HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 1999/08/23PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
• CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
August 23,1999
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
7:05 P.M.
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Marty, and Stigney.
NOT PRESENT: Quick and Thomason.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A. Monday, August 23, 1999, City Council Agenda
•
Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to add items to the agenda.
City Administrator Whiting stated that Planning Associate Ericson indicated that Item F had
been resolved, and requested it be withdrawn from the present agenda.
City Administrator Whiting requested that Items I and J be modified to set the Public Hearings
for the September 13, 1999, City Council meeting.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Accept the August 23, 1999 City Council Agenda as
Presented, with the Withdrawal of Item F, the Modification of Items I and J, and Waiving the
Readings of All Resolutions and Ordinances Presently Under Consideration, Unless Otherwise
Specified By the Council.
Ayes - 3
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Nays - 0 Motion carried.
Monday, August 9, 1999, City Council Minutes
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 2, third paragraph, to indicate the correct spelling
of the name "Samantha Orduno."
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 3, first paragraph, to omit the second period at the
• end of the last sentence.
1 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 2
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 4, last paragraph, third to last sentence, to indicate
"and the rugs are now gone."
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 8, last paragraph, second sentence, to indicate "...in
the form of a mortgage."
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 9, second full paragraph, second sentence, to indicate
"...had undertaken a massive amount of bonding."
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 9, fourth full paragraph, third sentence, to change
Council Member Stigney to Mayor Coughlin.
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 9, fifth full paragraph, last sentence, to indicate
"...would certainly have the opportunity to do so."
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 13, first paragraph, to omit the second period at the
end of the last sentence.
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to page 15, third full paragraph, first sentence, to indicate
"Council Member Marty."
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to page 16, third paragraph, third sentence, to indicate "...and
proud to have had the opportunity."
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 28, first paragraph, vote tally section, to indicate
"Nays - 1 (Coughlin)"
Mayor Coughlin requested an insertion on Page 28, between the fifth paragraph, beginning with
("Council Member Stigney..."), and the next paragraph, ("Mayor Coughlin stated..."), to include the
vote tally as follows: Ayes - 4 Nays - 1 (Coughlin)
Mayor Coughlin requested the addition of a new paragraph, after the third paragraph on Page 29, to
indicate "Council Member Quick inquired if Mayor Coughlin was making a motion. Mayor
Coughlin stated that he was."
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 32, first paragraph, third sentence to indicate
"desperately attempting to keep that s ep nding to a minimum."
Council Member Marty requested a correction to Page 3, first paragraph, second sentence, to indicate
"He stated an item brought forward by one of the meeting facilitators..."
Council Member Marty requested a correction to Page 8, fourth paragraph, fourth sentence, to
indicated "...to demolish an old, substandard house..."
2CaADMIN\MINUTES1CC18-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 3
Council Member Marty requested a correction to Page 10, first paragraph, seventh sentence, to
indicate "...if this had been an ethical contractor..."
Council Member Marty requested a correction to Page 17, third paragraph, seventh sentence, to
indicate "...of both parties, t~ have gradually developed..."
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To accept the August 9, 1999 City Council minutes as
corrected.
Ayes - 3 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mayor Coughlin introduced the new Police Chief, Bill Clark, and welcomed him to the City of
Mounds View.
Chief Clark stated that he was delighted to be in the City of Mounds View, and to have the
opportunity to serve the Council, the City, and the citizens. He stated he had already seen many
good things in the City of Mounds View, and that there were many good things yet to come.
• Ma or 1' k o l d his E-mail
y Cough In stated that anyone who wished to contact Chief Clar cud o so at
address, Bi11C@RCMNet.org. He added that Chief Clark could also be reached via telephone at City
Hall. Mayor Coughlin stated he looked forward to working with Chief Clark in the future.
6. REPORTS
Council Member Marty reported he had met with Northwest Youth and Family Services, and the
budget and other items were discussed during that meeting. He .stated they had been asked to go into
a portion of Anoka County. He stated that presently they provide their services primarily in Ramsey
County, and are presently researching this. He stated he hoped to have additional information by
the next meeting of the City Council.
