Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 1999/02/22• MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1999 7:00 P.M. 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Coughlin. { ~ ~~~~°' 2. ROLL CALL: Mayor Coughlin, Council Members Stigney, Thomason. Absent: Marty, Quick. • 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Additional corrections for February 8 meeting minutes, Page 1, third paragraph from the bottom, report says Mr. Marty attended the planning commission, should be Mr. Stigney. Page four, item 9E, spellings for names, Ordeen, Braathen, Laube, Hegland, Kahn. Motion/Second: Thomason/Stigney. To approve minutes for January 25, and February 8, 1999. Ayes - 3. Nays-0. Motion passes. 4. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: State of the City address, Mayor Dan Coughlin. Mayor Coughlin stated: Fellow neighbors, in keeping with the City's charter, I, as your mayor, am required to give you a message on the state of the City. It is traditional in addresses like these that the Mayor speak of all of the Council doings in the last year, all of the accomplishments that it was a part of and listing the occasional struggles that we still deal with. I don't have any energy, nor do I have any desire to list things that have already been covered by a great degree by cable television and by our newspapers. And, medical science has found other ways to put people to sleep other than just have the Mayor talk about old news. We as a city face normal struggles that every other city our size faces. The demands of services versus demands for lower taxes. The pressure to rebuild, versus the desire to preserve some of our past, and the overall struggle for the average citizen to be heard above all of the other voices that come screaming at City Hall. To mention a list of the accomplishments that this City has made would only speak to what we have done. This is the part that usually gets the lions' share of our attention. However, the other side of the coin is not about what we have done, but is about who we are. I submit to you that it has been long over due for someone to discuss the state of the City in the context of who we are. I have often wondered what makes Mounds View different than any other suburb here in the Twin Cities. We don't have any national monuments within our boundaries, we don't have any world famous people that were born here, there are no real tourist attractions or historical sites for people to visit here contained in our four square miles. And, to add insult to injury, we have a major highway cutting right through the heart of our town. • So, what makes this City more than just a place that people drive through on their way home from work. We the people, the citizens and neighbors who built this town and call it our home. We are the reason that the City is special. So then, from what is the state of our City in respect to its greatest MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 22,1999 PAGE 2 asset to its people. For far too long, the City has had very little in the way of goals for our future. Each new election cycle seems to bung new faces that are either for or against some specific project or policy, and that perspective is not necessarily a bad one, but it is a reactive stance, not a proactive one. In order for us to become a proactive community, a community finds out what it wants and then runs after it, we must ask ourselves a few basic questions, who are we?; what do we want?; where are we going? Now, could you honestly answer any of those questions for our community. I have my own opinions, but I freely admit that I fall far short in really fully answering these questions for our town. For far too long, we have been asking the wrong questions. We have not figured out that our vision for the future is out there for us to grab. Thus, we are only left to react to situations. Without a set of goals to work by, how are we ever to build a future that we can be proud of? When someone builds a new house they don't first have the lumber and nails delivered to the jobsite. First they plan on what that house is going to look like and then construction can begin. Our community is not any different. We need to stop and figure out what our goals are and then once that is accomplished, the future becomes far more clear. The difference between the reactive mode and the proactive mode is striking. For example, here are two questions that may highlight this point. We want to buy the Bel Rae Ball Room, and make it our Community Center. Or, the second question, do we as a City as one of our primary goals to create places and programs to meet the changing needs of our family's and you? If so, what do you suggest? Both of those questions may have people coming to the conclusion we need to build a Community Center, however the first question only reacts to a building. The second question seeks to find out the heart beat of our community. What I am talking about is more than a call for us to change our perspective. It is actually more just asking • for us to have a change of heart. This is about finally asking the people of this City how they envision the tomorrow for Mounds View. The future is our's to create, and I am here to say that if we are ever truly to aspire to be greater than we are right now, we must resolve in our hearts and in our minds that we are going to work together to create the future that we envision. We must find out what that vision is, take hold of it, and run with it with all our might. There is a proverb that says: where there is no vision, the people will perish. I