Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 1999/07/26CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, JULY 26,1999 7:00 P.M. 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER Z. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Stigney, Quick, and Thomason. NOT PRESENT: Marty. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Monday, July 26, 1999 City Council Agenda Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to add items to the agenda. No additional items were considered. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Quick. To accept the July 26, 1999 City Council agenda as presented. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. • 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Monday, July 12, 1999 City Council Minutes MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Thomason. To accept the July 12, 1999 City Council minutes as presented. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS None. 6. REPORTS Council Member Quick had no report. Mayor Coughlin reported he had attended the Highway 610 Corridor Coalition, where he and other Mayors spoke regarding the project. He stated that the new highway would be opening very soon, and that a stretch from Highway 118, truncating at Highway 65 and extending to Highway 10 had been completed. He stated that he had attended the ribbon cutting ceremony for the new highway, and had spoken with many of the people associated with the project. 1 N:\DATA\USERS\JOANB\SHARE\MINUTES\CC\1999\07-26-99.MIN Mayor Coughlin reported he had attended the Council Retreat on Thursday. He stated group facilitator Carl Neu was also in attendance, and that discussion was held in regard to the budget pnorities. Council Member Thomason had no report. Council Member Stigney reported he had attended the July 21 Planning Commission Meeting where discussion was held in regard to several items presently before the Council. He stated these included a proposal by Thrifty Car Rental to operate a rental business at the former Quik Lube Site, a resolution recommending approval of a conditional use permit for an oversized Garage at 8059 Red Oak Drive, and a resolution recommending approval of a conditional use permit for the Holiday Stationstore to operate an outdoor produce stand. Council Member Stigney stated that there was discussion of the MSP Real Estate application to develop an assisted living facility behind the SuperAmerica station. He noted that some parking issues were still unresolved in this matter, and discussion is continuing. He stated that there was also continuing discussion of an ordinance pertaining to billboards in the PF and CRP Zoning Districts. City Administrator Whiting reported he had also attended the Highway 610 Corridor Coalition, one hour after the first traffic accident on the new highway. He reported that Housing Inspector Steve Dorgan had given his resignation that date, and would be relocating to Minneapolis to assist in their Housing and Community Development Department. He suggested the Council discuss the means of replacing Mr. Dorgan Later that week. • Mayor Coughlin stated that he had become acquainted with Inspector Dorgan through their mutual background in home renovation and construction, and that he was a great asset to the City, and would be missed. 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims B. Approve budget amendment transferring $12,500 from the General Fund Contingency Fund to the City Council Capital equipment account to purchase laptop computers for the City Council. C. Contractor licenses for approval. Mayor Coughlin stated Item B, regarding laptop computers, was in consideration of providing Council Members the opportunity to exchange information with their constituents. He added, it was hoped in the near future, such items as the past and present City Council minutes would be available on computer, to provide information to the people in a timely manner. Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to remove items for discussion. Council Member Stigney inquired, in light of the wide range in laptop computer costs, if staff was reviewing what features the Council would require. 2N:\DATA\USERSUOANB\SHARE\MINUTES\CC\ 1999\07-26-99. MIN Mayor Coughlin stated he believed this matter was being researched, and that the $2,500 figure was based upon the cost of all of the hardware necessary to connect the computers to City Hall, as well as the modems, routing features and software. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason To approve the Consent Agenda for items A, B, and C as listed above. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated that the last time he attended the Council meeting he had challenged the large raise they were considering for the Assistant to the City Administrator. He stated that he was concerned that the City was not hiring the right people, and explained that, after reviewing Ms. Schmidt's qualifications, he found that she was qualified to be the City Administrator. He stated, in his opinion, the City should not hire two people with the qualifications of Administrator. He stated that he was concerned that the City might be getting further into debt. He went on to ask if the City of Mounds View was currently fifteen to . seventeen billion dollars in debt. Mayor Coughlin stated that he would defer to the Finance Director regarding the City's financial standing. He stated the City had various bonds, both in the TIF District, and some of the City's own financial obligations, such as the golf course. He explained, however, that these were separate from the funds utilized for City employee's salaries. Richard Oman, 8205 Groveland Road, stated that he had watched the Work Session that evening on cable, and added that he thought the cable broadcasting of the meetings was a good idea. He stated that his understanding was that the City's TIF fund was approximately 23 percent of the tax capacity, which was, in his opinion, way too high. He stated that this is two to three times that of other cities, who had approximately 6 to 8 percent of their tax capacity in TIF funds, and that some cities have no TIF at all. He stated that he believed the result has been, throughout the time that TIF has been utilized in the City, the NSP franchise fee, the streetlight utilities, the water meter charge, the surface water management charge, and the fact that the City has no road maintenance funds available. He stated that this has also denied the citizens of the City various things, one of particular interest to him, is pedestrian and bike trails. He stated that neighboring cities have bike and pedestrian trails which all end when they reach Mounds View. He stated that he believed this was related to the practice of having goal setting sessions with an imported facilitator. He stated that he thought this practice isolated the Council from the input of the citizens. He suggested that they log and group the citizen comments, and utilize those for their • goal setting sessions. He requested the Council "visualize themselves and the citizens seated on one side of the table, and staff, developers, and any other person who is not a resident or voter of the City, on the other side of the table, and to govern with the citizens in mind." 3N:\DATA\U SERS\JOANB\SHARE\M INUTES\CC\ 1999\07-26-99.MIN Mayor Coughlin stated that TIF is merely a tool. He provided an analogy it is "like ahammer-- • you can hammer nails, or you can hammer your thumb, and it depends upon what you utilize it for." He stated that the Council had posted information on the wall of Council Chambers which included some of the items they had discussed at the Council Retreat. He explained that this was, essentially, to set TIF policy, and to set a goal for the funds becoming available in regard to those districts. Mayor Coughlin encouraged Mr. Oman to attend the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m., the following Wednesday, adding that he would also be in attendance. He stated that they are slowly but surely adding trails to the City of Mounds View. He stated that the Council had just authorized an expenditure of funds for a trail to extend from Fridley, along County Road I, to Silver Lake Road. He stated that due to budget priorities, this issue had not been as actively addressed in the past few years. He stated that there was a fair amount of money set aside for the Park and Recreation Commission in park dedication fees, and that some of those funds have come available, and would be utilized in that particular manner. Mayor Coughlin stated that the elected members of the Council utilize the facilitator as a guide, and that the Council can accept or reject the facilitator's advisement, adding that he simply someone who assists them in focusing the discussion. He stated Carl Neu is very well known in facilitating circles, and the reason he has been brought in, is because he has history with the City of Mounds View, with present and prior Councils. He stated Mr. Neu is not a stranger, and he understands the dynamics of the City. • Mayor Coughlin stated that seven and a half months