projects Funds include the Community Center and State Aid Capital Projects Funds. He advised that the Enterprise Funds comprise the Water, Sewer and Golf Course Funds, and there is a minor Trust and Agency Fund, which is utilized to account for some deposits, the Lakeside Park project, and items of this nature. Mr. Wischman stated the General Fund had a decrease in cash of approximately $200,000. He explained that the actual fund balance, which is the net change or surplus in the General Fund, decreased by approximately $118,000, mostly as a result of transferring out approximately $309,000 to the Park Dedication Fund. He advised that these are resources that were accumulated for a number of years, and have now been split out and put into the Special Revenue Fund, and as a result, the Special Revenue Fund shows an increase in cash of approximately $77,000, in 1999. Mr. Wischman advised that there was a $413,000 decrease in the cash and investments of the Debt Service Fund, which was almost completely attributable to the transfer of approximately $453,000 in Tax Increment funds utilized to complete the Community Center Project. Mr. Wischman stated there was a $175,000 decrease of cash in the Capital Projects Fund. He advised that there was a transfer of $400,000, however, the expenditures in this particular fund, for the Community Center, were approximately $800,000 to $850,000. He indicated the Enterprise Funds remained fairly consistent in 1999, and he would provide further detail in this regard, at a later point in his presentation. Mr. Wischman advised that a large portion of the City’s General Fund revenues are generated through property taxes. He explained that delinquent taxes, which are a cumulative amount for the prior six years of levies, increased slightly this year, from $37,948, to $42,134. He pointed out that in consideration of the total dollars the City has levied over the past six years, this Mounds View City Council June 12, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 12 represented a very good collection rate, and there is very little discretion in the timing and cash that is presently foregone for delinquent taxes. He indicated this was a very good sign that the property taxes were being collected in a timely manner. He added that this was also the case with Special Assessments receivables. He explained that there were very few new assessments in 1999, with an ending balance of $154,000, and most of this was in current deferred tax assessments that would be forthcoming in the next five to ten years for various projects. He stated these trends were also very good. Mr. Wischman provided the Council with a chart, which depicted the composition of the City’s General Fund revenues. He stated approximately 51 percent of the total General Fund operating revenues are generated from property and franchise taxes. He indicated State and Local Government Aids comprise approximately 33 percent of these revenues, Licenses and Permits represent 6 percent, Charges for Services represent 3 percent, Investment Income is 2 percent, in addition to various miscellaneous revenues. He advised that these percentages were very consistent with prior years, and fairly typical of cities within the same geographical area. He noted that property tax revenues alone were approximately 45.5 percent, therefore, approximately 6 percent of the General Fund revenue was generated through the franchise and other taxes. Mr. Wischman stated the major portion of the General Fund expenditures, approximately 39 percent, is in the area of public safety, and again, is fairly consistent with prior years. He indicated General Government expenditures were 30 percent, Streets and Highways, 9 percent, and Culture and Recreation, approximately 10 percent. He advised that Capital Outlay and Debt Service represented approximately 12.5 percent of the General Fund expenditures. He explained that the Capital Outlay percentage could change fairly significantly from year to year, if there is a large investment year in terms of street equipment, Police vehicles, and items of this nature. He advised that this was the one variable in the General Fund, however, these figures were very consistent with prior years. Mr. Wischman stated they have taken the assets and subtracted the liabilities in the General Fund, to determine the Fund balance. He advised that at the end of 1988, the Fund balance was $100,294,000, and at the end of 1999, an eleven or twelve-year period, the Fund balance is $200,912,894. He indicated they generally look for a benchmark of approximately 6 months of operating expenditures as a Fund balance, to carry the City through the cash flow cycle. He advised that the City was at approximately 9 months of operating expenditures at the end of 1999, which was very good. He explained that in terms of future trends, the City might find that the Fund balance is somewhat pressured, particularly with the variables of the Franchise tax and items of this nature, therefore, it was appropriate to have a Fund balance in excess of 6 months, in order to continue to operate the City in an efficient manner. Mr. Wischman provided the Council with a graph, which depicted the cash flow fluctuation. He advised that cash flow varies quite significantly in a City because the City receives large portions of tax and intergovernmental revenues in May and June, and also in November and December. He explained that as a result of this, there is somewhat of a spend-down pattern through May and June, after which the City receives a large chunk of money, which is generally spent through November. He indicated the month of December is generally the highpoint for the cash flow cycle of the General Fund. He stated at the low point of approximately $1.5 million dollars, the City was significantly lower than the ending balance, and the highpoint in the cycle was Mounds View City Council June 12, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 13 approximately 3 million dollars. He indicated the graph he has provided reflects the necessity for the Fund balance to carry the City through the operating cycle of the General Fund. Mr. Wischman stated the Debt Service funds are very tightly regulated in terms of tax levies, and the Debt Service Fund balance decreased approximately $447,000, primarily due to the transfer in for the Community Center Project. He indicated with regard to the Capital Projects Funds, given the various expenditures that are made, the Community Center is basically zeroed out at the end of every year. He explained that operating transfers are made from the Tax Increment funds to finance those projects, and in 1999, the Capital Projects expenditures were approximately $1.5 million dollars, between the Community Center and the State Aid Fund. He indicated at the end of 1999, the State Aid Fund had a balance of approximately $192,000. Mr. Wischman stated the Enterprise Funds are the Water, Sewer, and Golf Course Funds. He indicated 1999 was a fairly unique year in terms of the operating revenues and expenditures of the Water Fund, in that there were some expenses for contractual services that increased the operating expenses significantly due to the Year 2000, and as a result, there was a net operating loss, however, the retained earnings in that fund, at approximately $8.2 million dollars, was still very adequate. He explained that during the previous three years, the revenues in the Water Fund