believe that this community has been suffering the ill effects of not having a vision. Perish does not necessarily mean the death of bodies, it can also mean the death of friendliness, the death of caring, the death of passion, the death of purpose, the death of creativity, the death of cooperation, the death of community. Because we do not have collective goals for our future, I believe that we have a cancer on our community, and it is past time that we do something about it. How do we find out what our goals of the future are to begin to turn this City around. The answer is somewhat easier than one would think. We simply ask the questions and then we compare our answers. I know it is a bit hard to believe, but this City Council here has already expressed a desire to find out what the citizens and residents of this town want our City's future to be like. Imagine politicians caring about what the people want for a change. Although, the preliminary ideas have already been discussed, I would call upon this City Council to press onward towards a comprehensive and ongoing survey of the citizens to find out what our collective vision for the future is. This prof ect will not be easy. This process undoubtedly will require some extra time and effort on our parts in order to do this right the first time. And, to the citizens of this town, I call upon you to consider changing your mind about this City, to commit the belief that we can come together and forge a new and exciting vision for our City. This is not a time for individual egos or fame, this is about never allowing that which is important to fall victim to the trivial. So let us dare to be bold and different, we don't have to do things a certain way MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 22,1999 PAGE 3 just because other cities do. This is our town, and for once I would like to call on the ordinary people, the people who have not normally had a voice m this town, and ask them what you want your City to be. All bets are off, the sky is the limit, let us dare to dream. In all of this, let me issue you a bit of a warning. It is natural that when the winds of change blow across the waters of the status quo, that waves of resistance will rise up. The stronger the wind for change, the larger the waves of resistance become. We must resolve in our hearts and in our minds to face those ways head on, and press through them and seek after our goals, or our goals will never be reached. This is not a time for the timid. So in closing, I would ask all of you to begin to ponder the questions I put before you: who are we?; what do we want?; where are we going? In the upcoming months, you will be asked to answer these and other questions. And, once we begin to find out collectively what our community's vision is, I will then call upon the residents of this City to volunteer and take part in discussion groups and come forth with an answer to a fourth question: how do we get there from here? If we are willing to pause at this time to begin to answer these questions, we can truly become a proactive community. A people with a vision and a people with a mission. One last thing that I would add personally as I end this address, to those who are so inclined, I would ask for your prayers for this City and its future. It is my belief that without a strong dose of higher wisdom, our hope for having a vision for this City will be much harder to accomplish. I thank in advance for those prayers. And, I thank you for your time and consideration as well. Thank you. 5. REPORTS i , Mayor Coughlin extended a thank you to Council Member Stigney for running last week s work session. Mayor Coughlin attended an airport mediation meeting with Mr. Whiting, Cari Schmidt, and Bob Long. Councilwoman Thomason indicated that she had attended an EDC meeting on February 17, 1999. Mr. Stigney attended the Planning Commission meeting February 17, 1999. Two new members of the Planning Commission were introduced, and time was spent going over with all the new members the process used by the commission and its meeting format. There was discussion of the bylaws that changes were made before and then changes were reintroduced at this Planning Commission and brought the new members up to date as to where things were at. There was discussion regarding the Comprehensive Plan and also some discussion pertaining to permits for vendors coming with their fruit and vegetable stands in the summer so they can bypass CUP process that has to be attended to every year. The Planning Commission also acted on a Resolution recommending approval of an oversized garage at 8100 Long Lake Road. Mr. Long discussed the airport mediation. Mr. Lorig stated that what was agreed to today would hopefully save the City money. It was agreed to spend for a period of time the litigation which would be a very costly stage of taking depositions with various players in the process and from a historical perspective takes a while to uncover here. It was agreed to suspend that while we pursue the state legislation, and with some luck we get legislation passed and the hard work of our State MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 22,1999 PAGE 4 Rep. Barb Haake chief authors of the bill, it is moving forward, there is a hearing this Wednesday at 12:30 in the House on that bill. If the bill passes, then we think there would be good basis for them to end the litigation if we don't rack up any more costs between now and then. That was a good resolution today at least at this early stage and they agreed to that. Mayor Coughlin adds for the public record that Rep. Haake asked me to be representing part of our reliever airport coalition to speak on their behalf and on behalf of the City of Mounds View at that committee meeting at the capitol this Wednesday. 