ago, he was seated with the residents and a year and a half from now, he probably would be again, either by his will or someone else's. He stated that the reason time is set aside at the Council Meeting for resident's comments, is to gain public input. He stated that all of the Council Members can be reached via voice-mail, and that his E-mail address is printed in the Mounds View Matters. He stated that residents contact him on a daily basis and provide their input. Jerry Linke, 2310 Knoll Drive, stated that he agreed wholeheartedly regarding the services of Mr. Neu. He stated that he was not only knowledgeable of the City of Mounds View, but many of the communities within the metropolitan area as well, and that he could offer the perspective of the entire area. He stated that utilizing him for that service was one of the best things the Council could do. Mr. Linke stated that two weeks prior, the City of Mounds View held their Festival in the Park, and that he had spent Saturday and Sunday selling bratwursts at the Mounds View Lions booth during that event. He stated that it was very evident to him, and many of the residents, that the Council was not there. He noted there was a parade, dance, and an all day event on Sunday, and the Council was not present. He stated senior staff did not attend either, and added this was the first time in approximately 15 years of his involvement that this had happened. Mayor Coughlin stated that he did not dance. He stated he had grown up in a strict religious background, and dancing was something that was not highly touted. He stated his eight-week old daughter had been having some difficulties, and he had spent a fair amount of time putting 4N:\DATA\USERS\JOANB\SHARE\MINUTESICC\ 1999\07-26-99.MIN God first, family second, and City third. He stated, between trips to the drugstore, he did manage . to stop in at the Festival, and had extended his appreciation to the Committee Members who planned the event, at the last Council Meeting. He stated that he and Council Member Thomason had attended the fireworks display. He stated that, being a rather private person, he preferred not to participate in the parade, but did see it from a distance. Mr. Linke stated that he was approached by many residents who wondered where the Council Members were. He added that staff and the State Senator did not in attend the festival either. He noted that State Representative Haake had attended, and had spent a great deal of time assisting at the Lion's booth, and took advantage of the opportunity to talk with the residents. He stated he felt it was a great opportunity that was missed. Mayor Coughlin stated that the Council might have made other plans, or been out of town at that time. He stated he was aware that one of the Council Members was out of town on a vacation, which was planned many months in advance. City Administrator Whiting stated that, although he was not able to attend the entire festival, he was there on Sunday afternoon, and did see the parade. He stated that from his perspective, particularly in light of the temporary relocation of the event due to the current construction project at City Hall, the people who planned the event did a very good job in accommodating the crowd. He added that he wished he could have been there for more of it. Council Member Stigney stated that he was not available to participate in the festival this year. However, in previous years he has participated in the parade with his classic car, and attended the festivals, and has even had some of their brats, and thought they were great. He added that he also had some of the beer. He stated that usually people don't talk to him about Council business at this event. Mr. Linke stated that Council Member Stigney's absence was well noted, as he usually did attend that festival. He reiterated that the opportunity was there to speak to the residents. He stated that if the Council Members were there, it gave people the opportunity to walk up and talk to them. Council Member Stigney stated that he was not there to make "political hay," as he is really not a politician. He noted that he did see the fireworks, and commented that they were great, as they always are. There were no further requests or comments from the floor. 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 5348, a resolution contemplating the issuance of a conditional use permit for an over-sized garage at 8059 Red Oak Drive. Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 7:33 p.m. Planning Associate Ericson stated that the applicants, Allen and Joy Dick were requesting a SN:\DATA\USERS\JOANB\SHAREIMINUTES\CC\ 1999\07-26-99. MIN conditional use permit for an oversized garage at 8059 Red Oak Drive which is located north of Highway 10, between Hillview and Sherwood Roads. He stated that staff had inspected the property, and that all of the dimensional requirements would be met with the proposal. He stated that the property is well shielded from the neighboring properties, the property to the rear, and from the street. He stated that the addition would be located to the rear of the garage, and would not make a noticeable impact to the property Ericson stated that the Planning Commission heard this request at its meeting on July 21, 1999 and after some discussion concerning the request, unanimously approved Resolution 588-99, a resolution recommending City Council approval of the conditional use permit with stipulations. The stipulations indicate that the conditional use permit will be recorded with Ramsey County, the garage will not be used for living space, or for other uses not allowed in the district, the garage shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform appearance with the house, and all vehicles parked at the property shall be either parked on the driveway, improved surface of the lot, or in the garage. He stated the existing shed on the lot would be moved to maintain a minimum six-foot setback from the lot, and afive-foot setback from the property line. The applicant was present. Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 7:35 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney. To Approve Resolution No. 5348, a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage at 8059 Red Oak Drive; Mounds View Planning Case No. 552-99, with stipulations. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. B. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 5349, a resolution contemplating the issuance of a conditional use permit for Thrifty Car Rental, to be located at 2975 Highway 10. Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 7:35 p.m. Planning Associate Ericson stated that the applicant, Thrifty Car Rental, is seeking a conditional use permit to operate an auto rental business at the property most recently utilized by Spots Quik Lube, located at 2975 Highway 10. He stated that the applicant plans on expanding the parking lot to accommodate extra vehicles, and with the expanded site plan, the lot could accommodate up to 23 vehicles. He stated that the applicant has agreed that no more than 23 vehicles would be parked on the site. Ericson stated that the applicant has requested, as an accessory to the principal rental operation, they be allowed to sell rental vehicles from the site as well. He explained that this type of accessory use is allowed in this district, so long as it does not encompass more than thirty percent of the gross floor area of the business, which, in this case would translate to three vehicles. He stated that both the resolution before the Council and that approved by the Planning Commission contain the limitation that no more than three vehicles on the lot be for sale at one time. 6N:\DATA\USERSVOANB\SHARE\MINUTES\CC\ 1999\07-26-99.MIN Ericson stated, at the Planning Commission level, there was some question regarding signage. He stated the applicant had requested permanent signage to advertise vehicles for sale, and that staff and the Planning Commission had recommended against that, given that auto sales have their own specific set of criteria and zoning considerations. He stated that this site could not accommodate a use strictly for the sale of automobiles, and therefore, it was believed that any type of advertising would go against the grain of the Zoning Code. He stated that it was determined that any exterior signage would not be allowed. He stated that signage within a vehicle would be allowed. Ericson stated that the conditional use permit requirements for this particular use, had been reviewed by staff and the Planning Commission, and all of these requirements have been met and satisfied. He added the general requirements, which are present with any conditional use permit have also been met to the satisfaction of the Code. Ericson stated the applicant has indicated his desire to upgrade the landscaping on the site. He stated the City Forester was at the site that date, and had recommended that some additional plantings could be installed, however, in regard to the untended plantings already on site, he recommended that they might be trimmed back and cared for, rather than