exceeded the operating expenses, and he would expect this to be the case in 2000 as well. Mr. Wischman advised that the Sewer Fund maintained fairly consistent operating results. He indicated operating revenues were $1.2 million dollars, and the Metropolitan Council billings were $671,000, which decreased from the previous billing of $730,000. He stated other operating expenses increased accordingly, however, the net income bottom line is that the Fund gained $20,230, and therefore, the rates were exactly where they should be in the Sewer Fund, in order to account for depreciation and considerations of this nature. He advised that these were very consistent operations, which is very good from a budgeting standpoint in that it allows the City to predict were the financial obligations would be for that particular fund in the future. He stated this Fund was also in very good condition, with approximately $2.5 million dollars in fund equity retained earnings. Mr. Wischman stated in 1999, the operating revenues of the Golf Course Fund were almost identical, and benefited from the fact that there were decreased legal fees, which resulted in improved operations. He indicated there was however, a decrease in the retained earnings of approximately $49,000, versus a loss of $136,000. He advised that in 2000, the Golf Course Fund should show consistent operating results due to the reduced legal fees, however, there would still be some areas that would continue to require resources for corrective action on the Golf Course. He pointed out that the City was in the process of finalizing some advertising projects for the Golf Course, and they would examine this in 2000, and proceed from that point. Mr. Wischman provided the Council with a table, which depicted the tax rate percentages. He advised that the tax rates were very consistent. He indicated in 1993, the tax rates were at 21 percent, however, from 1994 to 1999, they were in the range of 25 to 26 percent. He explained that this was simply a formula based analysis of the amount of taxation on the citizens of Mounds View, and the fact that it is very consistent represents that levies remain consistent, and therefore, the taxes the citizens pay also remain very consistent. Mounds View City Council June 12, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 14 Mr. Wischman stated there were some housekeeping items in the management letter, which could be addressed at this time. He indicated the audit process went very well, and the City was very accommodating. He extended his appreciation, on behalf of Kern, DeWenter, & Viere, for the opportunity to work with and for the City. He advised that they are required to test for compliance with Minnesota Statues on various aspects of the audit, and there were zero findings, therefore, the City is in legal compliance with regard to all of items they examined. Council Member Stigney inquired if the tax rate table reflected the 4 percent Franchise Fee that has been levied upon the residents. Finance Director Kessel advised that it did not include the Franchise Fee. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Year Ending December 31, 1999. Mayor Coughlin inquired if copies of this document would be made available for review after it has been accepted. Finance Director Kessel stated it would be available for review at no charge, and the fee for a copy of the document was $15. Council Member Quick advised that copies would also be available at the library. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. D. Consider Authorizing the Mayor and Interim Clerk-Administrator to Sign a Three-year Extension for Auditing Services with Kern, DeWenter & Viere for the Years Ending December 31, 2000, 2001, and 2002. Finance Director Kessel stated three years ago, the City received a proposal from Kern, DeWenter & Viere, which was approximately 30 to 40 percent less than the firm the City had contracted with prior to that time. He explained that over the term of that three-year contract, prices have increase in the range of 2 to 4 percent. He stated staff has been very pleased with this firm’s work, which has been presented in a timely manner. He indicated that this item has not been discussed with the Council, however, in light of the opportunity for discussion with Steve Wischman of Kern, DeWenter, & Viere at this time, staff decided to place it on the Agenda for consideration at this time. Finance Director Kessel advised that Kern, DeWenter & Viere has submitted a proposal, which reflects an increase in the range of 5 to 8 percent. He indicated there have been some changes in the educational requirements for Certified Public Accountants, and in his understanding, this has resulted in an increase in fees in the range of 5 to 10 percent, therefore, this proposal appears to be within an acceptable range, and is still significantly less than the City was paying three years prior. He stated staff recommends the City approve a three-year extension for auditing services with Kern, DeWenter & Viere. Council Member Stigney inquired if the 5 to 8 percent increase would occur annually, or over the three-year contract period. Finance Director Kessel stated the increase would occur on an annual basis. Mounds View City Council June 12, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 15 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Authorize the Mayor and Interim Clerk Administrator to Sign a Three-year Extension for Auditing Services with Kern, DeWenter, & Viere for the Years Ending December 31, 2000, 2001, and 2002. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. E. Consideration of Sergeant’s and Patrol Contracts. Interim Administrator Ulrich stated before the Council was a report, which outlines the changes that were made to both the Sergeant’s and Patrol Unit contracts. He stated electronic copies of both contracts were provided in the Council’s packets, however, staff observed language in those documents that required to be addressed, and this was resolved that date, therefore, the contracts are in final from and awaiting execution. He indicated all of these items were discussed at previous Closed Sessions, and he was available to address any further questions at this time. Mayor Coughlin stated the Council was required to tape the Closed Session discussions, which were not broadcast due to the nature of these negotiations. He inquired if those tapes become public record when the contracts have been accepted. City Attorney Long stated this was correct. He advised that the City is required to maintain those recordings, and if the contracts are ratified, the tapes become public record. Mayor Coughlin stated these discussions would be made available for public review. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Approve Council Member Stigney inquired if it would be acceptable to discuss the specific terms of the contract at this time. City Attorney Long advised that the Council could hold an open discussion pertaining to the terms of the contracts, however, unless the contracts are to be ratified, they would not desire to reiterate the previous taped discussion. Council Member Stigney stated he had previously expressed concerns regarding some of the items contained in the contracts, primarily the change in the manner in which the City pays for insurance under these contracts. He explained that previously, a fixed amount of money was paid for insurance, however, both contracts have been amended to change this to an 80 versus 20 percent split, with an increase of 15 percent, which is negotiable if it exceeds that amount. He advised that this changes the form in which this has always been done in the past, and is contrary to the practice of the vast majority of cities in the State. He indicated this would have a ripple effect in terms of all City employees, and it was detrimental to the taxpayers, therefore, he did not support it. Council Member Marty stated he did not believe that this was presented as the exception to the vast majority of the cities in the State, but rather, that it is beginning to become more of the norm. He stated it was also presented that the pool of Police Officers from which to draw is not as great as it previously has been. He explained that in order to retain employees, this was an Mounds View City Council June 12, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 16 attempt to make these positions more desirable, in light of the general economy and the overall unemployment figures, which are vastly different than they were in the past. Council Member Stigney stated he stood by his statement. He indicated the League of Minnesota Cities provided the Council with a survey, which indicated that a percentage based calculation was more prevalent in eastern cities, however, within the State of Minnesota, the vast majority of all cities utilize a fixed rate formula. Mayor Coughlin stated it was his understanding that this particular issue was a significant sticking point in the negotiations. He advised that the costs attempting to arbitrate this matter would exceed the cost of this adjustment. Council Member Marty stated it was brought forward that the cost of arbitration would far outweigh any possible increases in insurance costs, in terms of the City’s legal fees. He added that this would also keep the negotiations open, and the issue would remain unresolved. Council Member Stigney requested he be allowed to respond. Mayor Coughlin stated in the interest of fairness, he would yield the Floor to Council Member Stigney, and would not speak further to this issue. Council Member Stigney stated he would like to make a clarification with regard to the costs of arbitration. He stated this represented the cost of arbitration over a one, two or three year contract period, versus a change in policy established for the City from this point forward into the future. He added that this policy would not only affect the Police Department employees, but would trickle down through to the entire City. Council Member Quick stated he has been with the City almost 16 years, and has dealt with this issue many times. He stated he has always been impressed by the Police Department, and their professionalism, and he is certainly glad that in the event he required a Police Officer’s assistance, he would know the Police Officer who comes to his aid. He stated as a Council Member and a citizen, he feels that this is a small concession to make, and if he is able to make their jobs a little easier by putting their minds at rest regarding their hospitalization, which is likely one of the most important areas of their benefit plan, so be it. Ayes - 3 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. Interim Administrator Ulrich stated this contract has been discussed by various staff members, and as Council Member Stigney has stated, such requests would probably come from the other bargaining units and the remaining City staff, therefore, staff is seeking direction in this regard. Mayor Coughlin requested the Council’s consent to refer this discussion to the next Council Work Session. The Council agreed. Mounds View City Council June 12, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 17 F. Budget Transfers. Interim Administrator Ulrich stated the Airport Litigation / Legislation has come to a close, and staff has compiled a list of expenses for the consultants and litigation, and in consulting with the Finance Director, is requesting a budget transfer for these expenditures. He stated the litigation costs were slightly over $22,000, and the costs for Legislation came to approximately $72,000, for a grand total of approximately $94,000. He indicated the balance of the Council’s General Legal Budget is $15,000, therefore, staff is requesting a transfer of $79,000 from General Reserves to pay for this expenditure. Interim Administrator Ulrich stated staff is attempting to resolve some legal issues and bills pertaining to the Golf Course, which have been outstanding from some time. He indicated these expenses relate to the costs for legal work pertaining to the billboards, and it has not been determined which funds or dollars should be utilized to pay for these expenses at this time. He indicated that if the billboards proceed, he would assume the Golf Course would be responsible for the legal expenses related to the billboard project, however, at this time, staff is requesting a transfer of $20,347.40 from the General Reserves to pay this bill. He advised that Eller Media has agreed to pay $5,000 toward those expenses. Interim Administrator Ulrich stated several months ago, the Personnel Policies were updated, and legal staff required additional hours due to changes requested by Council during the process. He explained that the Council provided direction in the midst of this process, which covered the initial expenses, however, at this time, an additional $4,500 is requested to fulfill the City’s obligation in this regard. Interim Administrator Ulrich stated various other non-retainer issues have come in slightly over budget, in the amount of approximately $15,000, and therefore, the total amount requested for legal services for various projects and issues is $119,461.22 to be transferred from the General Reserves into the City Council and Central Services budgets. Mayor Coughlin stated the Council authorized the majority of these items at different points in time, and it was stated in most motions that these items should be paid out of funds deemed appropriate by the Finance Director. He inquired if this was item was simply a housekeeping measure to ensure that all these obligations are met in synchronization with the auditors’ report. Interim Administrator Ulrich stated this was correct. He stated it was his understanding that the City could not go into deficit funding, and therefore, a transfer must be made into these accounts. Mayor Coughlin stated therefore, this was simply the Finance Director’s recommendation, and the majority of these items were expenditures that were previously authorized by the Council. Council Member Marty inquired, in light of the Council’s authorization, why these bills had not already been paid. Mounds View City Council June 12, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 18 Interim Administrator Ulrich indicated he could not provide a detailed answer, other than to state that staff was waiting for the Airport Legislation to be completed, which, as the Council was aware, occurred only a week and a half earlier. Council Member Quick inquired if staff had just received these billings. Council Member Marty inquired if staff had not received any bills prior to this time. Mayor Coughlin stated no. He explained that these amounts represented somewhat of a running total, and he had recently discussed this with Jim Strummond at the Airport reception. Council Member Marty stated Eller Media has agreed to pay $5,000, however, the legal bills exceed $20,000. He inquired if there was any possible means to collect the remaining amount from Eller Media. Mayor Coughlin stated City Attorney Long, Interim Administrator Ulrich and he were present at the meeting during which these negotiations with Eller Media took place. He advised that the Golf Course and Finance Directors negotiated an extremely good compensation package with Eller Media. He explained that the City is responsible for a portion of these legal fees, however, Eller Media has agreed to pay the City an additional several hundred thousand dollars. Council Member Marty thanked Mayor Coughlin for refreshing his memory in this regard. Mayor Coughlin extended praise to City Attorney Long, Finance Director Kessel, and Golf Course Superintendent Hammerschmidt for a phenomenal job in these negotiations. Interim Administrator Ulrich pointed out that the majority of these bills have been paid, and were not outstanding. He explained that this item was simply a request for authorization to transfer funds accordingly. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Approve Staff’s Recommendation and Authorize a Budget Transfer of $79,614.22 from General Fund Reserves to City Council Budget Account No. 100-4100-3030, with an Additional $39,847.40 from General Fund Reserves to Central Services Budget Account No. 100-4160-3010. Council Member Marty inquired if this action would provide that these bills are paid in full, to date. Interim Administrator Ulrich stated in his awareness this was correct, with the exception of ongoing work that is outstanding on a couple of issues. Council Member Stigney stated in response to a resident’s inquiry, he had spoken with Finance Director Kessel that date. He stated this was a proposal to authorize transfers in the amount of $94,614 to bring the City up to date for Airport Litigation and Legislation. He stated he had inquired regarding the costs related to the Airport Litigation and Legislation during the last two years, being aware that this has been ongoing for several years, and Finance Director Kessel informed him that for 1999, and thus far in 2000, this amount was in excess of $131,000. He pointed out that the amount presented in the staff report does not represent total expenses related to the Airport Litigation, and he was uncertain how many years the City has been involved in this issue Mounds View City Council June 12, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 19 Mayor Coughlin stated the Airport Litigation began 1986, and the issue actually came forward in 1946, when the airport was built. Council Member Stigney stated he simply desired to clarify that this amount did not by any means, represent the total costs. Mayor Coughlin stated for the record, “Thank God it’s done, and that Representative Haake and Senator Novak have finally resolved this issue so that the City does not have to face these attacks on their quality of life in the future.” Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 11. Next Council Work Session: Monday, July 17, 2000 – 6:00 P.M. Next Council Meeting: Monday, June 26, 2000 – 7:00 P.M. 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Coughlin adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Transcribed and recorded by: Trish Pearson 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: July 24, 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. GENERAL (COMMERCIAL) Avalon Builders - New K. J. Wills Construction, Inc. - New DEMOLITION Dirt & Demolition, Inc. – New Rybak Excavating & Contracting, Inc. – New HVAC Aabbott Ferraro – New Four Seasons Air Specialists – New Suburban Air - Renewal Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested. Item No. 7C 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: Larry Siluk, Acting Police Chief Item Title/Subject: Resolution to Accept Grant Funding for Safe & Sober Traffic Enforcement Project Meeting Date: July 24, 2000 Please consider the attached resolution allowing the City of Mounds View to apply for and accept, if awarded, Safe & Sober grant funding. This funding would enable the Mounds View Police Department to participate in the Safe & Sober enforcement campaign. The grant, if awarded, will allow for reimbursement of overtime hours worked, benefits, administrative and operating costs of participating in the project. Staff Recommendation: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT Resolution# 5452 Be it resolved that the Mounds View Police Department enter into a grant agreement with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety for the project entitled SAFE & SOBER COMMUNITIES during the period from October 1, 2000 through September 30, 2001. Mounds View Police Chief William Clark is hereby authorized to execute such agreements and amendments as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the Mounds View Police Department and is to be the fiscal agent and administer of the grant. I certify that the above resolution was adopted by the CITY COUNCIL of MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA on July 24, 2000. SEAL: WITNESSETH: ________________________ Interim City Administrator ________________________ Mayor Item No. 7D Staff Report No. Meeting Date: July 24, 2000 Type of Business: C.A. 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 and Authorization of Edgewood Drive / City Hall Park Lighting Project Date of Report: August 29, 2018 At the July 17, 2000 Council work session, the City Council instructed staff to proceed with the Edgewood Drive and City Hall Park Lighting project. The cost estimated for this project is approximately $50,000.00 and will be funded by the Street Light Utility Fund. The project amount is an estimate from NSP and may change once the final order has been placed for materials. Staff recommends Council authorize the Director of Public Works to enter into a contract with NSP Outdoor Lighting to provide for the purchase and installation of the lights and to sign all change orders up to twenty percent of the estimated expense. Staff has copied a reduced drawing of the proposed installation sites for Council’s information. ___________________________________ Michael Ulrich, Interim City Administrator RECOMMENDATION: Council authorize the Director of Public Works to enter into a contract with NSP Outdoor Lighting to provide for the purchase and installation of the lights and to sign all change orders up to twenty percent of the estimated expense. C:\Mike's documents\staff reports\Edgewood Lighting2.doc Item No. 7E Staff Report No. Meeting Date: 07/24/00 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 Members From: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Local Surface Water Management Plan Update Date of Report: August 29, 2018 BACKGROUND: Mounds View adopted a Local Surface Water Management Plan in 1992 in accordance with Minnesota Statutes. The city is now required to complete a second-generation local surface water management plan consistent with the updated Rice Creek Watershed District Plan that they adopted in 1997. Current State Statutes also require that local surface water management plans be an integral part of the City’s comprehensive plan. The Metropolitan Council has completed a “completeness” review of the city’s comprehensive plan and has commented that the Local Surface Water Management Plan must be submitted. DISCUSSION: SEH, the city’s engineering consultant, has