6. CONSENT AGENDA Mr. Stigney questions the item on Approve Just and Correct Claims, there is an item for $59, for long distance calls. Mr. Stigney was curious as to who is calling outside the City for long distance. Mayor Coughlin offers it is proper to remove that item and discuss that separately. At the request of Councilmember Stigney, Mayor Coughlin removes item 6A from the consent agenda. Mr. Mike Ulrich stated a public hearing for wetland litigation is March 22, 1999. Motion/Second: Stigney/Thomason. To approve consent agenda for items 6B, C, D. Ayes - 3. Nays-0. 6A. Mr. Stigney was curious about long distance calls, and who we are interfacing with outside Mounds View. The bill was for $41.60. Motion/Second: Stigney/Thomason. To approve Just and Correct Claims, item 6A. Ayes - 3. Nays-0. Motion carries. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS No unfinished business. 8. RESIDENT'S REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR There were no residents requests or comments. MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 22,1999 PAGE 5 9. COUNCIL BUSINESS Item 9A. Public hearing and consideration of Resolution No. 5312 regarding a conditional use permit for an oversized garage located at 8100 Long Lake Road. Requested by Richard Maki. Mr. Rick Jopke stated Mr. Maki has requested a conditional use permit to allow him to expand his existing garage at 8100 Long Lake Road. The conditional use permit is necessary according to the City code basically for two reasons. He is going to add 580 square feet onto an existing 400 square foot garage which would make his total area 980 scare feet. The code says that you cannot construct a garage over 952 scare feet without a conditional use permit. The other reason for the conditional use permit is that the code also says that a garage cannot exceed the size of the dwelling on the property. In this case, the house is 576 square feet, so it does exceed that. Without conditional use permits, the ordinance does have some criteria that have to be reviewed. This must be reviewed so that the proposal does not adversely affect the community and surrounding area. There are a number of other garages in the area that are of the size being proposed. There is a demonstration of need in this particular case that the applicant is requesting a garage to store existing vehicles that are now outside. Mr. Jopke believes the proposal would not depreciate the surrounding area. The proposal would not have any adverse effects on public facilities such as parks, access roads, and would not create a traffic problem. Mr. Jopke stated it is the staff's recommendation that the City Council approve Resolution 5312, a resolution to approve a conditional use permit with seven stipulations, as follows: 1. These stipulations include that the conditional use permit be recorded to Ramsey County within 60 days of City Council approval. Receipt of such recording shall be provided to the City of Mounds View. 2. The garage not be used for living space or other uses not allowed by the zoning code for which the purpose was granted. 3. Garage addition to be designed in a uniform building appearance of the house. 4. Driveway leading to the garage expansion be approved with a permanent surfacing material, either concrete or asphalt, in conjunction with the construction of the garage. If the occupancy of the garage is to approve prior to the driveway's improvement, the applicant shall submit a letter of credit for evaluation before completed. 5. All vehicles on the property shall be parked either on the driveway on the improved surface, or in the garage. At no time shall a vehicle be parked on the grass or on the surface. 6. The existing shed on lot be removed if necessary for the setback of the garage. 7. Total square foot allowed by the conditional use permit shall not exceed 1060 square feet. MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 22,1999 PAGE 6 Mayor Coughlin closed the public hearing and brought the discussion back to the Council. Motion/Second: Thomason/Stigney. To approve Resolution 5312, regarding the conditional use permit for an oversized garage located at 8100 Long Lake Road. Ayes - 3. Nays - 0. Motion carries. ITEM 9B: Consideration of Resolution 5315, establishing parking restriction on Edgewood Drive. Mr. Mike Ulrich stated Edgewood Drive realignment will not allow for parking on either side in order so that the segment can be reconstructed within the City fund, parking restrictions are required in a resolution passed by the Council submitted. The State is also required. This resolution states that parking will be banned on Edgewood Drive, from Bronson Drive, to County Highway 10. Mr. Stigney questioned once the T.H. 10 turns back to the County, will the same restrictions still be needed. Mr. Ulrich stated yes to this question. Motion/Second: Coughlin/Thomason. To approve consideration of Resolution 5315, establishing parking restrictions on Edgewood Drive. Ayes - 3. Nays - 0. Motion carries. ITEM 9C: Consideration of Resolution 5316, approving plans and specifications authorizing advertisements and establishing a bid date for project 99-2, realignment of Edgewood Drive, T.H. 10 signal construction. Mr. Ulrich stated this resolution is also required for State aid to establish the various aspects of this project and resolution would establish a bid date to approve the plans and specifications for the prof