Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 1998/09/14APPRO~~u PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting September 14,1998 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 6:58 p.m., on September 14, 1998. 2. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor McCarty, Council Members Gunn, Koopmeiners, and Stigney. MEMBERS ABSENT: Council Member Quick (excused) ~ ~ ALSO PRESENT: Chuck Whiting, Clerk Administrator; Rick Jopke, Community Development Director; Jim Ericson, Planning Associate; Bob Long, City Attorney; and Dave Hix, Recording Secretary. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. August 24, 1998 City Council Meeting Minutes Mayor McGarry asked for corrections and/or additions to the August 24, 1998 City Council Minutes. Stigney offered the following corrects: On Page 2, third paragraph, change the word "Hays" to read "Hay." On Page 2, fifth paragraph, change the word "meant" to read "change." Stigney stated that he was under the impression that corrections had been made and approved to the August 10, 1998 City Council Meeting Minutes as follows: On Page 4, first sentence, the sentence should have read "Motion failed because it was not recognized by the Chair." This change had been noted in the minute corrections but not transferred to the August 10 minutes themselves. He requested that this correction be made to the August 10, 1998 Approved ~~ Minutes. Page 2 September 14, 1998 Mounds View City Council Mayor McCarty suggested that the Council deal with the current minutes. After this has been done, Mr. Stigney could make his motion to reconsider the City Council Minutes of August 10, 1998. MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Gunn to approve the August 24, 1998 City Council Meeting Minutes as amended. VOTE: Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Gunn to reconsider the City Council Minutes of August 10, 1998. Stigney offered the following correction to the City Council Minutes of August I0, 1998: On Page 4, the first sentence reads "Motion failed because it was ruled out of order." It should read, "Motion failed because it was not recognized by the Chair." Mayor McCarty stated that he had ruled the Motion out of order on the basis of Robert's Rules of • Order No. 517, as had been stated at the August 24, 1998 City Council Meeting. Stigney stated, "That ain't no ruling at all, you did nothing.....you made no statement at all." City Attorney Long suggested that the Council finish voting on the Motion to reconsider. VOTE: Ayes - 2 Nays - 2(McCarty, Koopmeiners) Motion failed Stigney stated for the record: MR. STIGNEY: I would like to incorporate for the public record what has just transpired here. In fact, something -- this record is going to go on stating that Motion failed because it was ruled out of order. In fact, anybody that views the tape would see that that is not what occurred at all. So now we're changing history, and it's just wrong. So if the Council does not want to correct the Minutes I want it as a public record that it is to be left in here incorrect. MAYOR McCARTY: Roger, I am getting a little weary of these things, but I will still say to you that, yes, I reviewed the tape of that meeting several times. And I ruled you out of order several times for the same reason as I pointed out to you in Robert's Rules of Order last week. And I can do that for you again if you would like. And that is: "The motion to Lay on the Table is commonly misused in ordinary assemblies in place of a motion to Postpone. By adopting a motion to Lay on the Table a majority has the power Page 3 September 14, 1998 Mounds View City Council to halt consideration of a question immediately without debate. Such action violates the rights of the minority, and individual members, if it is for other than the one stated in the first sentence of this section. In ordinary assemblies, the motion to Lay on the Table is out of order i, f the evident intent is to kill or avoid dealing with a measure." And your intent was quite clear, you made it so. MR. STIGNEY: No, I disagree with that statement. MAYOR McCARTY: I'm sorry, I have the floor -- MR. STIGNEY: Well, I just want you to know that I disagree with that statement. MAYOR McCARTY: -- I'll protect your right to the floor. I'll protect your right to the floor, and I'll expect you to respect mine. "If a time for resuming consideration is specified in making a motion. it can be admitted only as a motion to postpone." Now, had you made a motion to postpone, you would have had a whole different ball game, but • you didn't. You made a motion to table in an obvious effort to try and hold the tabling motion over the heads of the majority on this Council. And I ruled you out of order at least three times; you kept insisting. And you can go back and review the tape. MR. STIGNEY: I don't need to review it. MAYOR McCARTY: Okay. MR. STIGNEY: I know precisely what it is. You ruled me out of order three times and I was trying to call to your attention that I had a motion on the floor and recognized, I believe -- MAYOR McCARTY: Your motion was to table, incorrectly, per the section of Roberts Rules that I just cited for the fourth time -- MR. STIGNEY: Let's go back to