removed. Ericson stated that there were no specific requirements in regard to landscaping, other than those of the conditional use permit, which indicate that they upgrade it to the satisfaction of staff and the City Forester. • Ericson provided an overview of the stipulations associated with this particular use. These include the hours of operation, the issue of signage and the number of vehicles on the lot for sale at any time. In addition, no more than twenty-three vehicles will be allowed on the site pursuant to the revised site plan, the service of vehicles will be limited to those vehicles owned by the business, and the applicant will make the recommended landscaping improvements. Ericson stated that, as with the previous request, the conditional use permit shall be recorded with Ramsey County. He stated that Page 5 of the resolution, contains a second clause which states all other conditional use permits on file with the subject property pertaining to previous uses shall be "revoked, rescinded and considered null and void," as the provisions pertaining to those uses are no longer being observed. Ericson stated that the Planning Commission heard this request at their July 7 and July 21 meetings. He stated after some discussion concerning the use, and the potential impacts to the neighborhood, they approved a resolution recommending to the City Council that this conditional use permit request be approved, with stipulations that have been carried forward into the Council resolution. The applicant was not present. Julie Olson, 2663 Lake Court Circle inquired regarding the proposed hours of operation. Ericson stated that the hours of operation would not exceed 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Sundays. He stated the applicant expects to operate within that time frame, and possibly not to those limits. He noted that the applicant does not anticipate being open for business on Sundays during the winter and off-peak months. 7N:\DATA\USERS\JOANB\SHARE\MINUTES\CC\ 1999\07-26-99. MIN Ms. Olson inquired regarding the sales aspect of the business, and the possible conflict created by Sunday operation. Mayor Coughlin stated that the applicant indicated that customers could look at a vehicle, but would not be able to purchase a vehicle on Sunday. He explained that this would have to be done during the weekdays, and that an actual sale transaction could only be made at their main facility in Bloomington. Ms. Olson noted that some rental facilities have large trucks on site for rent, and asked if this would be the case at the proposed site. Ericson stated the applicant had indicated they might have one or two Isuzu box trucks, no longer than an extended minivan, on-site at the end of the month in order to accommodate moves, but nothing larger than that. Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m. Council Member Quick stated that he would act upon the matter contingent upon the City Administrator and City Forester's approval of the landscape plan. Council Member Stigney added that this would be a good idea, in light of the problems with the previous owner. Council Member Stigney stated the applicant had implied this operation was only car rentals, when in fact, it was the rental and sale of rental vehicles, cars, vans, and light-duty trucks. He stated that there is a large panel truck for moving purposes at the applicant's current location, the Montgomery Wards store in Blaine, and that he would not like to see that large a truck at the proposed site. He stated that he would include a stipulation to indicate that there would be no panel trucks, trailers, or recreational vehicles at the location. Council Member Stigney stated another issue of concern was m regard to signage. He stated that exterior signage was restricted, however, interior signage was acceptable. He stated that there was no size restriction on the interior signage, and that he would be opposed to large, conspicuous advertisements painted in the windows. He stated that if they were to allow interior signage, it should be stipulated that it be limited to a one and one half square foot sign. Council Member Stigney stated a concern regarding the sale of vehicles at the site, explaining that originally the applicant had stated that customers would inquire regarding a vehicle for sale, and it would then be brought up from the main location in Bloomington. He stated, at this point, the applicant requests to have three cars for sale on-site, which indicates to him that they are all for sale. He added that many rental facilities do not have on-site sale of vehicles. He requested further discussion of the matter. Mayor Coughlin stated that he felt it reasonable to have three vehicles for sale at any one time. He stated that the applicant indicated he did not anticipate there would be very many times when there would be three vehicles for sale on the lot. He added that even if they had three vehicles for sale all of the time, he saw it as a function of the business, and that he would rather see the facility operating and being maintained, than to have it remain vacant and deteriorate. • Council Member Thomason inquired what safeguards were in place to insure that there would be no more than three vehicles for sale at one time. Mayor Coughlin stated that this would be in violation of the conditional use permit. Encson stated that this was correct, and if it was 8N:\DATA\USERSUOANB\SHARE\MINUTES\CC\ 1999\07-26-99.MIN determined that the applicant had more than three vehicles for sale, the conditional use permit would be brought back before the Council. He explained that there was no way to prevent the applicant from not disclosing which of the three vehicles are for sale, but this was something that staff would monitor to insure that they were operating within the restrictions of the conditional use permit. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Approve Resolution No. 5349, a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit Request from Thrifty Car Rental to Operate an Outdoor Rental Operation at 2975 Highway 10; Planning Case No. 562-99, with Stipulations that the City Administrator and City Forester Make Final Approval of the Landscaping Plan, No Panel Trucks, Trailers, or Recreational Vehicles shall be Allowed On-site, and Interior Signage shall be Limited to Equal or Less Than One and One-half Square Feet. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. C. Public Hearing and consideration of Resolution 5351, a resolution approving the issuance of a conditional use permit for an outdoor produce sales stand at 2732 Highway 10, requested by Holiday Stationstore. Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 7:54 p.m. Planning Associate Ericson stated that Chuck Durand, representing the Holiday Stationstore, is • requesting a conditional use permit to operate an outdoor produce stand in the parking lot of the Holiday Stationstore, located at the southeast corner of Highway 10 and Silver Lake Road. The applicant is requesting that they be allowed to operate from July through October of this year and years thereafter. The produce stand is planned to be open from dawn to dusk, seven days a week. He stated the applicant is requesting the opportunity to operate in subsequent years with the same type of conditional use permit as was approved for Linder's and Merryville Farm Market. Ericson stated the conditional use permit limits this type of use to no more than thirty percent of the square footage of the gross floor area of the building. He stated staff had determined this to be approximately two percent of the space, and that the applicant is well within this requirement. Ericson stated staff sent notifications to properties within 350 feet of the proposed site, and received no feedback, other than two comments that it would be a good addition to the City. He stated staff has reviewed the conditional use permit criteria for this specific use as well as the general requirements, and staff and the Planning Commission feels that this proposal satisfies all of the requirement. Ericson stated the conditional use permit is drafted in such a way so that future appearances before the Planning Commission and City Council are not required. He explained that it would remain in effect indefinitely so long as there are no changes to the operation and the applicant resubmits a letter of intent and site plan to the City Administrator or Community Development • Director on an annual basis. He noted the conditional use permit provides a requirement that the applicant must come back before the Planning Commission or City Council if there are any problems or complaints associated with the business. 