ect would authorize staff to advertise for that proj ect, establishing a bid date of March 18, 1999, and also establish an award date at the regular Council meeting March 27. Mr. Stigney questioned if we are using MSA funds for construction and realignment. Mr. Ulrich stated this is true. Mr. Sti a uestioned is this MSA fundin new mone that we are oin to et s ecificall for tmYq g Y g g g P Y Edgewood Drive, are we using pool MSA funds to pay for it. MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 22,1999 PAGE 7 • Mr. Stigney questioned by putting money here we are pulling rt from somewhere else. Mr. Ulrich stated the City receives $180,000 per year toward construction of MSA for streets. Edgewood Drive is an MSA street, along with a traffic signal because it is also a County Road, also, right now a MnDOT road. We can use those funds on any one of our MSA streets for any type of MSA qualifiable construction. This is a pool for a construction, not specifically designated for Edgewood Drive. Mr. Stigney questioned, so the pool money could be used to maintain other MSA streets rather than using it there. Mr. Ulrich stated it could used to reconstruct other streets. We do receive maintenance dollars that exists in our construction. Mr. Stigney questioned how much the reconstruction funds being allocated to Bronson to T.H. 10 will be new money. Mr. Ulrich stated this all goes directly into the pool. The entire project is $806,000. The Edgewood Drive portion of it is roughly $275,000. As of December 31, there was $554,876 in the MSA construction account. The 1999 allotment is $244,155. Mr. Ulrich stated right now there is almost • $807,911 in the MSA account and it is going to be based on the estimates to cover this project. Ms. Julie Olson, 2663 Lake Court Circle. Ms. Olson questioned the approval of Resolution 5316. She indicated that the last time that the realignment of Edgewood Drive and the Highway 10 signal construction was discussed, it was her belief that the economic development Coordinator had stated that the plans and specifications being submitted for approval were preliminary, and at the time that came back there would still be time to review it and ask further questions, or to go into in further detail. Ms. Olson stated to the best of her knowledge we have not heard anything back from that. Ms. Olson wonders why we are approving the plans and specifications when we said we were going to wait until we got the preliminaries back to us. Ms. Olson stated if this happened, she did not know about it, or has not seen this information. Mayor Coughlin stated this was received in the Council office. Mayor Coughlin stated he spent a fair amount of time this morning digging through those documents and reading them. Mayor Coughlin stated that he cannot speak for anyone else, but in light of the realignment nothing seemed to be out of the ordinary. Mayor Coughlin, addressing Ms. Olson, stated that memo was received from Mr. Jopke pertaining to the first part of her question. Ms. Olson asked if there were any plans so that the citizens that are here as well as the ones at home could see where the actual realignment is going and what part of City Hall it is facing. Ms. Olson stated she thought that when a preliminary approval came back, what we are going to look • at with that for changes it was stated that MNDOT did not necessarily say that is the curvature or alignment that Edgewood had to be in order to give them a comfort level. Ms. Olson stated MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 22, 1999 PAGE 8 . because of this storm sewer pond that needs to be built that we are having discussion on, whether it should going to the east, or west. Ms. Olson would like to make sure everyone is comfortable that because of the storm sewer holding pond issue that was quite a surprise to everybody that it was a trunk sewer system that evidently prior Council did not know, or care, that it created some conflict. Ms. Olson stated she would like to make sure that is really what we are going to do the alignment. Mayor Coughlin stated that the road alignment and the ponding control were two separate issues. Mr. Ulrich stated this project was brought to Council, at least preliminary plans and specifications at the February work session, and at that time there were many items that were in the preliminary stage. The plan was sent to MNDOT and the comment sheet that was addressed to Barry Peters, is where MNDOT engineers went through everything and decided what would qualify for State aid and what would not qualify, and if there was any changes that needed to meet the State aid specifications and standards on the street. I believe the alignment Ms. Olson was speaking about, was set by MNDOT many months ago in the early concept stages of this project. Because of the 90 degree intersection that is required there, which also basically established the road or the drive-through on this theater project. Mr. Ulrich stated none of this has changed. There is still discussion about which side of the street the pond will go on, these plans and specifications at this time need to be authorized in order to provide for an effective and efficient bidding schedule, so we can get the turn lanes in and a temporary intersection prior to the theater opening. Mr. Wendell Smith, representing Mrs. O'Neil, Carmike Cinemas, and Anthony Properties of Dallas, Texas, in regards to the theater property as it is designated on the opposite side of Highway 10. Mr. Smith stated we have been working on this project for many years. Much time and much expertise has gone into this. Mr. Smith