that. MAYOR McCARTY: -- I called you out of order. MR. STIGNEY: Let's go back to that. You did not rule me out of order -- MAYOR McCARTY: (striking of gavel) Mr. Stigney, I'm ruling you out of order one more time. Let's get back to the Agenda. Page 4 September 14, 1998 Mounds View City Council MR. STIGNEY: No, let's -- Can we clear up this issue? Or is just going to fall into the void? MR. KOOPMEINERS: It's cleared up. MAYOR McCARTY: It's cleared up. We just had a motion and your motion failed. MR. KOOPMEINERS: Let's get on with the Agenda. MAYOR McCARTY: Are you done now? MR. STIGNEY: As long as the public -- MAYOR McCARTY: Are you done now? MR. STIGNEY: No, not quite. Can I speak? Or do I have any 1st Amendment rights at all? MAYOR McCARTY: Yes. If you have a motion, you can speak. MR. STIGNEY: I am speaking -- MAYOR McCARTY: Do you want to hear the section on Robert's Rules that says you must have a motion? MR. STIGNEY: You said I could comment on the rule that you read of Roberts Rules. May I comment on it. MAYOR McCARTY: Sure. MR. STIGNEY: The motion that I made had a definite time frame established. It was to be in conjunction with the Hay Study, as it shows on Page 2, fifth sentence from the top(referring to the August 24, 1998 City Council Meeting Minutes). "The motion was made to table in conjunction with the Hay Study, so a definite time period was stated." As a matter of fact, we had the work session on September 8, in conjunction with the Hay Study. So this time frame was there. It has also been a procedural policy of this Council, since I've been on it, any time I've made a motion to postpone something it was changed by the Council or by, specifically you, the Chair, to a table to a definite date. So, this is just policy, something procedurally that we have. Now, you can pull whatever you want Page 5 September 14, 1998 Mounds View City Council to out of Robert's Rules and Records. The fact remains, that on August 10 a motion was made and it failed because it was not recognized by the Chair, as simple as that. And I want to make that as the public record. MAYOR McCARTY: Roger, you just corrected the August 24 minutes yourself; where you stated you were fully aware of the meaning of the words "postpone" and "table". In the past when I made a postponement motion, it has always been changed to table. MR. STIGNEY: Correct. That's why I stated to table it -- MAYOR McCARTY: I think you had them backwards. We have tried -- I have tried to help you because it's my responsibility -- MR. STIGNEY: I don't need your help, Mr. Mayor. I just need your consideration that what you're putting in this minutes is not a fact. MAYOR McCARTY: Well, I'm sorry. I can't run the world the way you would like to see it run. MR. STIGNEY: Unfortunately. MAYOR McCARTY: Yeah, yeah, we have ademocracy -- MR. STIGNEY: Now we're changing history. So now you have a Council that can put into their minutes whatever they want regardless of what really took place in fact. MAYOR McCARTY: Seems to me that's what you're trying to do. MR. STIGNEY: No. I'm trying to straighten out the record. So we do have a tape on this. If any of you Council Members want to view the tape, or any of you residents view it, you will see who is right or wrong. I'm just stating that it is not correct. If the Council doesn't want to change it, they don't have to change it. If it was my vote, it is not correct, as simple as that. Now, we can get on if you would like. MAYOR McCARTY: Well; if you've run down that's fine by me. 4. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS Add Item No. 9, A: Airport Litigation -Closed Session Page 6 September 14, 1998 Mounds View City Council 5. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims. B. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes dated July 1, 1998 and July 15, 1998. C. Approval of resolution No. 5268 Approving the 1998 Election Judges. D. Renewal of Kennel Licenses (staff report attached). E. Approval of Contractor Licenses (staff report attached). F. Approval of Extension for Time Frame to file Final Plat for the Everest Building N Project. MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Gunn to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. VOTE: Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried 6. RESIDENT'S REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR Barbara Haake, 3024 County Road I, updated the Council on questions that Council member Quick had asked in regards to the Rice Creek Watershed District. She gave her update as follows: Ms. Hokey reviewed maps outlining the location where spot maintenance, dead fall removal, and culvert maintenance had been performed on Anoka/Ramsey Judicial District No. 1(JD Ditch No. 1). The ditch had been cleaned in the fall of 1997 and also in February and March of 1998. Areas not cleaned to date were outlined on the map and Mr. Hokey explained that MNDot would be responsible for the cleaning and repairing of these specific areas. In response to Council member Quick's question: "Have any permits ever been denied in Mounds View?" Ms. Hokey told the Council in the five years that she has worked for the District, there has been nothing denied. There have been tablings for administrative action, but in all cases the problems have been resolved either through the City engineer or the Watershed engineer. Chuck Whiting reminded the viewing audience and the live audience about the elections being held in the City September 14, 1998. Polling times were stated as being 7:00 a.m. through 8:00 p.m. at Edgewood School. Rob Marty, 2626 Louisa Avenue, requested that the City find an alternate way of publicizing the City Council Minutes when problems occur that make televising of the meetings impossible. . Page 7 September 14, 1998 Mounds View City Council Mayor McCarty stated the published minutes are available for the general public at the City Offices, copies of the minutes are available on request. 