completed a draft updated Local Surface Water Management Plan. A copy of the draft plan has been placed in your in-baskets. As part of the update Mounds View will formally adopt the rules, goals, and policies of the Rice Creek Watershed District as its own. Rice Creek Watershed District will continue to have authority over NPDES Permits and the requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act for the City of Mounds View. The draft plan was presented to the Planning Commission at their May 3rd, July 5th, and July 19th meetings. At the July 19, 2000 Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission approved the attached Planning Commission Resolution No. 622-00 which recommends that the City Council approve an updated Local Surface Water Management Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council accept the plan and approve release of the plan for review and comment by the Metropolitan Council, Rice Creek Watershed District, and other agencies. Copies of the plan will also be available for public review and comment. After comments are received a public hearing will be scheduled and then the City Council will be asked to formally adopt the plan. ______________________________________ Rick Jopke, Community Development Director N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\CITYCOUN\07-24-00 City Council LSWMP Report.doc MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION City of Mounds View Staff Report August 29, 2018 Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 622-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE UPDATED LOCAL SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, State Statutes (Minn. Stat. 103B.201 to 103B.255) require that the City of Mounds View update its Local Surface Water Management Plan and submit it to the Metropolitan Council for review; and WHEREAS, an updated Local Surface Water Management Plan has been prepared; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the draft updated Local Surface Water Management Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends to the City Council the adoption of the draft updated Local Surface Water Management Plan. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 19th day of July, 2000 _________________________________________ Jerry Peterson, Chairperson Attest: ____________________________________ Rick Jopke, Community Development Director N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\PCRESOS\PC LSWMP Resolution No. 622-00.doc Item No: 10A Meeting Date: July 24, 2000 Type of Business: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor & City Council From: James Ericson, Planner Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and First Reading (Introduction) of Ordinance 658 Regarding Fences and Fence Heights. Date of Report: July 20, 2000 Background: This Ordinance 658 grew out of a desire to allow for some flexibility regarding the height of fences in front yards. As the Council may recall, this was discussed relative to two planning cases: the Messiah Lutheran Church expansion and the Brunes’ fence variance request on Groveland Road. (With regard to the Messiah case, the Council required that an 8-foot tall fence be located in the front yard of Messiah between its proposed parking lot and the adjoining residential property to the east.) The Planning Commission has recommended adoption of this ordinance. A copy of Resolution 625-00, which they approved at their July 19th meeting, has been attached for your reference. Discussion: The changes contemplated by Ordinance 658 are minimal, however the consequence is such that the Council may require or allow a fence up to eight feet tall in a front yard to satisfy buffer, screening or privacy issues. Ordinance 658 adds the following language to Section 1103.08, Subdivision 3: “The City Council may require or approve fencing up to ninety-six inches (96") in height in a front yard to satisfy a buffer or screening condition of a development review or conditional use permit.” Recommendation: Staff and the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council hold the first reading of this ordinance and schedule the second reading and adoption of this ordinance on August 14, 2000. _____________________________________ James Ericson, Planner Attachments: 1. Resolution 625-00 2. Ordinance 658 1st Read Ord 658 July 20, 2000 Page 2 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 625-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE 658, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 1100, CHAPTER 1103, REGARDING FENCES AND HEIGHT OF FENCES; SPECIAL PLANNING CASE SP-080-00 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed proposed Ordinance 658, an ordinance amending Chapter 1103 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to fences and the height of fences; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission, after significant discussion, believes the proposed ordinance to be in the best interest of the community and is in keeping with the overall spirit and intent of the Mounds View Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission asserts that the proposed ordinance is consistent with the land use goals and policies addressed in the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends to the Mounds View City Council adoption of proposed Ordinance 658. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 19th day of July, 2000. __________________________________________ Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: __________________________________________ Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) O:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\SPECPROJ\SP080-00\RESOLUTION 625-00.DOC 1st Read Ord 658 July 20, 2000 Page 3 ORDINANCE NO. 658 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1103.08, SUBDIVISION 3, OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE, PERTAINING TO THE LOCATION AND HEIGHT OF FENCES WITHIN THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Chapter 1103, Section 1103.08, Subdivision 3 of the Mounds View Zoning Code is hereby amended with additions underlined to read as follows: 1103.08: FENCING, SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING: Subd. 1. Height: No fence shall exceed eight feet (8') in height and in the case of grade separation, such as the division of properties by a retaining wall, the height shall be determined on the basis of measurement from the average point between the highest and lowest grade. Subd. 2. Intersections: No fences, structures or planting of trees or shrubs shall be permitted within thirty feet (30') of any corner formed by the intersection of street property lines or the right of way of a railway intersecting a street, except properly constructed chain link fences. Such chain link fences shall not exceed forty-eight inches (48") in height from the grade level at the lot line and shall have openings in the wire mesh of not less than one and five- eighths inches (1-5/8") nor more than two and one-fourth inches (2-1/4"). Such fences may follow the lot line to the lot corner. The thirty feet (30') restriction noted above shall consist of the triangle formed by connecting the two (2) points on intersecting lot lines that are each thirty feet (30') from the lot corner. Subd. 3. Location: a. Except as provided in subdivision 2 above, fences not to exceed forty-eight inches (48") in height may be located on any part of a lot. Fences not to exceed ninety-six inches (96") in height may be erected on any part of a lot behind the front line of the principal building. The City Council may require or approve fencing up to ninety-six inches (96") in height in a front yard to satisfy a buffer or screening condition of a development review or conditional use permit. b. A fence shall be installed on the applicant's property. The fence shall not be installed directly over the property line. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall go into effect thirty (30) days after it has been published in the official City newspaper. First read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this ____ day of ____, 2000. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this ____ day of ____, 2000. 1st Read Ord 658 July 20, 2000 Page 4 Dan Coughlin, Mayor ATTEST: Michael Ulrich, Interim City Clerk / Administrator (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________ Robert C. Long, City Attorney Item No: 10B Meeting Date: July 24, 2000 Type of Business: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor & City Council From: James Ericson, Planner Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and First Reading (Introduction) of Ordinance 664, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1106 of the Mounds View Zoning Code Pertaining to Accessory Storage Buildings. Date of Report: July 20, 2000 Background: Ordinance 664 was drafted in response to the large number of conditional use permits being reviewed and granted for oversized sheds and garages. The Council directed staff to work with the Planning Commission to arrive at a code revision that would be more flexible and permissive for the residents, as long as certain predetermined conditions were met. The Planning Commission initiated discussion on this issue on June 7, 2000, and at each meeting subsequent from that point through July 19, the Planning Commission developed and refined the language that is now represented by Ordinance 664. On July 19, 2000, the Planning Commission approved Resolution 624-00, which recommends to the City Council adoption of this ordinance. Discussion: The changes contemplated by Ordinance 664 are numerous, the most substantial of which are as follows. • All property owners are allowed 1,400 square feet of accessory building space subject to the 20% maximum rear yard coverage ratio. • All properties are allowed a 952 square foot garage, regardless of footprint of home. • Three accessory buildings are allowed instead of two. • Limit of one garage eliminated. • “Size of accessory building not to exceed footprint of house” requirement eliminated altogether. • Distinction between garage and shed eliminated—simply referred to as accessory buildings. 1st Read, Ord. 664 July 24, 2000 Page 2 There are other changes contemplated by Ordinance 664, some of which are minor and “housekeeping” in nature, while other changes simply clarify the Code and address “setback” issues which, up to this point, the Code has been silent on. Recommendation: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the introduction of the first reading of Ordinance 664 and scheduling of the second reading for August 14, 2000. _____________________________________ James Ericson, Planner Attachments: 1. Resolution 624-00 2. Ordinance 664 H:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\SPECPROJ\SP079-00\CC Memo - July 24, 2000.doc 1st Read, Ord. 664 July 24, 2000 Page 3 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 624-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE 664, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 1100, CHAPTER 1106, REGARDING PERMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS; SPECIAL PLANNING CASE SP-079-00 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed proposed Ordinance 664, an ordinance amending Chapter 1106 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to permitted and conditionally permitted accessory buildings; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission, after significant discussion, believes the proposed ordinance to be in the best interest of the community and is in keeping with the overall spirit and intent of the Mounds View Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission asserts that the proposed ordinance is consistent with the land use goals and policies addressed in the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends to the Mounds View City Council adoption of proposed Ordinance 664. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 19th day of July, 2000. __________________________________________ Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: __________________________________________ Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) O:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\SPCPROJ\SP079-00\RESOLUTION 624-00.DOC 1st Read, Ord. 664 July 24, 2000 Page 4 ORDINANCE NO. 664 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1106 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO PERMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1: Section 1106.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and the proposed deletions struck out, to read as follows: 1106.02: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in an R-1 District: Subd. 1. Single-family detached dwellings. (Ord. 575, 7-15-96) a. Each applicant for a building permit to construct any dwellings shall be required to provide off-street parking spaces for at least two (2) automobiles per family in addition to any garage spaces to be used. b. Every dwelling house hereafter erected shall be so located on the lot so that at least a two (2) car garage, either attached or detached, can be located on said lot. c. No permit shall be issued for the construction of a residential dwelling unless the driveway servicing the property is to be improved with a permanent surfacing material so as to control dust, drainage and erosion, according to the requirements as set forth in Section 902.05 of this Code, except that the property owner may provide a signed, notarized statement in which the property owner agrees to improve the driveway in conjunction with the desired construction activities or within six (6) months of the commencement of such activities, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. For the purposes of this Title, permanent surfacing materials are defined as concrete, asphalt or brick. (Ord. 620, 7-27-98) Subd. 2. Permitted single-family uses allowed under Minnesota Statutes, section 462.357, subdivision 7, as follows: a. A state licensed residential facility serving six (6) or fewer persons, except as provided in subdivision 3 of this Section 1106.02; (Ord. 596, 3-10-97) b. A licensed day care facility serving twelve (12) or fewer persons; c. A group family day care facility licensed under Minnesota Rules, parts 9502.0315 to 9501.0445 to serve fourteen (14) or fewer children; d. Residential facilities whose primary purpose is to treat juveniles who have violated criminal statutes relating to sex offenses or have been adjudicated delinquent on the basis of conduct in violation of criminal statutes relating to sex offenses shall not be considered a permitted use. (Ord. 575, 7-15-96) Subd. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision 2.a. herein, foster family homes as defined in Minnesota Rules, chapter 9545, section 9545.0010, subp. 7, which relate to the Department of Human Services and group homes and group foster homes as defined in Department of Correction Rules, extracted from Minnesota Rules, chapter 2925, section 2925.0100, subp. 9, shall be allowed as permitted uses to serve not more than eight (8) children per home, not including the foster family's own children. (Ord. 575, 7-15-96; Ord. 596, 3-10-97) Subd. 4. Essential services. (Ord. 575, 7-15-96) 1st Read, Ord. 664 July 24, 2000 Page 5 Subd. 5. Public parks and playgrounds. (Ord. 575, 7-15-96) SECTION 2: Section 1106.03 of the Mounds View Zoning Code is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and the proposed deletions struck out, to read as follows: 1106.03: ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in an R-1 District: (1988 Code §40.10) Subd. 1. Accessory Buildings: Accessory buildings, which for these purposes shall include garages, tool houses, carports, sheds and similar buildings, for storage of domestic supply and noncommercial recreational equipment, whether attached or detached. a. Private garages, parking spaces and carports as regulated by Chapter 1121, Off-Street Parking, of this Title. Private garages are intended solely for storage of the private passenger vehicles of the residents of the premises. Such spaces can be rented to nonresidents of the property for private passenger vehicles and/or noncommercial vehicles, trailers or equipment if sufficient off-street parking, in full compliance with this Title, is provided elsewhere on the property. a. Every R-1 zoned property improved with a single-family dwelling is allowed a maximum of 1,400 square feet of combined accessory building area, subject to the requirements noted herein. b. No permit shall be issued for the construction of more than one (1) private garage for each dwelling. Each applicant for a building permit to construct any dwellings shall be required to provide off-street parking spaces for at least two (2) automobiles per family in addition to any garage spaces to be used. Every dwelling house hereafter erected shall be so located on the lot so that at least a two (2) car garage, either attached or detached, can be located on said lot. c. No permit shall be issued for the construction of a residential dwelling, garage or garage expansion unless the driveway servicing the property is improved with a permanent surfacing material so as to control dust, drainage and erosion, according to the requirements as set forth in Section 902.05 of this Code, unless the property owner provides a signed, notarized statement in which the property owner agrees to improve the driveway in conjunction with the desired construction activities or within three (3) months of the commencement of such activities, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. For the purposes of this Title, permanent surfacing materials are defined as concrete, asphalt or brick. (Ord. 620, 7-27-98) b. d. Accessory buildings shall not exceed fifteen feet (15') in height, shall be five feet (5') or more from all lots lines of adjoining lots and shall be six feet (6') three feet (3’) or more from any other building or structure on the same lot. Attached garages must conform to the front and rear setback requirements for the principle structure, and the side yard setback shall be at least five feet (5'). e. The square-footage of a garage in an R-1 District shall not exceed the square-footage of the principal dwelling’s foundation, except by conditional use permit. (Ord. 620, 7-27-98) c. f. No accessory building garage in an R-1 District shall exceed nine hundred fifty-two (952) square feet in area, except by conditional use permit. (Ord. 620, 7-27-98) d. j. The combined square footage of accessory buildings in a rear yard shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the rear yard. (Ord. 442, 7-11-88; Ord. 620, 7-27-98) e. g.. An outdoor living room or patio shall not be used for storage of automobiles or trucks. f. h.. No permit shall be issued for the construction of more than two (2) three (3) accessory buildings in any R-1 1st Read, Ord. 664 July 24, 2000 Page 6 District. One of the two (2) three (3) permits must be for a garage. g. Accessory buildings shall have a weather resistant, treated or finished exterior. Structures composed of tubular metal and canvas or exposed plywood, particle board or similar materials shall not be permitted. i. No accessory building other than a garage shall exceed two hundred sixteen (216) square feet, except by conditional use permit. h. If an accessory building is to be utilized for the storage of frequently-used vehicles, it shall be serviced by an improved driveway so as to control dust, drainage and erosion, according to the requirements as set forth in Section 902.05 of this Code. Subd. 2. Outdoor, Uncovered Parking Spaces: a. Parking spaces for residential vehicles as regulated by Section 607.06, Chapter 802 and Chapter 1121 of the Municipal Code. b. RV Storage: Storage of recreational vehicles and equipment leased or owned by the resident as regulated by Chapter 802 of this Municipal Code. Subd. 3. Home Occupations: The regulation of home occupations within residential structures is intended to insure ensure that the occupational use is clearly accessory or secondary to the principal dwelling use and that compatibility with surrounding residential uses is maintained. No home occupation shall be allowed which: a. Involves employees other than persons residing on the premises; b. Involves alteration or construction features not customarily found in dwellings; c. Has an exterior display or sign in excess of one square foot. Such sign, for identification purposes only, shall be located on either the principal structured or garage. Any sign existing prior to December 29, 1972, shall not be enlarged but may be continued at the size and location upon such date, except as hereinafter specified or subsequently amended. Any sign erected after December 29, 1972, but prior to the effective date hereof shall come into compliance herewith by April 1, 1983; d. Involves exterior storage of equipment or materials; e. Generates more than two (2) motor vehicles at a time for either off-street or on-street parking; f. Results in violation of the provisions of Chapter 604 607, Nuisances, of the Municipal Code; and g. Involves activity visible from the public streets. Subd. 4. Noncommercial Greenhouses and Conservatories: Subd. 5. Recreational Facilities: Swimming pools, patios, decks, gazebos, swing sets, play systems and play houses, outdoor living rooms, tennis courts, and other recreational facilities which are operated for the enjoyment and convenience of the residents of the principal use and their guests. Such facilities shall be set back five feet (5’) or more from a property line, except swimming pools, which shall be set back ten feet (10’) or more from a property line.. Subd. 6. Boarding: Boarding or renting of rooms to not more than one (1) person. Subd. 7. Other Uses: Other allowed uses incidental to the dwelling unit, including, but not limited to: clothes lines and poles; lawn and garden ornaments and other landscaping features; and pet 1st Read, Ord. 664 July 24, 2000 Page 7 house, or facility or kennel. A pet house, facility or kennel shall be set back five feet (5’) or more from a property line. ; playhouse, swing set or other structures for play or recreational use; outdoor living room or screen house of up to four hundred (400) square feet. (1988 Code §40.10) SECTION 3: Section 1106.04 of the Mounds View Zoning Code is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and the proposed deletions struck out, to read as follows: 1106.04: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in an R-1 District (requiring a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 1125.01 of this Title): Subd. 1. Public or semi-public recreational buildings and neighborhood or community centers, public and private educational institutions limited to elementary, junior high and senior high schools and religious institutions, such as churches, chapels, temples and synagogues; provided, that: a. Front yard depths shall be a minimum of thirty-five feet (35'). b. Side yards shall be no less than thirty feet (30'). c. Minimum lot area shall be no less than one (1) acre, or as provided in Section 1104.02, subdivision 2b(3). (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) d. Adequate screening from abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with Section 1103.08 of this Title. e. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided on the site or on lots directly abutting or directly across a public street to the principal use in compliance with Chapter 1121 of this Title and that such parking is adequately screened and landscaped from surrounding and abutting residential uses in compliance with Section 1103.08 of this Title. f. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided and regulated where applicable by Chapter 1122 of this Title. g. The provisions of Section 1125.01, subdivision 1e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) Subd. 2. Governmental and public utility buildings and structures necessary for the health, safety and general welfare of the community; provided, that: a. Conformity with the surrounding neighborhood is maintained and required setbacks and side yard requirements are met. b. Equipment is completely enclosed in a permanent structure with no outside storage. c. Adequate screening from neighboring uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with Section 1103.08 of this Title. d. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met. Subd. 3. Residential planned unit development as regulated by Chapter 1120 of this Title. Subd. 4. Residential dog/cat kennel. 1st Read, Ord. 664 July 24, 2000 Page 8 Subd. 5. Model homes. (1988 Code §40.10) Subd. 6. Garage Accessory building exceeding nine hundred fifty-two (952) square feet. (Ord. 620, 7-27-98) a. The accessory building must conform with Section 1103.06 and subdivision 1106.03(l) of this Title. b. The combined square footage of all accessory buildings on one (1) lot cannot exceed one thousand four hundred (1,400) square feet. (Ord. 620, 7-27-98) c. The building shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform appearance with the dwelling unit. d. The width of the building cannot exceed thirty-five feet (35') nor allow for more than three (3) vehicle access. e. The building shall be a permanent structure. f. e. Should the use for which the permit was granted be changed, the permit shall be subject to reconsideration, revocation or other action regulated by Section 1125.01 of this Title. Subd. 7. Accessory storage buildings other than a garage exceeding two hundred sixteen (216) square feet. a. The accessory building must conform with Section 1103.06 of this Title and subdivision 1106.03(l) of this Title. b. The combined square footage of all accessory buildings on one lot cannot exceed one thousand two hundred sixty four (1,264) square feet. c. The accessory building shall not exceed four hundred (400) square feet. d. The building must be a permanent structure. e. The building shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform appearance with the dwelling unit. f. Should the use for which the permit was granted be changed, the permit shall be subject to reconsideration, revocation or other action regulated by Section 1125.01 of this Title. (Ord. 443, 7-11-88) Subd. 7 8. Wireless telecommunications towers and antennae subject to the provisions established in Chapter 1124 of the Zoning Code. (Ord. 588, 2-10-97) 1st Read, Ord. 664 July 24, 2000 Page 9 SECTION 4. This Ordinance becomes effective thirty (30) days after its publication in the official City newspaper. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this _____ day of ______, 2000. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this _____ day of ______, 2000. _____________________________________ Dan Coughlin, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________________ Michael Ulrich, Interim Clerk / Administrator (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________ City Attorney I:\DATA\USERS\JIME\Old PC\Word Documents\Ordinance 664.doc Item No. 10C Type of Business: CB WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mayor and City Council From: Givonna Reed Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Approval of Business Licenses for 2000-2001 Date of Report: July 26, 2000 At the June 26, 2000 City Council Meeting I requested approval for a number of business license applications for 2000-2001. At that time there were several businesses that had not submitted application materials. July 5, 2000 I mailed reminder letters to each business that had not submitted a renewal application. Since the July 5th mailing I have received completed applications from four businesses. Those businesses are Larry’s Quality Sanitation, Donut Connection Mounds View Best Steak House and Taco Bell. The Utility, Police and Health reports indicate that there are no violations that would prohibit the renewal of these license applications. I would like to note that to-date there are five businesses that are operating without a City of Mounds View Business License. Those businesses include: Blimpies Subs & Salads, Hardees, KFC, Perkins Family Restaurant and Subway. Recommendation: Approve business license applications for Larry’s Quality Sanitation, Donut Connection, Mounds View Best Steak House and Taco Bell. Respectfully Submitted, ___________________________ Givonna Reed Assistant to the City Administrator RESOLUTION NO. 5456 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT PONDING CONCEPT PLAN FOR GREENFIELD PARK WHEREAS, The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) has presented the City Council a concept plan to construct a water detention pond in the northeast corner of Greenfield Park and; WHEREAS, this presentation was given at the July 17, 2000, Council work session and; WHEREAS, this concept plan is designed to reduce the peak flows into Rice Creek from waters to the north and west and; WHEREAS, the District’s initial survey determined this location the most feasible and effective and; WHEREAS, if this project does commence, RCWD and the City of Mounds View will keep the residents of the City informed as to the progression of the project and; WHEREAS, the ponding project itself will be funded by RCWD and the City Council of the City of Mounds View will have final approval of said project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby extend its approval of the concept plan presented by Rice Creek Watershed District for a possible ponding project in Greenfield Park. Adopted this 24th day of July 2000. ATTEST: ______________________________ MAYOR (SEAL) ______________________________ CITY ADMINISTRATOR C:\Mike's documents\resolutions\5456 RCWD Greenfield Park Ponding.doc