stated he is satisfied that the engineers at MNDOT, our own consultants, and your very hard working staff have gotten through this design. We have looked at inside and out, and we are comfortable that this particular design is one that will work not only for the theater project, but for the City as a whole. We are looking forward to the beginning of construction of this project as soon as possible, with the light winter, hopefully we can get this done even faster than has been anticipated. One of our goals is open as quickly as possible. Mr. Smith stated the way in which we want to do that is to have our temporary access onto Highway 10, while the intersection is being built. We as the Council and the City would like to keep as much as traffic down to County Road H-2 as possible, and the best way doing that is being able to have access to Highway 10. Mr. Smith would like to reaffirm our approving of this particular design. Mr. Whiting stated a project like this goes through various approval stages to determine the costs. Mr. Stigney asked a legal question. There are three Council members here voting this evening. Mr. Stigney has not supported in the past this realignment of Edgewood Drive or the traffic light, • because he did not like the cost spaces of sharing of what the developer is paying and versus what the City is paying. As he understands it regarding the traffic light, the developer is going to MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 22,1999 PAGE 9 pay approximately 1/4 of the cost, and the City is going to pick up 3/4 of the cost, through MSA funding out of the pool, to complete realignment of Edgewood Dnve. We have not talked about ponding issues yet, which may exceed that. Mr. Stigney's questions what legal obligations he has as a Council member to vote for something that he does not support because the previous Council has brought us to this point where it requires some action. Mr. Long reminded the Council that the Charter require a minimum of three votes to pass any motion. Mr. Long stated the issue of what legal issues would be presented if this new Council decided to change course, and not go forward with the signal, Mr. Long stated if this current Council had to go back to look at, rechange things done by the previous Council, there is case law now out there that suggests that under those circumstances if a prior Council enters into this case a PUD that sets up a development scheme, and the developer relies on that goes forward and spends dollars, that a later change by the City Council in that document that might in some way jeopardize the project, can create legal risks and exposure to the City. If there is litigation over that, it is a very risky thing. Cities have loss under those circumstances. That is the argument that will be made by the developers, that an action was taken, an agreement was put together, and money was expended on reliance of that and if that change detrimentally affects the development, then the cost of damages can be sought against the City. That has happened in a number of cases where cities have lost those cases. Mr. Long stated there is a fairly good risk on that issue. Mr. Stigney questioned the established cost sharing that is presently per the development S agreement, or some agreement with the developer, and the cost sharing basis be asked to be changed at all. Mr. Jopke stated it is in the form after development agreement which the City has signed. Mr. Stigney questioned the point of uncomfortableness with this prof ect, if voted against, or ask for a delay until our next Council meeting, is this going to put anything in jeopardy as far as legal risk. Mr. Long stated he is not sure about the timing of the issues, but if there is some issue relating to when this has to go in order to be approved, the question becomes one of whether or not the delay is unreasonable and is causes detriment to the development prof ect, i.e., starting date, calculate the loss of revenue from that, that could possibly create some risk. That would not be the same issue as if he changed the agreement, but the question of how long a delay before it becomes unreasonable is the factual question. If you were thinking of doing that, or if you don't think you have three votes tonight to pass it, then you can wait for the next Council meeting for additional information would not be unreasonable, but I don't know of the timing of the MNDOT specifications process. Mayor Coughlin stated now is not the time at this point in the game to start standing on principle. Mayor Coughlin stated his respect to the right to stand on principle here. The time involved in this prof ect is fast leaving us. Mayor stated he is in a situation where he is a new Mayor, with most of the decisions made for me up to this point. Mayor Coughlin stated he has to stand on whatever wisdom there was in getting us to this point, and have a theater is going to open, and to put more of the traffic out on Highway 10 faster, or we can dump more of it out on H-2. Mayor Coughlin stated he would MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 22, 1999 PAGE 10 • have liked to have made changes, but hindsight is 20/20. Mayor Coughlin stated we have before us is essentially the end of the line and I do not want at this point the City to die on this hill on principle. Mayor Coughlin respects the right to stand on this issue. Mayor Coughlin believes we need to move forward on this, to take our lumps and move on. Mayor Coughlin, with this said, stated he will support this resolution. Mr. Smith stated we have worked in good faith with the City, and