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution No 5263, Approving a Conditional Use Permit for an Over-sized Garage at 2185 Pinewood Drive, requested by Tammy Bellamy. Mayor McCarty closed the Council Meeting and opened the public hearing for consideration of Resolution 5263. Associate Ericson gave his report as follows: 2185 Pinewood Drive is located at the corner of Pinewood Drive and Quincy Street, just north of County Road I. The property is approximately 16, 000 square feet. Presently there is a small, one-story residence and a detached single-car garage n the corner lot. The applicant had requested a similar CUP in 1997, but chose to withdraw her request before action was taken by the City Council. The current request is fora 1,008 square foot detached garage, 24' x 42', to be located 13' from the west property line. The garage would be set back further on the property than the house. The driveway will be improved with concrete within three months of the construction of the garage. Mounds View's new Ordinance No. 620, which controls the size of garage additions in relation to the size of the house that they are being added on to, would not apply to this application because the application came to the City before the Ordinance was in effect. The Planning Commission has reviewed and voted to recommend approval of the CUP based on the fact that the storage of vehicles in the garage would help improve the looks of the home and the surrounding neighborhood. Even though the house and garage are not in proportion it was felt that the privacy fence and extensive tree cover that surrounds the property would help to screen the property from view at the street. The applicant indicated that they are planning on expanding the house in the future, which would lessen the disproportion between the home and the addition. Mayor McCarty asked for comments from the public. No comments were considered from the public. The public hearing was closed and the floor was returned to the Council for their consideration of the application. Page 8 September 14, 1998 Mounds View City Council Koopmeiners asked what guarantee the City had that an excessive amount of vehicles would not be parked in the Bellamy's yard. Ericson stated there is a nuisance Ordinance that keeps cars from parking in the yard. There is no Ordinance on the books that controls the number of vehicles parked in the driveway or what might be parked in the garage. The Resolution states, in very clear language, that all vehicles have to be parked on the "improved surface of the driveway." Stigney asked if staff had received calls or letters of opposition to the project. Ericson stated one letter had been received from the property owner located behind the Bellamy residence. The letter was included in staff s report. The person in opposition was concerned about being able to see cars parking in the yard. MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Gunn to approve Resolution No. 5263, Approving a Conditional Use Permit for an Over-sized Garage at 2185 Pinewood Drive, requested by Tammy Bellamy. Stigney stated the scale of the house in relationship to the garage was out of proportion. He stated his opposition to granting the CUP based on this fact. Mayor McCarty asked for clarification in regards to the Planning Commission and City Council's public hearings. He asked if they had been advertised to all affected property owners. Ericson stated that all public hearings had been properly advertised. VOTE: Ayes - 3 Nays - 1(Stigney) Motion carried B. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution No 5254, Approving a Conditional Use Permit for an Over-sized Garage at 2442 Hillview Road, requested by David Kramer. (The Item was removed at the request of David Kramer) C. Consideration of Resolution No. 5265 setting the preliminary 1999 general fund operation budget, 1999 property tax levies, and the related public hearing for November 30, 1998. Administrator Whiting gave his report as follows: The purpose for Resolution No. 5265 is to set a preliminary levy that the City would work under, Page 9 September 14, 1998 Mounds View City Council and not exceed, between the present time and the time the final 1999 budget is adopted on November 30, 1998 meeting or at a special meeting held December 7, 1998. The General Fund Revenue budget is just over $3.6 million. The General Fund Levy is proposed to be a $1.68 million levy. This is a 5 percent increase over the 19981evy. Ramsey County has notified Mounds