Mayor Coughlin reported he had attended a luncheon meeting with County Commissioner Tony
Bennett. He stated they had discussed a variety of issues, including the status of the airport
discussion, in relation to the Anoka County airport. He stated Commissioner Bennett gave him a
tour of the new jail site, which is approximately a two city-block section in the city of St. Paul,
where they would be constructing the new jail. He stated Commissioner Bennett had been very
active in securing that section for the County's use. Mayor Coughlin stated he was also provided
with an overview of the County Commissioner's budget process, and the issues they are presently
considering. He stated he had an enjoyable time, and it was a good opportunity to speak directly
with Commissioner Bennett in his office and to continue to build a relationship with him.
3C: \ADMINIMINUTES\CC18-23-99. CC
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
. CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
,~ ~~ ~ ~~° Re ular Meetin
~,~ E ~ ~ ° ~ j' August 23,1999
'` Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
7:05 P.M.
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Marty, and Stigney.
NOT PRESENT: Quick and Thomason.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A. Monday, August 23,1999, City Council Agenda
Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to add items to the agenda.
City Administrator Whiting stated that Planning Associate Ericson indicated that Item F had
been resolved, and requested it be withdrawn from the present agenda.
City Administrator Whiting requested that Items I and J be modified to set the Public Hearings
for the September 13, 1999, City Council meeting.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Accept the August 23, 1999 City Council Agenda as
Presented, with the Withdrawal of Item F, the Modification of Items I and J, and Waiving the
Readings of All Resolutions and Ordinances Presently Under Consideration, Unless Otherwise
Specified By the Council.
Ayes - 3 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Monday, August 9, 1999, City Council Minutes
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 2, third paragraph, to indicate the correct spelling
of the name "Samantha Orduno."
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 3, first paragraph, to omit the second period at the
end of the last sentence.
l C:IADMIN\MINUTES1CC18-23-99.CC
•
•
Mounds View City Council August 23,1999
Regular Meeting Page 2
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 4, last paragraph, third to last sentence, to indicate
"and the rugs are now gone."
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 8, last paragraph, second sentence, to indicate "...in
the form of a mortgage."
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 9, second full paragraph, second sentence, to indicate
"...had undertaken a massive amount of bonding."
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 9, fourth full paragraph, third sentence, to change
Council Member Stigney to Mayor Coughlin.
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 9, fifth full paragraph, last sentence, to indicate
"...would certainly have the opportunity to do so."
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 13, first paragraph, to omit the second period at the
end of the last sentence.
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to page 15, third full paragraph, first sentence, to indicate
"Council Member Marty."
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to page 16, third paragraph, third sentence, to indicate "...and
proud to have had the opportunity."
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 28, first paragraph, vote tally section, to indicate
"Nays - 1 (Coughlin)"
Mayor Coughlin requested an insertion on Page 28, between the fifth paragraph, beginning with
("Council Member Stigney..."), and the next paragraph, ("Mayor Coughlin stated..."), to include the
vote tally as follows: Ayes - 4 Nays - 1 (Coughlin)
Mayor Coughlin requested the addition of a new paragraph, after the third paragraph on Page 29, to
indicate "Council Member Quick inquired if Mayor Coughlin was making a motion. Mayor
Coughlin stated that he was."
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 32, first paragraph, third sentence to indicate
"desperately attempting to keep that s endin to a minimum."
Council Member Marty requested a correction to Page 3, first paragraph, second sentence, to indicate
"He stated an item brought forward by one of the meeting facilitators..."
Council Member Marty requested a correction to Page 8, fourth paragraph, fourth sentence, to
indicated "...to demolish an old, substandard house..."
2C: \ADM IN\M INUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 3
Council Member Marty requested a correction to Page 10, first paragraph, seventh sentence, to
indicate "...if this had been an ethical contractor..."
Council Member Marty requested a correction to Page 17, third paragraph, seventh sentence, to
indicate "...of both parties, t~ have gradually developed..."