the staff, with the Council, and with the citizens of this City. We have not always agreed, but we have come to an agreement, it is written and is a legal document. Mr. Smith stated they have waited for a period of time to get Highway 10 access. Mr. Smith stated he does have a legal right to use County Road H-2. Mr. Smith stated he does not want to do that. Mr. Smith stated he has been working on the schedule for four or five months in regards to the bid process, approving plans, and so forth. Mr. Smith would like to go on record as being of a representative of Mr. Anthony and Carmike Cinemas that, if, in fact, we plan to delay, we will look for compensation from the City from legal standpoint. Mr. Stigney asks if a delay to the next Council meeting cause initiation of legal action on your part. Mr. Smith stated this would initiate legal action. David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road. Mr. Jahnke would like to ask the Mayor that this is a foregone conclusion, no matter how it is looked at. Mr. Jahnke stated he has been to most of the meetings when we had this battle. Mr. Jahnke stated he is aware of Mr. Stigney's principle, and Mr. Jahnke firmly supports that. Mr. Jahnke stated it is a foregone conclusion. Mr. Jahnke asks on resolution, isthere athree-minute deal on resolution. I think that we have, if need to be, more time. Mayor Coughlin stated it is the Chair's decision whether or not you are granted more time than three minutes. Essentially as a rule, three minutes, but if need be Mayor Coughlin can grant additional time. Mr. Bruce Brasaemle, 5127 Long Lake Road. Mr. Brasaemle stated his respect for Councilman Stigney's matter of principle. It is important also to realize that from the realignment and signal at the corner of Edgewood and Highway 10. Whether or not you were ever for the Community Center, whether or not you were ever for the theater project, the fact of the matter remains both are being developed and/or are developed, and they are going to create some traffic issues with the corner of Edgewood Drive and T.H. 10. Mr. Brasaemle would encouraged the Council to do perhaps what might be difficult in swallowing principle if need be and move this forward so that there are no further delays, not to mention the fact that he does not think it would be wise to open up the City to liability if the developer of the theater should choose to pursue that. Mr. Brasaemle would like to reinforce the matter of this being the benefit to the Community Center, in addition to the theater project. Mr. Brasaemle does not know whether the current split as far as paying for this project is appropriate, although he stated that the City should cover at least 50% because of the Community Center, but whether or not 3/4 is appropriate, or 1/4, again as Mayor Coughlin has said, that is something that was decided and has been basically put in your lap, your hands are tied. This is unfortunate in some ways, but I think it is time to move on. I would encourage you to pass this MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 22,1999 PAGE 11 resolution. Mr. Stigney realizes that most of the comments are directed to the principle in myprevious vote, and will not subject the City to litigation. Mr. Stigney states he does feel uncomfortable being forced into voting for something that he opposed from day one as far as cost sharing, to use all our MSA money from the City to do the road construction and to pay of the light, when Mr. Stigney feels that it is a 50/50 benefit. He is fully aware of the Community Center, and the need for traffic control. Mr. Stigney's personal feeling was that from the beginning as long as the traffic light was not allowed to come in, that should have put a stop to the project right there. It was contingent getting traffic control in here and the developer was going to work with the City. It turned out that the City took the brunt of it. The Council made that decision, but not with his vote, so he is reluctantly going to support it, against principle, to avoid putting the City in a legal situation. Mayor Coughlin stated he has respected Mr. Stigney's stand on principle, even if they may or may not agree on specifics. It takes a particular character in an individual to be able to stand up to the slings and arrows over time and stand believing that your position is right and just, and I will say outside of the context of this discussion that I have been impressed by that ability of yours to do so. Motion/Second: Coughlin/Thomason. To approve resolution No. 5316, approving plans and specifications, authorizing advertisement and establishing a bid date for prof ect 99-2 realignment of Edgewood Drive and T.H. 10 signal construction. Ayes - 3. Nays-0. Motion carries. ITEM 9D: Consideration of risk management and process safety management proposals. Mr. Ulrich stated the proposal set at last week's work session requested that these be sent back to the City Council for further discussion. Mr. Ulrich stated Risk Management and Process Safety Management are programs mandated by the EPA. The Process Safety Management is OSHA regulation. The City is required to put forth both these programs into place and get done with Risk Management by June 21. Staff received three proposals of this. The amount ofproject can varywith the amount of time, effort, and things that staff has to provide to the consultant for this proj ect. As stated in the staff report, we will do everything in our power to provide as much information and as much as clerical time from staff as we can. Mr. Ulrich stated staff would recommend that the proposal be