9N:\DATA\USERS\JOANB\SHARE\MINUTES\CC\ 1999\07-26-99.MIN • Ericson reviewed the stipulations contained in the resolution for approval. He stated the hours of operation will be from dawn to dusk, the signage will be allowed only as affixed to the stand or the tent, the lighting will be provided by the existing lighting, and the conditional use permit will be reviewed by the City Council or Planning Commission if there are any problems regarding the operation. The applicant was present. Ralph Durand, the applicant's father, stated that they had anticipated placing signage upon the grassy area to advertise their produce, and requested clarification regarding the signage requirements. Ericson stated that it was the Planning Commission's intention that the only signage allowed be either affixed to the stand or the tent itself. He stated that temporary sign permits can be applied for, which are 21 days in duration, and the property owner is limited to three of these in one year. He stated that these were the same conditions that are placed on the Cinder's and Merryville Farm Market operations. David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated he was concerned that this might turn into a flea market type situation. Ericson stated the area utilized for this use would be a twelve by twelve- foot square structure, and the conditional use permit limited the sales to produce only. Perry Corzinowski, 7750 Silver Lake Road, stated that he was the caretaker at that location and that he was speaking on behalf of several of the tenants in that building who were experiencing problems regarding the noise levels at the Holiday Stationstore. He stated that they had attempted to resolve the matter with the management of the store, who did not appear to be interested. He stated that they were concerned that the proposed produce stand would cause further disruption Mr. Durand stated that he was not aware of the noise problem, and that he would like the opportunity to discuss the matter with Mr. Corzinowski. He stated that the produce stand was expected to operate between the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and that he could not anticipate how the operation might result in additional noise. He requested clarification of the noise problem. Ms. stated that the noise resulted from people talking over the intercom system and playing music all night long. Mr. Corzinowski reiterated that the tenants felt the produce stand would cause further disruption and did not want it there. Mr. Durand stated that they wanted to be a good neighbor, and would be happy to sit down and discuss whatever problems they might be creating, and he was certain that they could resolve them. Mayor Coughlin stated that the matter presently before the Council was a separate issue. He • suggested that the applicant and tenants exchange telephone numbers and attempt to resolve the problem. He added that, if necessary, staff would assist in facilitating and mediating the discussion. l ON:\DATA\USERSVOANB\SHARE\MINUTES\CC\ 1999\07-26-99.MIN John Muller, 7750 Silver Lake Road, stated, as the previous manager of the apartment building i at that location, he had gone through much difficulty to attempt to erect a sign in front of the building. He stated that, as they were not permitted to do this, he did not think the applicant should be allowed to place signs all over the site, and that he thought it would look gaudy. He stated the extra traffic and noise would cause further problems, adding that it was already bad enough. Ms. Olson asked if the conditional use permit would be ongoing, or if it would be requested every year. Mayor Coughlin stated that it would be renewed automatically, unless it was the Council's desire to do otherwise or the applicant was in violation of the conditional use permit, which would require it come back before the Council. Ms. Olson inquired regarding the duration of the operation. Ericson stated that the applicant was requesting to operate between July 1 and October 31. Ms. Olson requested clarification of the structure, and its location upon the site. Ericson stated that the applicant was proposing to place it at the north corner of the lot, at the intersection of Silver Lake Road and Highway 10, near the existing Holiday sign. He stated that the structure would be some type of tent, with folding tables underneath the tent. He stated that this would just be a simple enclosure. He added that the City had an easement at that location, on which to place a gateway monument marker, and in the event that the City decided to go forward with that project, the applicant would re-locate the stand elsewhere on the site. Ms. Olson requested, in light of its visibility from the highway, the Council consider a different type of structure, or other placement on the site. Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 8:10 p.m. Council Member Stigney stated that this item had been discussed thoroughly by the Planning Commission, and that as long as the structure was aesthetically pleasing, and there were no problems associated with the operation he had was in favor of it. He stated that, as a function of the conditional use permit, these matters, as well as the noise and traffic issues, could come back before the Council at any time. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Adopt Resolution No. 5352, a Resolution Approving of a Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Produce Sales at Holiday Stationstore, Requested by Chuck Durand; Planning Case No. 564-99. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. D. Suspension of Waste Management of Blaine Hauling License. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated this item was addressed in the staff report written by Tracy Juell, the Administrative Assistant for the Public Works Department,. He read the report • as follows: The City of Mounds View funds all of the recycling programs, i.e. (2) City wide clean up days, 11 N:\DATA\USERS\JOANB\SHARE\MINUTES\CC\ 1999\07-26-99.MIN recycling bins, fliers, recycling contest, etc., through a Ramsey County SCORE Grant. As a requirement for receiving the grant, the City must submit tonnage figures, etc. in bi-annual recycling reports to the Ramsey County Department of Health by their required due date. Each licensed residential/multi-dwelling hauler (garbage/recycling) submits monthly recycling tonnage reports; as of today's date, Waste Management of Blaine has not submitted any reports for 1999. Voice mail messages have been left with Tom Kline, Recycling Coordinator and Erv Hoffsted, Supervisor, asking that the tonnage reports be faxed to my attention immediately. (It should be noted, that in the July 19, 1999 voice mail message to Mr. Kline, I stated that I would be approaching the Council at their next meeting to suspend their hauling license if the reports were not faxed by July 20.) Attached to this report, is a copy of Chapter 603.06, subdivision 3 of the Garbage and Rubbish ordinance, highlighting the requirements of maintaining a hauling license in the City of Mounds View. Waste Management of Blaine is not complying with these requirements and it is my understanding that this has been an on-going problem/issue with this particular hauler. Staff recommends that Waste Management of Blaine's hauling license be suspended, if reports are not received within 48 hours, and to issue a court citation and/or an administrative offense of $100.00 per month ofnon-compliance (6 x $100.00) and a $100.00 administrative fee. Mayor Coughlin inquired if the fees were derived from the City Code. Director of Public Works • Ulrich stated they were. He explained that the matter had been brought to the attention of the acting Chief of Police, who reviewed the administrative ordinances and identified this as a misdemeanor, which can carry a $700 fine and ninety-days in jail. He stated that last year, they had the same problem with this particular hauler, and when the Administrative Assistant indicated that they would recommend suspension of their license, the reports were faxed within an hour. He stated that numerous attempts had been made to resolve the matter at this time. City Attorney Long stated the suspension of the license is allowed by the Code, however, Section 603.06 Subdivision 1H of that Code requires the hauler be given reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard. He suggested that they set a noticed hearing for the suspension at the next Council Meeting. He explained that staff could still issue the citation for the administrative penalties, but the actual revocation and suspension would be handled separately with a hearing and a notice. Mayor Coughlin stated that they were presently in violation, and that he would entertain a motion to apply a citation of $700.00 as a fine for non-compliance with the City Code, and send a written notice, and have an official hearing of the matter at the next Council Meeting. Council Member Stigney inquired regarding the time frame involved in revoking the license, noting that people being serviced by the hauler at this time, would require service from another provider. City Attorney Long stated that once the notice of the hearing is given, they can revoke the license . and set an effective date to allow time for alternative service. MOTION/SECOND: Coughlin/Stigney. To Impose a Citation in the Amount of $700, and to Set an 12N:\DATA\US ERSUOANB\SHARE\MINUTES\CC\ 1999\07-26-99.MIN C~ Official Public Hearing to Revoke or Suspend the License of Waste Management of Blaine at the August 12, 1999 City Council Meeting. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. E. Second Reading and consideration of Ordinance 632, an ordinance amending Chapter 1113 of the Zoning Code pertaining to permitted uses within the B-2, Limited Business Zoning District. • Community Development Director Jopke stated the first reading of Ordinance 632, which expands the list of permitted uses within the B-2 district to include educational facilities, was held on July 12, 1999. He stated, at that time the Council amended the original version to permit any type of educational or instructional facilities, rather than limiting the amendment to private facilities only, and that staff had incorporated this language change into the ordinance which was before the Council for consideration. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Thomason. To Waive the Reading and Approve the Second Reading of Ordinance No. 632, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1113 of the Mounds View Municipal Code (Zoning Code) Pertaining to Permitted Uses within the B-2, Limited Business District; Special Planning Case SP-070-99. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. F. Right of Way Ordinance. Attorney Jim Strummond of Kennedy and Graven stated that he was requested to speak regarding the right-of--way ordinance, presently before the Council. He stated that this ordinance was quite complicated, however, state and federal statutes, as well as the Public Utilities Commission Rules require a comprehensive ordinance for cities that have, and will have an increasing demand for the use ofrights-of--way for utilities. He stated that the version before the Council was a model prepared by the League of Minnesota Cities. He stated that he had recently met with Harold Bagley, Senior Attorney for Northern States Power, who provided additional comments regarding the right-of--way Ordinance, and that he had also received a comment from Reliant Energy Minnegasco. He stated he had spoken to Tom Gruenhoffer from the League of Minnesota Cities regarding those issues. He explained that, in light of the late date he was able to meet with Attorney Bagley, and that the matter was not being considered for adoption at this time, he would expect to make minor changes to the ordinance prior to approval by Council at a later date. He stated that he was available to provide information regarding any aspect of the right-of--way Ordinance that the Council may have. City Administrator Whiting explained that the Council had thought Attorney Strummond would be providing copies of the final draft of the ordinance for their review. City Attorney Long stated that the Council might continue the second reading of the matter until the August second Work Session, to incorporate the comments of Northern States Power and Reliant Energy Minnegasco, and outline any potential changes to the ordinance. Attorney Strummond noted that this was a very involved and comprehensive right-of--way ordinance, with a number of important issues to address at this time, and that he thought this could be accomplished by that date. He stated that the issues relate to 13N:\DATA\USERS\JOANB\SHARE\MINUTES\CC\ 1999\07-26-99.MIN Certificate of Insurance, incorporating indemnity, requiring Certificates of Authority to do business, • relocation from one side of the right-of--way to another and some of the language as relates to the rules, in consideration of conforming the language to the rules and statutes. He added that he believed there would be a fair amount of review of these issues in the future, and the possibility of litigation in this regard, and that they were attempting to avoid that as much as possible with the ordinance. Mayor Coughlin stated that one of Northern States Power's questions was in regard to the requirement of underground, and inquired if there was further information in that regard. Attorney Strummond stated that they had discussed the matter, and were not in agreement. He explained that he felt the City has the authority, either by statute or a separate ordinance, to require undergrounding to the extent they feel appropriate. He stated, after a recent court appeals case, the law is clear that the City has the authority to require undergrounding and the City need not pay the additional cost, which must be recovered by NSP and the rate bearers. He stated that he believed the Council had reviewed a separate ordinance that would clarify the undergrounding rights, as the City would like to exercise them. Council Member Stigney stated the attorneys and representatives of Reliant Energy Minnegasco and Northern States Power had indicated that they had numerous questions and concerns regarding the issues at the prior meeting. He stated that they should have sufficient time to address these issues. Attorney Strummond explained that there was more than sufficient due process allowed in this matter, and in his opinion, complete agreement in regard to the issues of the ordinance would be unlikely. He stated that they would recommend the strongest possible right-of--way ordinance for the City, without unnecessarily extending beyond its authority. City Attorney Long stated that Attorney Strummond would take the lead, and they would have the amended version of the ordinance for hearing at the next Council Work Session on August 2. He added that, if the Council had any policy direction concerning the issues, it could be addressed at that point. Mayor Coughlin stated that it was the consensus of the Council to continue the matter until the August 2, 1999 City Council Work Session. G. Review of TIF Parcel Decertification. Mayor Coughlin stated this item was discussed at the previous Council Retreat, and at that time, Council Member Marty had requested that the matter be postponed until the August 2, 1999 City Council Work Session. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Coughlin. To Table the Discussion Until the August 2, 1999 Council Work Session. Ayes -4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. i H. Review of Charter Commission correction. 14N:\DATA\USERSVOANB\SHARE\MINUTES\CC\ 1999\07-26-99.MIN City Administrator Whiting stated that he and the Charter Commission Chair, Julie Olson, had • discussed a matter originating a few years ago, in regard to whether or not a provision for term limits belonged in the Charter. He stated that, pursuant to discussion at that time, the matter had been reviewed by legal counsel, in terms of the court ruling which considered term limits to be unconstitutional, and that the Charters were not printed with that provision in them. He noted that the Secretary of State's Office had been notified that this provision was to be included in the Charter, which resulted in some confusion as to whether or not to put that provision back into the Charter or whether it should have been there all along. He stated that it appeared to have been assessed that the provision belonged in the Charter, and the reason that he requested the matter be brought forward to the Council, was to provide public acknowledgment, should it be determined that the Charter be changed. He stated there was concern regarding having an item in the Charter, which is not considered to be constitutional, and how to inform the residents of that. City Attorney Long stated that in November of 1994, when the measure was originally adopted, the Supreme Court had not made their ruling, and it was his understanding that after the vote was tallied, there was nothing legally preventing the results from being certified, which they were. He stated, after that time, the Court did rule in the case of the Minneapolis Term Limits Coalition vs. Keith, which struck down the Charter provision in Minneapolis, a provision exactly the same as that of the City of Mounds View. He stated that this ruling declared that City Charters could not be amended to include term limits as that was in conflict with the State Constitution. He stated that, after the Supreme Court Ruling, the question arose regarding putting the Charter out with this new amendment in it. He stated that they had written an opinion stating that, given the unconstitutional • ruling, it might potentially raise other conflicts and expenditures of public funds, in regard to putting measures on ballots to print charters and code, and could be seen as an improper expenditure of public dollars. He stated that, at that time, they advised not to create a new set of charters with the provision, which was considered unconstitutional, thinking that the provision would be disposed of procedurally. He stated that what he was not aware of at the time, was that some Charters had incorporated those changes. He stated that when the question was posed to him, he thought that the matter should be clarified. He stated that when a state law is passed, and then struck down in the interim, often the legislature will come back and try to amend it to make it constitutional, or they leave it alone, and the reviser adds a provision to their bill repealing the unconstitutional provision, so that it disappears a year later. He added that if they do not