Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 1998/08/24Regular Meeting August 24,1998 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER The Mounds View City Council was called to order by Mayor McCarty at 7:00 p.m., on August 24, 1998. 2. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor McCarty, Council Members Gunn, Quick, Koopmeiners, and Stigney. ALSO PRESENT: Mike Ulrich, Acting Clerk Administrator; Kevin Carroll, Economic • Development Coordinator; Rick Jopke, Community Development Director, Jim Ericson, Planning Associate; Bob Long, City Attorney; and Dave Hix, Recording Secretary. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. August 10, 1998 City Council Meeting Mayor McCarty asked for corrections and/or additions to the August 10, 1998 City Council Minutes. Stigney offered the following corrections: On Page 3, Item 3, the title "Bureau of Utility Clerk" should read "Billing and Utility Clerk." On Page 3, Paragraph 5, fifth line; the title "Human Resource Technician" should read "Human Resource Duties of the Assistant Administrator." On Page 3, at the last MOTION/SECOND, delete the reference to Stanton Survey and delete the word "and" following Stanton Survey. On page 4, the first sentence reads "Motion failed due to a lack of second." It should read "Motion failed because it was not recognized by the Chair." McCarty read into the record the Robert's Rules of Order that governed the circumstance in question: RULES OF ORDER 517 "... the minority and individual members if it is for any other purpose than the first sentence of this the one stated in section. In ordinary assemblies, the motion to Lay on the Table is out of • Page 2 August 24, 1998 Mounds View City Council order ifthe evident intent is to kill or avoid dealing with a measure. If a time for resuming consideration is specified in making the motion. it can be admitted only as a motion to Postpone (14~ in which case it is debatable (see also pp. 213-215: Standard Descriptive Characteristics The subsidiary motion to Lay on the Table: 1. Takes precedence over all subsidiary motions, and over any incidental motions that are pending when it is made. It yields to all privileged motions, and to motions that are incidental to itself. 2. Can be applied to main motions, with any other subsidiary motions that may be pending; can be thus applied to orders of the day (14, 40) or questions ofprivilege (19) while they are actually pending as main motions, and such an application is independent of, and does not carry to the table, any other matter that they may have Interrupted; can be separately applied to debatable appeals that do not adhere (p. 115) to the main question (or to nonadhering points of order referred by the chair to the judgement of the assembly which are debatable when so referred), and this application has no effect on the status of any other questions that may be pending; can be applied to adhering appeals-Whether debatable or undebatable-only by laying the main question on the table, in which case the appeal and all other adhering motions to the table also; can be applied to an immediately pending motion to Reconsider (36), whenever Lay on the table would be applicable if the motion to be reconsidered were ..." McCarty stated: "The motion to table cannot be used or wielded as a club to close off a debate on the rest of the members." "That's why the motion died, it never had a second, I never called for a second." Stigney stated: "The motion was made to table in conjunction with the Hay Study, so a definite time period was stated." McCarty stated: "It should have been a motion to postpone." The Mayor suggested that Mr. Stigney educate himself on Robert's Rules of order. Stigney stated he was fully aware of the meaning of the words "postpone" and "table." "In the past when I made a postponement motion, it has always been change to table." The Mayor stated he disagreed and requested that Mr. Stigney move on with his corrections to the minutes. Stigney restated his correction to the minutes as follows: "I made a motion and it was not recognized by the Chair." Page 3 August 24, 1998 Mounds View City Council Mayor McCarty reiterated the motion was called out of order and referred Mr. Stigney to Robert's Rules of Order 517, which had just been read into the record. He said, "Your remedy to that would be to appeal from the decision of the Chair, but you never made that." Stigney told the Council: "The City Attorney had reviewed the Council Meeting tape and stated that, in fact, the Mayor was incorrect in his decision." Mayor McCarty asked Mr. Stigney to proceed with his corrections to the minutes. Stigney stated his corrections as: "The motion did not fail due to lack of a second. It failed because the motion was not recognized by the Chair." Mayor McCarty offered the following correction to the minutes: On Page 4, Line 1 should read, "Motion failed because it was ruled out of order." Stigney offered the following correction to the minutes: All statements as shown in the record in regards to the failed motion in question are out of sequence with what is shown on the meeting tapes. MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Stigney to approve the August 10, 1998 Council Meeting Minutes as corrected. VOTE: Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried 4. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS No Special Order of Business was considered. 5. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims B. Request Approval to purchase Parks Truck C. Request to Transfer License for Oasis Market Items D, E, and F were pulled for further consideration. D. Adopt Resolution 5261, Ordering the Preparation of Proposed Assessment and Setting and Assessment Hearing for Old Highway 8 Improvements. The Public Hearing is to be September 28, 1998 at 7:05 p.m., in the Mounds View City Hall Council Chambers. Page 4 August 24, 1998 Mounds View City Council E. Set a Public Hearing for 7:05 p.m., September 14, 1998, to Consider Resolution No. 5263, a Resolution Considering a Conditional Use Permit for an oversized garage at 2185 Pinewood Drive as requested by Tammy Bellamy. F. Set a Public Hearing for 7:10 p.m., September 14, 1998, to Consider Resolution No. 5264, a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for an oversized garage at 2442 Hillview Road as requested by David Kramer. MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiner/Gunn to approve the Consent Agenda as published. VOTE: Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried Mayor McCarty told the Council and the attending audience that due to a last minute illness of the Video transmitting crew, the evenings meeting would not be televised on the cable access channel. • 6. RESIDENTS' REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR William Frits, 8072 Long Lake Road, asked for updates on the following items: Traffic controls at Xzylite Street and County Road J Ulrich stated the controlled intersection has been approved by Anoka County. Mounds View, SYSCO FOODS, the City of Blaine, Anoka County and Ramsey County will be sharing the cost of the intersection improvements. 2. Airport Road McCarty told Mr. Frits that there had been a Resolution adopted between the City of Blaine and the City of Mounds View, allowing Mounds View to have that section of the road removed, if there were traffic problems, and Blaine would not fight the action. The resolution is defective because it did not include the other parties that have an interest in the intersection; Anoka County, Ramsey County, and the State of Minnesota. Roads that are installed with MSA funds are difficult to remove, McCarty added. The Mayor told Frits that he would follow up on the requested information and personally call him with the results of this inquiry. It was noted for the record that Mr. Frits was opposed to signalization of the intersection in question. 3. Term Limits for City held offices Page 5 August 24, 1998 Mounds View City Council McCarty stated the Minnesota State Supreme Court has ruled that Term Limits are unconstitutional. 4. The Mounds View Community Center Mr. Frits complained about the Community Center saying it was a "white elephant" that is draining the City's taxes. He asked when the facility would be open and useful for the City. McCarty stated it was planned for the Community Center to be open for use by November of this year. To help defray the costs of operating the facility the Community Center has leased space to The Children's Home Society and the School District. 5. Tax Increment Financing • McCarty stated, "TIF is a tool that the State Legislature put in place years ago to try and enhance and encourage our (The State's) economic base, and in particular our commercial and industrial base." The money cannot be used for general administrative functions of the city. Mr. Frits stated he was opposed to TIF because it did not do the City any obvious good. 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Consideration of Resolution No. 5262, a Resolution Approving a Development Review Requested by SYSCO Foods to expand their Food Distribution and Warehouse Facility Located at 2400 County Road J. Ericson gave his report as follows: SYSCO Foods had requested a development review for a proposed 106, 000 square foot expansion that includes more employee parking, more truck parking, more freezer space, more dry goods space, and more administrative office space. Staff s main concern is the zero set back that has been requested for the driveway on the east side of the facility which boards wetland area currently owned by the City of Mounds View. SYSCO Foods has indicated that widening the current driveway from its current condition to the maximum allowable, under the PUD that was approved when the SYSCO facility was first approved, was needed to maintain an orderly and safe traffic flow scenario for current and future needs. The Planning Commission has reviewed and gave the City Council its recommendation for Page 6 August 24, 1998 Mounds View City Council approval of the Development Review. No letters of opposition to the project had been received by the City. McCarty asked Ericson to tell the Council specifically what they would be approving or disapproving under this Development Review. Ericson told the Council they would be approving setbacks, the building itself, landscape and architectural criteria. No action would be taken on the use itself. But, rather, the site plan is being considered as to whether it meets the zoning criteria. MOTIONISECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to approve Resolution No. 5262, a Resolution Approving a Development Review Requested by SYSCO Foods to expand their Food Distribution and Warehouse Facility Located at 2400 County Road J. VOTE: Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried . B. Consider Resolution No. 5259, Retaining Financial Management, Inc., as the City's Financial Advisory Consultant. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to approve Resolution No. 5259 Retaining Public Financial Management, Inc., as the City's Financial Advisory Consultant. Stigney stated by approving the use of Financial Management Inc., as the City's financial advisory consultant it appeared as if the Mermaid Project was going ahead "full tilt", going out for bonding of $1.7 million. If this occurred it also would mean that the City would incur the $550,000 cost in relocating the Rent All business located on the corner of County Road H and Highway 10. He stated the citizens of Mounds View are not aware of these developments. Because of this fact, Stigney suggested holding off on approving Resolution No. 5259. McCarty stated the Resolution recognized assignment of a financial management firm for the City. There was no reference to the Mermaid or any other project. The Resolution sets forth fee schedules to be applied to the retaining of the financial management firm. Stigney stated there is no need to go out and ask an outside consultant to come in and look at, and start paying him to do this issue, if they City is only considering the bonding issue. McCarty reiterated the fact that the City is not authorizing the financial manager to do any project. It assigns, it authorizes staff to deal with a specific firm as the City's financial advisor, it does nothing more. The Mayor asked Stigney to stop pandering to the unfounded fears of the Page 7 August 24, 1998 Mounds View City Council public who don't have the information before them as the Council does. "There is nothing in the Resolution that binds the City to any project," he added. Stigney stated that by approving the Resolution, the City would be presupposing that the Mermaid Project was going to happen, and it is asking that the City pay $4,500 to have the financial consultant review this process. Stigney added, if the consultant can get the City better bonding rates, he would be all for it. But if the Resolution is tied into the Mermaid Project, the residents should be given the chance to voice their opinions on the issue. McCarty read Resolution No. 5259 into the record. VOTE: Ayes - 4 Nays - 1(Stigney) Motion carried C. Consideration of City Hall Renovation Bids Michael Cox, Wold Architects, gave his report as follows: • Bids for the Construction and Renovation of the City Hall were received and opened August 20, 1998. The renovation work will include: 1. Replacement of the roof-mounted ventilation and air conditioning units 2. Reroofing 3. Water proofing the lower level 4. Tuck-pointing and other miscellaneous repairs Eleven bids were received. The low bid; which came in lower than the budget, was from Ebert Construction of Corcoran Minnesota. Their bid amount was $204,600. The contractor has submitted letters of reference and Wold was recommending that the City enter into a contract with the low bidder. Stigney asked for clarification in fire protection figures as stated in the bid. Cox stated one option had more fire protection than in the other. He added that the overall project cost of $315,000 included contingencies for unknowns, payments for fees, and testing. Ebert's low bid would lower this amount because their bid was low than the budgeted amount. Stigney stated concerns about approving $30,000 to do water proofing in the basement. McCarty stated that all of the items listed in the schedule for correction are items that the full Council approved after a very lengthy process of finding out exactly what work had to be done Page 8 August 24, 1998 Mounds View City Council on the City Hall facility. All the projects were preapproved and the vote on the issue would approve the dollar amount. Stigney asked what funding mechanism would be use on the project. McCarty stated staff has recommended that the funds come from the City's reserve account. Attorney Long recommended that the motion be conditioned upon review by the City Attorney for essentially four things: 1. Proper Insurance 2. Bonding 3. Outstanding legal claims or liabilities 4. Prevailing wage issue MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to approve awarding of the City Hall Renovation Bid • to Ebert Construction with the stipulations as stated. VOTE: Ayes - 4 Nays - 1(Stigney) Motion carried D. Status Report and Approval of Resolution No. 5260, Authorizing City Staff and Consultants to Proceed with Development Agreement and Other Actions Concerning the Mermaid Hotel and Banquet Center. Jopke gave his report as follows: Staff has developed a draft development agreement that has been put together by Briggs and Morgan. This basic "boiler plate agreement" is a list of items that should be included in the development agreement for the project. A preliminary work schedule of things that would need to be accomplished in order to keep the project on schedule was included for the Council's consideration. Land appraisals have been made and a projected relocation budget has been established for the moving of the Rent All business that is located on the corner of County Road H and Highway 10. Permission is being sought from the