View that the average home in Mounds View will see and increase in tax levy of about 2.27 percent due to the increase in property values. These figures are preliminary and are used for the County's Truth in Taxation Notices. The City Council is continuing to work on the 1999 budget which will be up for approval in November. Mayor McCarty added the Council cannot go above the stated limits but they do have the ability and opportunity to reduce the figures after the budget is finalized. MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Gunn to approve Resolution 5265 setting the preliminary 1999 general fund operation budget, 1999 property tax levies, and the related public hearing for November 30, 1998. ~~ • Stigney offered the following comment: I would like to see us (The Council) reduce it to a zero percent increase over last year if that is possible." VOTE: Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried D. Consideration of Resolution No. 5266 Approving a Development Agreement with Anthony Properties Management/Louise O'Neil for the Proposed Theater Development. Director Jopke gave his report as follows: At the September 8, 1998 City Council work session, staff reviewed the Development Agreement drafted for Anthony Properties Management. The agreement has been changed as follows: Section 3.11 has been eliminated. This was the provision that required that access to County Road H2 be barricaded until the signal is up and running on Highway 10. J. Anthony has signed and executed their portion of the agreement. Staff was also requesting permission to retain SEH to proceed with the final design for the signalized intersection relating to the Theater Project and the Community Center. MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Koopmeiners to approve Resolution No. 5266 Approving a Development Agreement with Anthony Properties Management/Louise O'Neil for the Proposed Theater Project. Page 10 September 14, 1998 Mounds View City Council MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Koopmeiners to amend the Development Agreement: In the form of Paragraph 3.12, Traffic Control, stating: The Developer will be responsible for any additional traffic control costs associated with the Theater Project. Wendell Smith, representing Anthony Properties, voiced his strong objection to adding new conditions to an agreement that had already been signed and executed by one of the parties to the agreement. He stated at this point in the project, "the last hour", it was very unfair for the Council to put additional constraints on the project. Stigney stated the Developer has indicated there will be no traffic problems relating to the Theaters opening. In light of this statement, they should have no objection to making an agreement that they would be responsible for the costs of any traffic problems that might occur. Gunn suggested putting a time limitation on the amendment, "conditioned on the installation of the traffic control. If the traffic light does not go in on time, and they (The Theater) have to use . H2, then the developer pays for the extra traffic control, should it be needed. Stigney stated his continuing concerns about traffic problems that would be created by the Theater even when the signalized intersection is completed. Mayor McCarty expressed concerns about requiring a private developer to furnish traffic control personnel on a state highway and a county road. Attorney Long stated the City could have its police department do the work and then bill the Theater for this cost. Mr. Smith reminded the Council that Anthony Properties had already committed to "work with the City" in dealing with any traffic problems that might arise from opening the Theater early. He added the City still has the leverage of not issuing an occupancy permit if a "working agreement" cannot be reached to deal with traffic problems relating to the signalized intersection. Mayor McCarty stated the signalized interaction is a "two-way gain." Not only will the Theater Project benefit from the intersection, but the City's New Community Center also stands to benefit greatly. He suggested that the maker of the motion for the amendment and the seconder agree to limit the requirement to the installation of the signalized intersection. Stigney stated the costs for the intersection are not being shared equally by the developer, as they should be. He added the signalized intersection does not guarantee that traffic problems will not occur as a result of the Theater being open for business. The Developer should be responsible Page 11 September 14, 1998 Mounds View City Council for the costs associated with solving future traffic problems brought on by the Theater opening in Mounds View. Mr. Smith stated that if he had the project to do over again he would not bring the project to Mounds View. Mr. Stigney's attempts to derail the project at the last minute are unfair, unprofessional and are coming to the point of being illegal. Stigney stated he has made his opinions on traffic known since the project was first brought to the City. Mayor McCarty stated the problem that he sees with the amendment is that it is based on one person's (Mr. Stigney) fears, conjectures and guesses as to