have a repealor bill, they might include a footnote indicating that the statute has been ruled unconstitutional, so as to prevent confusion. He recommended that the Charter Commission initiate a provision to remove the unconstitutional provision, with the Council voting on the ruling, which would probably be the cleanest way to accomplish this. He stated that another option would be to reprint the Charter with the footnote identifying the provision as having been ruled unconstitutional, and that this could be done simultaneously with the printing of the next round of ordinances. He stated that either way, they should attempt to remove the provision from the books, as any attempt to enforce it would place them in court. Bill Doty, 3049 Bronson Drive, Chair of the original Charter Commission, stated that the Charter is the City's constitution. He stated that the citizenry of Mounds View went to the Charter after • conducting a study regarding a 6.5 million-dollar storm sewer in Mounds View, which became an issue of actual abuse. He stated that the citizenry conducted a study to determine what would was best for the City. He stated that Mounds View is a statutory City, and they found out this meant they 15N:\DATA\USERS\JOANB\SHARE\MINUTES\CC\ 1999\07-26-99.MIN elected a City Council, and under statutory law, the Council could do whatever they pleased, and that there was abuse of that power. He stated that the Charter was the result of the citizenry reaction. He stated that the Charter Commission is a body appointed by the court, to look into the matters that the State Statute did not provide, so that the citizenry can react. He stated that this is what happened in regard to the issue of term limits. He inquired if the State Supreme Court ruling regarding the unconstitutionality of term limits was specific in the State Constitution, or if it was an amendment to the State Constitution. City Attorney Long stated that he would provide a copy of the Minneapolis Term Limits Coalition vs. Keith case, which interprets a provision of the State Constitution which has the State Legislature setting eligibility and qualifications for office. He stated that the State Constitution was specific on the issue of qualifications for office, and what was determined by the Supreme Court in this case, was that you could not amend the City Charter to include term limits, as the State Constitution is the supreme document. Mr. Doty asked if this was specifically stated in the State Constitution, or if the ruling was based upon interpretation. City Attorney Long stated the State Constitution sets the qualifications for office, and the City is bound by the Supreme Court ruling. Mr. Doty stated that when there is a question of interpretation, the matter could go to the next court. He stated that other cities in other states have instituted term limits which indicates they are legal, however, interpreted under the State Supreme Court Ruling. He stated that, in fact, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled term limits to be constitutional. He stated that it is a question, and therefore could go to a higher court for . determination. He stated that the reason for having a Charter is so that the citizenry can react. He added that the right of the citizenry reaction is a form in the Constitution. Mayor Coughlin stated that Mr. Doty had been granted five minutes to speak, and requested he yield the floor. He explained, as the Charter Commission Chair can attest, the Charter states that the Council has to give a reasonable amount of time, and that the three-minute rule had been observed for many years. He stated that the reason for this is not to limit debate, but to provide the Council a reasonable amount of time for consideration of the issues, and that they not be required to make decisions at a very late hour. Council Member Stigney stated that he was also a Member of the Charter Commission, and requested, in light of the importance of this issue, moved that the Council extend the time allotted Mr. Doty by and additional three to five minutes to complete his comments. Mayor Coughlin stated that he would request that this extension be applied to all residents present. Council Member Stigney agreed. Mayor Coughlin stated that he would second the motion for the purpose of discussion, and the reason he would not support it was that they either stand by the rules or they don't. He stated that he had already flexed the rules to accommodate Mr. Dody's comments. He added that an assumption had been implied that because of this rule, they did not want to entertain the discussion, and that this was not the case. • Ms. Olson stated that she would like to offer a compromise to the situation, requesting the Council make the recommendation to add this matter to the next Council Agenda in a similar form as that 16N:\DATA\USERSVOANB\SHARE\MINUTES\CC\ 1999\07-26-99.MIN of a conditional use permit request. She stated that this would allow the Charter Commission as much time for discussion as the Members required. Mayor Coughlin stated that the matter was on the Council Agenda at that time, and added that if the Council was perceived as not listening, they could be thrown out of office. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Coughlin: To Call Off the Debate and Call for a Vote. Ayes - 3 Nays - 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Coughlin: To Extend the Time Allotted to Any and All Persons Present to an Additional Three to Five Minutes for Their Comments. Ayes - 1 Nays - 3 (Coughlin, Quick, Thomason) Motion failed. Julie Olson, Chair of the Charter Commission, asked that she been faxed a letter written by City Attorney Long, in regard to some potential alternatives as suggestions. She stated that City Attorney Long did not know where the previously copied Charters originated. She stated that in reviewing the documentation on behalf of the Charter Commission and the citizens, it was very clear that the copies came from the City. She stated that this letter also contained an attachment, which was forwarded to the attorney from the League of Minnesota Cities. She stated that prior to the matter going to the citizens, the alternatives were clearly stated that if they chose to bring the matter to a ballot, and it was passed, the end result would be that it would become part of the Charter. She stated that the City Administration, the City Attorney or City Council does not have the right to state that the provision does not have the right to be in the Charter. She stated that is the right of the citizens. She stated the neither City staff or City Council can make a codicil to the Charter. She stated they can request that happen, and put a recommendation to the Charter Commission, but they can not do that themselves, or omit the term limit provision from being in the Charter. She stated that the matter has gone to higher courts in other cities in other states, and has gone through the House and Senate of Minnesota. She stated that it was passed at the House, which determined that term limits were acceptable. She stated that the matter was going to the next level because it had been passed for three of the four cities that requested it. Planning Commissioner Laube stated that he was a member of the Mounds View Charter Commission, and that there were several concerns which required clarification. He stated that the United States Constitution has to be ratified by the State and the courts, and does not allow the Congress to admit any codicils. He stated that the citizens of Mounds View ratified this Charter, and asked what right the City had to add anything to it. He stated that he was not doubting City Attorney Longs abilities, but explained that he is the City's Attorney. He stated that the Charter provided monies for the purpose of retaining their own legal counsel, and that he felt the City Council should allot them money so that they can retain a charter attorney to advise them in this matter. He added that he believed term limits would be approved by the State of Minnesota in the future, and therefore felt that if the Charter Commission chose to leave this provision in the Charter, it was their right and the citizen's right to approve it. He stated that it was not the right of the City Council, adding that • the Council is elected by the citizens in the same manner they approved the term limit provision. He stated that the Council can request the Charter Commission to act, but they cannot demand it. Mayor Coughlin stated that this is why the matter is before the Council as a review. 