Council for staff to proceed with the negotiations to purchase the rental facility property. The Resolution was summarized as follows: 1. Get permission to negotiate a final development agreement with the developer 2. Get permission to negotiate an option and purchase agreement for the rental facility property Page 9 August 24, 1998 Mounds View City Council 3. Get permission to put together an application with the Department of Trade and Economic Development for grant funds 4. Get permission to continue discussion with Metropolitan Transit for a transit hub/park n' ride facility John Siepert, speaking on behalf of the developer, reviewed for the Council the ownership structure that would be put into place for the proposed Mermaid Project. It was stated there would be two different owners involved in the project. One would be the owner of the hotel complex, Mr. Hall (80 percent) and JCS Development (20 percent). The other would be the owner of the banquet facility, Mr. Hall exclusively. JCS Development will be the developer of the hotel portion of the project. The financial lenders have showed great interest in the project but no firm financial package had been put together at the time of this meeting. Carroll gave his report as follows: A discussion has been initiated with Metro Transit in regards to the possible development of a Park & Ride facility to be located on the expanded Mermaid site, most likely at the corner of • County Road H and Highway 10. The current Park & Ride facility located on the east side of County road H is at or near capacity. As a result, Metro Transit has targeted the Mounds View area for a new Park & Ride location, and plans have been underway to improve and begin using a parking lot on the arsenal property in Arden Hills. The deciding factor as to which site will ultimately be used is where Metro Transit can get the most parking spaces the most quickly at the lowest cost for the longest guaranteed period of time. Jopke told the Council that the Planning Commission actions regarding the Mermaid project could be during the month of October and November. McCarty stated he would feel more comfortable with the schedule if the planning Commission was include prior to the September 28 date, which financially speaking, is the date the City Council is being asked to commit the City to the project. Mr. Siepert, stated he did not for see any problems from the Planning Commission because the property is already properly zoned. The Rice Creek Watershed District has to give its approval for the project and this is scheduled for preliminary approval on September 25. MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Gunn to approve Resolution No. 5260, a Resolution Authorizing City Staff and consultants to Proceed with a Development Agreement and Other Actions Concerning the Mermaid Hotel and Banquet Facility. • Stigney stated opposition to the Resolution without first getting reaction from the City's residents. He also stated his objection to making a Park & Ride as the gateway to the City of r n ~J • Page 10 August 24, 1998 Mounds View City Council Mounds View. The project would also take TIF funds away from the Highway 10 Corridor Development. McCarty stated the EDC, which Stigney is a member, had recommended the project, in concept, on a unanimous vote. No commitments are being made tonight. The City Council is authorizing the City staff to continue to work with the developer in searching out answers to questions that are before the Council and the developer, he added. McCarty stated the developer pays for staff time through the application fees. Stigney stated, "The cooperative effort that is being proposed is for the City to solely purchase and be responsible for the Rent All property, and this is being asked without any input from the City's citizens as to whether they wish to do that or not." McCarty stated there is not "gift" from the City in regards to purchasing any properties that would be involved in this project. Financing for the project would come from three components: 1. Private development funds 2. Bonding, to be paid back with future revenues from the project 3. TIF (Rent All property) No dollars will come from the advalorum tax levy. The entire project would be paid for with tax increments. Stigney reiterated the funds would be coming from the TIF pool that could be used for the Highway 10 Corridor Development. "The City residents should be clued in as to what this project is," he restated. VOTE: Ayes - 4 Nays - 1(Stigney) 8. REPORTS Quick No Report Koopmeiners No Report Gunn No Report Stigney No Report Ulrich No Report Mayor McCarty No Report Attorney Long gave the following report: Motion carried Page 11 August 24, 1998 Mounds View City Council The Action in process against the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) has been filed and is scheduled for a hearing on September 23, 1998. Met Council has agreed to the City's request to lay over consideration of the plan until October 8, 1998. The decision from MAC will be made prior to this October 8, 1998 date. 9. Next Council Work Session: Tuesday, September 8 - 6:00 p.m. Next Council Meeting: September 14,1998 - 7:00 p.m. Special Work Session: August 31,1999 - 6:00 p.m. 10. ADJOURNMENT MOTION/SECOND: KoopmeinerslStigney to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dave Hix Recorder •