awarded to Wenck. Mr. Stigney questioned if these were mandated programs, or are these new programs, or is this something done periodically. Mr. Ulrich stated the process safety was actually brought in by OSHA in 1992 and it is something • that the City was not aware of, at least the staff members at the time, and talked to many other cities and there a quite a few other cities also that are also doing the Process Safety Management. The MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 22,1999 PAGE 12 • Risk Management program was put forth by the EPA with the clean air act and that was just brought in as legislation late last fall. Mr. Stigney questioned the prices are $16,000 to $18,000, just what does this program consist of. What is the justification for that type of cost. Mr. Ulrich stated the Process Safety Management is actually a majority of the cost. If that would have been depleted back in 1992, about 80% of that Process Safety, which is the standard operating procedures, and training and cautions and building maintenance, and equipment maintenance, and all those procedures all wrapped up into a manual that the City follows on all confined space entry, water treatment facilities, and waste water collection facilities. That is a vast maj ority or bulk of the actual risk management program. We received the threshold point for chlorine storage and process at water treatment plant one. The threshold that pushes us into the Risk Management program is 2500 pounds of chlorine. We have a capacity of storing 4000 pounds. That pushes up to basically forces us to do the Risk Management Program. We have looked at the options of lessening our chlorine amount there, which would only increase staff time in changing chlorine tanks, would raise the price of our purchase for chlorine as chemicals, and also raises the incidence that we have to go down and actually change chemical tanks, which in some cases you could conceive as increasing the chance of an accident or a release. Mr. Ulrich stated by doing the Risk Management Program, we have to consult and use profiles that would determine the amount of people or air affected will by a sudden release of that chemical. A ten minute release, from 4000 pounds of chlorine. • It is merely a precautionary step. It involves the community. There is some community education. Fliers will be sent out. It does not get real specific, because there is a certain amount of caution to anybody that may be interested in some of those facts. We are required to put our Risk Management Program on the Internet so it is all filed electronically, so anybody, in any city, state, or any place in the world could find out what our Risk Management Program is. Mr. Ulrich stated it is merely a safety program in which everything has to be documented. Motion/Second: Coughlin/Stigney. To authorize consideration of risk management and process safety management proposals. Ayes - 3. Nays-0. Motion carries. ITEM 9E: Consideration of the catering services at the Community Center, both the food service and the liquor service, to be taken off the agenda be brought before us at the next available work session and then for future consideration at another time at a Council meeting. ITEM 9F • Consider authorizin the urchase of additional e ui ment for Communit Center with TIF funds. g P q P Y MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 22,1999 PAGE 13 Mr. Long stated was presented with a list of the proposed items in question of whether TIF funds could be used to purchase these. Mr. Long stated the answer is yes. These would be considered to be essentially the fixtures and furnishings part of a capitol hallway. There is also some language in the statute that allows for operating expenses out of TIF. Mr. Long stated the question specifically asked was a list of items. If there are other items that would be related to either what we would consider to be fixtures or furnishings, this would not be a problem for using TIF for those purposes. Ms. Julie Olson asked for clarification, the last figure that the finance director stated this additional equipment would not be above and beyond that last figure of 6.2. Everything else that we wanted, the 6.24. Mr. Whiting stated the bid award was 6.2 million. $200,000 is still needed to complete the purchasing of the materials. Mr. Stigney had a question for the City Attorney, he brought up the possibility of others using the TIF funds for operational expenses. Mr. Stigney wonders if this is going to be talked about this evening or a future time. Mr. Long stated he only referenced that, because he told Mr. Whiting today, in researching this • question, and getting statutes about the use of TIF for Community Centers, there actually is some broad long in the statutes about use of TIF funds for operating a prof ect. This would be considered a project of the City and so is actually fairly flexible in terms of those funds, which actually surprised me, because I have never had to go back and look at that. You can actually use it for more than this. Mr. Long does not suggest you do that, but Mr. Long wishes the Council to have that information. Mr. Stigney asks if this could be brought forth to us so we know what we are dealing with as far as operational possible usage. Motion/Second: Stigney/Thomason. To approve authorizing the purchase of additional equipment for the Community Center with TIF funds requested by the Parks and Recreation Commission. Ayes - 3. Nays - 0. Motion carries. Mayor Coughlin recessed to closed session. Mayor Coughlin adjournd the meeting at 8:40. Respectfully submitted, James Merrill •