17N:\DATA\US ERSUOANB\sHARE\MINUTES\CC\ 1999\07-26-99.MIN Jerry Linke, 2310 Knoll Drive, stated he was on the Charter Commission during that period of time, and at that time they did have a charter attorney, and raised the same question. He stated that they were advised that they should not put the provision in the Charter. He stated that the City did pay for that attorney, and that this has already been done. He stated that he would like to know when the Charter was printed, adding that during the time he was Mayor, no printings were authorized. Ms. Olson stated that the City authorized the printing in 1994. City Administrator Whiting stated that there was no disagreement that this had been done, and that it was understood, the vote was taken and passed, and that it had been certified by the Secretary or State. He stated that, as he recalled from attending some of the earlier Charter Commission meetings, there were printed copies of the Charter with the provision in them. He stated that, in 1996, they had discussion regarding whether or not this provision should have been included in the Charter, and that Ms. Olson had shown him that it had been done. He stated that he put the matter on the Agenda, without deciding on his own to reprint all the Charters with this provision included, to notify the Council. He stated the intent was to present the options provided by the City Attorney, adding that another option would be to do nothing and print the Charter as it was. Ms. Olson stated that she had also notified the Council regarding the matter, and did not think that the Council meeting was a proper forum for the discussion of the matter. She stated that in regard to a footnote or codicil, the Charter already states clearly in Section 4.02, that if for some reason the provision should be found unconstitutional, others shall remain in full force and effect. She stated that parts of the City Code also require amendment or correcting, but they were not being dealt with in this manner. She stated that this was no different than the portion of a resolution for initiatives by referendum, for a citizen to uphold his right within the City of Mounds View, which is contained in the Charter, and does not correlate to State Statutes, and cannot be done. Mayor Coughlin stated that he would move to direct the City Administrator to accept, post and publish the corrected Charter, including the added provision discussed. In addition, he would request that Council present an official request to the Charter Commission that they revisit this and all items which have been deemed unconstitutional by various court actions or the State Supreme Court. In addition, he would move that a separate document, and not a codicil, be included in any election packet, outlining the summary of the Minneapolis Term Limit Coalition vs. Keith case, and any summary documents from the State Supreme Court, so as to accept that which has been voted for by the people, and to request the Charter Commission deal with the fact that items in the Charter are unconstitutional, and to keep the citizenry informed, even those applying for office, so as to not mislead them in any way regarding the legal status of the term limits provision. Council Member Thomason stated that she would second that motion. Council Member Stigney stated that this motion was unclear. He stated he was on the Charter Commission, and at that time, Jerry Linke was the Mayor, and to his recollection the citizenry had this provision placed in the Charter by vote, and the City Council was not going to allow it, so it remained in limbo. He stated that whatever the correction, it was within the jurisdiction and domain • of the Charter Commission. Mayor Coughlin stated that this motion was basically directing the Clerk Administrator to accept the 18N:\DATA\U SERS\JOANB\SHARE\M INUTES\CC\ 1999\07-26-99. MIN charter as presented by the Charter Commission. Council Member Stigney stated that the Charter already existed that way. Mayor Coughlin stated that this was just resolving the question. Council Member Stigney stated that the matter was resolved in his mind. Council Member Quick asked City Attorney Long how something can be filed, when it is unconstitutional, and if so, who did the actual filing. City Attorney Long stated that when. the vote was taken in 1994, there is a requirement that the City certify the results within a certain time frame. He stated that he had seen a letter from Samantha Orduna to the Secretary of State, sending the language that had been adopted at the election. He stated that this was done as required by law. He explained that they did not add the language because of the constitutional issues that would come up later. Council Member Quick asked who had the copies printed. City Attorney Long stated that he did not know, adding that they had given the opinion at that time that if you were going to reprint all of the charter issues, it should be done without the unconstitutional provision, to prevent the possibility of a taxpayer law suit. He added that once you have a constitutional ruling, you are obligated, and cannot just ignore it. Council Member Quick inquired if whomever had the Charters printed had acted frivolously, and had expended taxpayer's dollars for something that was unconstitutional. . City Attorney Long stated that he was not aware how many copies were printed, but that this, and that they not continue to print copies after the ruling, was the concern. He stated that there was also the concern that the City not print the Charter with the unconstitutional provision as courts have ruled that it might be an improper expenditure of taxpayer dollars. City Attorney Long stated that the matter was basically simple. He stated that the United States Supreme Court would not rule on a Minnesota State Supreme Court decision, interpreting its own Constitution. He stated that for now, the law of the land in Minnesota has determined term limits to be unconstitutional, and added that the legislature could not change that either. He explained that the Constitution would have to be amended to allow this. He stated that one option was that the Charter Commission could repeal unconstitutional laws, which he believed was the most prudent action, and if denied, he thought the Charter Commission as the codifier could include the footnoting. He stated the third option, which would be equally valid, would be to notify all candidates filing for office that the provision still on the books is unconstitutional. Council Member Quick inquired if it would be prudent for the City Council to direct the City Attorney to take the matter to court to obtain a ruling from a judge, and to direct the Charter Commission to amend the Charter to bring it into line with the Constitution. City Attorney Long stated that this could be done in the form of a Declaratory Judgment action which seeks to clarify whether the provision in the Charter is unconstitutional. Council Member Quick stated that, as the Charter Commission is appointed by the courts, this would seem the proper way to do this. He requested the Mayor withdraw his motion, and substitute his. Mayor Coughlin stated that he would like to, however, he would have to decline. He stated that 19N:\DATAiUSERSUOANB\SHARE\MINUTES\CC\ t 999\07-26-99.MIN these were two separate issues, and the verbiage would remain in light of the motion. He stated that . they could appeal to the appointed judge for clarification. Council Member Quick requested City Attorney Long's opinion. City Attorney Long stated that in his opinion, it is a problem to leave an unconstitutional item in the Charter. He stated that he thought it proper for a public body, when given a court ruling and are obligated, to take action. He stated that if the Charter Commission did not remove the provision on its own, then a court action might be the necessary avenue. However, he stated, rather than taking a court action first, let the Charter Commission do the right thing, which is to remove the unconstitutional provision by a vote. He stated that, in his opinion, any attorney would tell them the same thing. Mayor Coughlin requested they have faith in both bodies present. Mr. Doty stated that when the Charter was originally made, the Charter was printed, and they made sure that the exact Charter, which was voted on, was represented by the City, and then the City copied that. He stated that the City Council is not the keeper of the City Charter. He stated that it is the responsibility of the Charter Commission. Mr. Linke stated he believed that in order to amend the Charter, the Charter Commission would recommend the Charter or amendment to the Charter for approval, and the Council would have to approve it unanimously, or the matter would have to be taken to the voters. He stated that at this time and to his knowledge, there had been no revisions to the Charter within the last four years, other than the term limit provision. He added that he was aware that there were other unconstitutional items. He stated that the Council provided the money to the Charter Commission to print the Charter, and if the Council thought there were unlawful items in it, they should request rt be "cleaned up," before authorizing the expenditure. Mayor Coughlin restated his motion to direct the Clerk Administrator to accept post and publish the adjusted Charter including the added term limit provision, and to request that the Council request that the Chairperson and Commission Members to revisit all items in the Charter which have been deemed unconstitutional by various court actions, and to direct the Administrator to include a separate document outlining the