what might happen with the City's traffic. The City has hired experts to analyze the project, which included and unsignalized intersection, the traffic study indicated there would be no traffic problems. Stigney reiterated, regardless of what the traffic control experts stated, the Developer should be responsible for paying for addition traffic control costs that are required to deal with the Theater traffic. He added, "The amendment doesn't have anything to do with fear. It has to do with logic, simple as that." Cam Obert, 831 S Greenwood Drive, stated the Theater Project was going to generate a great deal of tax revenue for the City. The thought of having to provide some type of traffic control support while the Theater is opening is a relatively small amount of money compared to the taxes that would be generated by the project. He suggested to Mr. Stigney that it is time to move on and stop "splitting hairs". Stigney reiterated his stance of having the Developer being responsible for the traffic control costs that are related to the Theater. Rob Marty expressed his concern in regards to the traffic that will be generated by the Theater Project. Julie Olsen expressed her continuing dissatisfaction with the way the City has included the citizens of Mounds View in the development of the Theater Project. Whiting reminded the Council that the purpose of the Agreement is not necessarily to deal with traffic. The traffic issue came up as a side issue at the September 8, 1998 City Council work . session. Anthony Properties has committed to work with the City to solve these problems. What has to be accomplished tonight is to sign an agreement that commits the developer to pay for the Page 12 September 14, 1998 Mounds View City Council L` street that goes through the Theater Property. MOTION/SECOND: McCarty/Stigney to call the question on the amendment as stated by Stigney and Koopmeiners. VOTE: Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. VOTE Ayes - 1 Nays - 3(McCarty, Gunn, Koopmeiners) ON THE AMENDMENT: Motion failed VOTE Ayes - 3 Nays - 1(Stigney) Motion carried ON THE MAIN MOTION: E. Consideration of Resolution No. 5267, Calling for the Formation of a Citizen's Committee to Review the City's Street Construction, Assessment and Financing Policies and Procedures. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Gunn to approve Resolution No. 5267, Calling for the Formation of a Citizen's Committee to Review the City's Street Construction, Assessment and Financing Policies and Procedures. VOTE: 8. REPORTS Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried Koopmeiners No Report Gunn No Report Stigney No Report Mayor McCarty gave his report as follows: MOTION/SECOND: McCarty/Gunn to approve the appointment of Greg Johnson to the Planning Commission as recommended by the Planning Commission. VOTE: Ayes - 4 9. Next Council Work Session: Nays - 0 Motion carried Monday, October 5,1998 - 6:00 p.m. Page 13 September 14, 1998 Mounds View City Council Next Council Meeting: September 28,1998 - 7:00 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: McCarty/Koopmeiners to authorize SEH to complete the final signalized intersection design for the Highway 10/Edgwood Road realignment. Stigney reiterated his position that the City is being asked to pay the bulk of costs for the signalized intersection and the road realignment. It has always been my position that these costs should be shared equally between the Developer of the Theater Project and the City, he added. Mayor McCarty stated the signalized intersection would be paid for with TIF Funds, the commercial tax base, or MSA funds, which are gas taxes. Property taxes will not be impacted. Stigney added the signalized intersection would have an impact on what else could be done with • the TIF Funds. Jeffery Lee, 7820 Eastwood Road, stated the City's treatment of Anthony Properties over the past three years has been obscene. The City needs to review its development policies, he added. He voiced his approval of the Theater Project and the revenue that would be generated by it. VOTE: Ayes - 3 Nays - 1(Stigney) Motion carried RECESS TO THE CLOSED SESSION (8:40 p.m.) 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the City Council, Mayor McCarty adjourned the meeting directly following the Closed Session at 9:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dave Hix Recorder APPROVED PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting September 28,1998 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 6:58 p.m., on September 28, 1998. 2. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor McCarty, Council Members Gunn, Koopmeiners, and Stigney. ALSO PRESENT: Chuck Whiting, Clerk Administrator; Rick Jopke, Community Development Director; Jim Ericson, Planning Associate; Mike Ulrich, Director of Public Works; Bob Long, City Attorney; and Stacy Caton, Recording Secretary (for Dave Hix). 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. September 14, 1998, City Council Meeting Minutes Mayor McCarty asked for corrections and/or additions to the September 14, 1998, City Council Meeting Minutes. MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Gunn to approve the September 14, 1998, City Council Meeting minutes as submitted. VOTE: Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Abstain - 1(Quick) Motion carried 4. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS No special order of business was considered. 5. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims B. Approval of Resolution No. 5271, Approving an Application to the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development for a redevelopment grant for the Page 2 September 28, 1998 Mounds View City Council Mermaid Hotel/Banquet Facility. C. Approval of Resolution No. 5269, Approving the continued participation in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Program. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. For the benefit of the viewing audience Mayor McCarty read the Consent Agenda into the record. VOTE: Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried b. RESIDENTS' REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR No residents' requests or comments from the floor were considered. 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. 7:05 p.m. Public Hearing and Adoption of Resolution No. 5270, Adopting the Old Highway 8 Assessment Roll. Mayor McCarty closed the regular Council Meeting and opened the public hearing. Mike Ulrich gave his report as follows: Due to an improper calculation of the assessment roll, staff was recommending that the public hearing be continued for two weeks so that proper information could be tabulated. Ulrich told the Council and the viewing audience that affected property owners would be renotified of their assessment. No comments were considered from the public. The public hearing was closed and the regular Council Meeting was reopened. MOTIONISECOND: StigneylGunn to continue the public hearing and Adoption of Resolution 5270, Adopting the Old Highway 8 Assessment Roll, to October 13, 1998, at 7:05 p.m. VOTE: Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried B. Airport Plan Litigation Update (Report from the City Attorney). City Attorney Long gave his report as follows: Page 3 September 28, 1998 Mounds View City Council APPROVED On September 23, 1998, the Ramsey County Court heard a motion for a temporary injunction, which the City of Mounds View brought to enjoin the Metropolitan Airports Commission from proceeding further with the planned Comprehensive Plan Update of the Anoka County Airport. Both Mayor McCarty and City Attorney Long were in attendance. The ruling had not come back as of this City Council Meeting. Deadline for the ruling is October 8, 1998. The issue of whether the City of Mounds View will win the temporary injunction hinges on the following legal question: Whether or not the City would be "irreparably harmed" if the temporary injunction is not issued. In other words, MAC argued that even if Met Council goes onto approve the plan, it will be several years before anything can happen because they have to do environmental studies before they can even dig a shovel of dirt at the Airport. Mounds View argued that the City would be "irreparably harmed" not only because the United States Supreme Court cases on airport noise litigation, specifically on point that adoption of comprehensive plans for airports are the proper moment in time in which to bring the action, but • we also argued that the City would expend considerable tax-payer dollars if this plan is approved and if there is no injunction. The City is going to have to monitor this lengthy environmental process. If a year from now the Court agrees with the City, that the whole plan should have been struck down because of the Court order, that would be a waste oftax-payer's money that cannot be recouped. Mayor McCarty commended the City Attorney for the work that he has done on the case. 8. REPORTS MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to move the October 5, 1998, Council Work Session up one day to Tuesday, October 6, 1998 at 6:00 p.m. VOTE: Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried Council Member Koopmeiners No Report Council Member Gunn No Report Council Member Stigney No Report Mayor McCarty No Report Clerk Administrator Whiting reviewed the agenda for the October 6, 1998 City Council Work Session. Page 4 September 28, 1998 Mounds View City Council ~J APPROVED City Attorney Long offered one addendum to his earlier comments in regards to the Airport Litigation: If the Met Council is scheduled to hear "the plan" again on October 8, 1998, in front of the full Council, they have deferred decision of that until the outcome of the litigation. If the temporary injunction is issued, which Mounds View hopes it will be, then it is the City Attorney's understanding the Met Council will simply pull from consideration "the plan" and lay it over indefinitely until the litigation has reached its final merits. 9. Next Council Work Session: October 6,1998 - 6:00 p.m. Next Council Meeting: October 13,1998 - 7:00 p.m. 10. ADJOURNMENT MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Quick to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried There being no further business before the City Council, Mayor McCarty adjourned the meeting at 7:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dave Hix Recorder •