summary of the Minneapolis Term Limits Coalition vs. Keefe Supreme Court ruling and a summary explaining why this provision is unconstitutional. Mayor Coughlin stated that this was to post on the Website and elsewhere, the Charter as it was voted upon. He added that he voted for term limits at the time. He stated this was also to acknowledge that the provision was duly voted upon and approved by the populous, and to acknowledge the fact that it is, at present, unconstitutional, unless a constitutional amendment be enacted at the state level He added that it also preserves the right of the Council and the City to not withhold any information from those people seeking re-election. He stated that he saw this as a compromise. Council Member Quick inquired regarding whether or not a time constraint should be placed upon the removal of any unconstitutional items in the Charter. City Attorney Long stated that they were presently in the process of updating the Code book, and 20N:\DATA\USERS\JOANB\SHARE\MINUTES\CC\ 1999\07-26-99.MIN incorporating all the ordinances that the Council passed in the last year, and would include the • Charter, but had the question as to which provision of the Charter they should include. He stated if the Charter Commission were to act within the next sixty days, and vote to remove the term limit provision, and any others deemed unconstitutional, they could have it back before the Council for action, and the new, "cleaned" up Charter could be printed with the Code to avoid the cost. He stated that from his perspective sixty days would be a reasonable amount of time. Council Member Quick inquired if Mayor Coughlin would accept the sixty day time frame as an amendment to his motion. Mayor Coughlin stated that the Council could not dictate the timing of the Charter Commission, however, they could state sixty days, and the Council could consider their options at that point. Council Member Thomason stated that she would agree to this. Council Stigney requested clarification of the language "publish the adjusted charter," to indicate "publish the Charter including the added provision of term limits:" He stated that he did not believe it was correct for the Council move upon this matter, as it was within the purview of the Charter Commission. Mayor Coughlin stated that to an extent, the Clerk Administrator does have the right to post the Charter or raise questions regarding it. He added that this was simply an attempt to resolve the matter at the Council level, and place it out of the Council domain. City Administrator Whiting stated that the last Council discussion of the matter had taken place almost three years prior, and at that time, it had been decided to remove the term limit provision from the Charter. He stated, in light of this, and for the benefit of the public who might think this was this had been done, he had placed the matter on the Council Agenda to provide public acknowledgment that it was a different version than what he understood it to be three years ago. Council Member Stigney stated that he would prefer the motion be broken down into three different issues. He stated, in regard to posting and publishing the existing Charter, it should have been done, and if not, the City has been remiss in not doing so. Mayor Coughlin reiterated that this was a means to declare this issue resolved in this regard. Council Member Stigney stated that he opposed it, as it was not Council business. Mayor Coughlin stated that unfortunately, previous Councils had made it their business, and that he felt it necessary to declare it otherwise. Council Member Quick stated that it is the Council's business as duly elected representatives of the people. He added that no Charter Commission Members are elected. Council Member Stigney stated that there are no added provisions to the Charter. Mayor Coughlin stated he was referring to items added to the Charter by the voters, however, he would amend the language again if necessary. Ms. Olson stated that it should be indicated as the current February 13, 1995 Charter. Mayor Coughlin stated that he would amend the motion pursuant to the recommendation of Ms. Olson, the current Chair of the Charter Commission. Council Member Thomason stated that she would agree to that amendment. Ms. Olson inquired if the Council would consider a separate stipulation to the motion to request that the Council will provide additional expenditure for attorney fees at the same time, in order to • facilitate the Council's request that the Charter Commission review the Charter for unconstitutional items. 21 N:\DATA\US ERSUOANB\SHARE\MINUTES\CC\ 1999\07-26-99. MIN Mayor Coughlin stated that he would prefer an actual document requesting specific funding, rather than a request for an ambiguous amount. Ms. Olson stated that if they bring this motion forward at the present meeting, and request the Charter Commission to review those items, they would not able accommodate the request unless the Council extends additional attorney fees for that purpose. She stated that if Council so desired, they could come back before the Council with a document to that effect in the future. Mayor Coughlin requested that they utilize the League of Minnesota Cities' staff, as the Charter Commission has already done, adding that the services are free of charge as they are dues payers. He requested that they do whatever is required outside of the purview of expending additional taxpayer dollars. Ms. Olson stated this was not fair or right, in light of the documentation, which came from the League of Minnesota Cities, which states that the League of Minnesota Cities' attorneys are not for the citizens, for their Constitution, nor for the Charter. She explained that they are on opposite sides of the fence. She stated that he would be asking them to take direction based upon something that would not be legal counsel for the citizens. Mayor Coughlin stated that what he was requesting is to put the matter back in the realm of the Charter Commission. He stated there are several instances where items are not in keeping with the State Constitution, and he would ask that the Charter Commission be allowed to dialogue as a group, prior to a major expenditure of legal fees by anyone. Ms. Olson stated, because the Charter Commission was presently working on some very important amendments to the existing Charter, and particularly in light of the City's new budget, which could bring forward a special election to the citizens, they could not allow the sixty-day time frame to deter them from their work. Mayor Coughlin clarified that the motion states the Council is giving the Charter Commission sixty days from the date of the present meeting, and requested, as they currently meet on a regular basis for purposes of reviewing and amending the document, they would add this item to their discussion. He added that neither he, nor any other member of the Council was attempting to set priorities at the Charter Commission level. Mr. Linke stated that as a first step the Charter Commission could go back through the minutes of previous years and easily pull those items out. He added that they already have, either by statute or ordinance, approximately $1,100.00 for facilitating this. MOTION/SECOND: Coughlin/Thomason. To Direct the City Administrator to Accept, Post and Publish the Current February 13, 1995 Charter, Including the Added Provision Discussed, In Addition He Would Request the Council Present An Official Request to the Charter Commission that they Revisit this and All Items Deemed Unconstitutional by Various Court Actions or the State Supreme Court, and After Sixty Days Have Passed, the City Council Will Explore All Avenues Available To Find Resolution of Said Inconsistencies, h1 Addition He would Request that a Separate Document, Not a Codicil be Included in any Election Packet, Outlining the Summary of the Minneapolis Term Limits Coalition vs. Keefe Case and Any Summary Documents from the State Supreme Court so as to Accept that which has been Voted For by the People, and to Request that the Charter Commission Deal with the Fact that Items in the Charter are Unconstitutional and to Keep 22N:\DATA\USERSUOANB\SHARE\MINUTES\CC\ 1999\07-26-99.MIN • the Citizenry Informed, Even Those Applying for Office so as to Not Mislead Them in Any Manner, Regarding the Legal Status of the Term Limit Provision, as Amended.. Ayes - 3 Nays -1 (Stigney) Motion carried. • Council Member Stigney stated that he opposed, as he thought the Resolution was too convoluted to make a rational vote on. Mayor Coughlin stated that the City Administrator was directed to publish and post the present Charter on the City Website, and any other place appropriate, as directed by the Charter Commission itself. 11. Next Council Work Session: Next Council Meeting Monday, August 2, 1999 - 6:00 PM Monday, August 2, 1999 - 7:00 PM 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Coughlin adjourned the meeting at 9:37 P.M. Transcribed and recorded by: Trish Pearson Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 23N:\DATA\US ERS\JOANB\SHARE\M INUTES\CC\ 1999\07-26-99. MIN