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To accept the August 9, 1999 City Council minutes as
corrected.
Ayes - 3 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mayor Coughlin introduced the new Police Chief, Bill Clark, and welcomed him to the City of
Mounds View.
Chief Clark stated that he was delighted to be in the City of Mounds View, and to have the
opportunity to serve the Council, the City, and the citizens. He stated he had already seen many
good things in the City of Mounds View, and that there were many good things yet to come.
Mayor Coughlin stated that anyone who wished to contact Chief Clark could do so at his E-mail
address, Bi11C@RCMNet.Org. He added that Chief Clark could also be reached via telephone at City
Hall. Mayor Coughlin stated he looked forward to working with Chief Clark in the future.
6. REPORTS
Council Member Marty reported he had met with Northwest Youth and Family Services, and the
budget and other items were discussed during that meeting. He stated they had been asked to go into
a portion of Anoka County. He stated that presently they provide their services primarily in Ramsey
County, and are presently researching this. He stated he hoped to have additional information by
the next meeting of the City Council.
Mayor Coughlin reported he had attended a luncheon meeting with County Commissioner Tony
Bennett. He stated they had discussed a variety of issues, including the status of the airport
discussion, in relation to the Anoka County airport. He stated Commissioner Bennett gave him a
tour of the new jail site, which is approximately a two city-block section in the city of St. Paul,
where they would be constructing the new jail. He stated Commissioner Bennett had been very
active in securing that section for the County's use. Mayor Coughlin stated he was also provided
with an overview of the County Commissioner's budget process, and the issues they are presently
considering. He stated he had an enjoyable time, and it was a good opportunity to speak directly
with Commissioner Bennett in his office and to continue to build a relationship with him.
3C:~ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 4
Mayor Coughlin stated the Director of Public Works and the Ramsey County crews have been
working on Spring Lake Road and County Road I, and he had received telephone calls, and been
approached by residents who extended their gratitude to the County and the City for a job well done.
He stated the project was still in the final stages of completion, however, as it develops, people have
indicated to him that they are very excited to have received the road they desired, and are pleased
with its appearance. He stated he would like to publicly acknowledge that the County workers on
that site are "top notch." He stated he had the opportunity to speak with the foreman at the site, who
worked the crews most diligently. He stated they should be commended for their good work.
Council Member Stigney reported he had attended the Planning Commission meeting, of August 18,
and that Items A, B, and C, presently set for public hearings had been considered at that meeting.
He stated that one of these items was the consideration and unanimous vote of the Planning
Commission to deny a conditional use permit for an oversized garage at 2801 Woodale Drive. He
stated another item was the request by MSP Real Estate for the assisted living senior residential
facility, which was approved. He stated the third item was the consideration of the wetland
alteration permit for Edgewood Square, which was unanimously denied.
City Administrator Whiting reported he had attended the League of Minnesota Cities Board meeting
the prior week, where he underwent his orientation with that body.
iv~ 1
City Administrator Whrtmg stated he had received an interesting telephone call from an and idua
who stated the traffic volume on Highway 10 had lessened since the US Highway 10 has gone
around the community. City Administrator Whiting stated he would be interested in hearing from
more people, who feel this is the case, and what this might mean, in terms of the development and
community issues along Highway 10.
Mayor Coughlin stated he had received similar comments, and that he had noticed less traffic
volume on the City's stretch of Highway 10, as well. He stated he had also noticed an increase of
traffic on Highway 118, many times over that, which was just a few weeks prior, a fairly vacant road.
City Administrator Whiting stated he believed this matter merited community discussion, as it
changes the character of the highway and with that, some of the land use planning may require
review. Mayor Coughlin stated he would be interested in attempting to facilitate this discussion with
the property owners and businesses that are adjacent to the City's section of Highway 10. He stated
the Comprehensive Plan was to be reviewed at the planning level, and these matters could be
revisited. He stated there was a limited window of opportunity, during which the state is giving the
County back the road. He stated if they wanted to do something differently with the road and the
way it is developed, they should have some input prior to the state or county stepping in and redoing
it. He explained that, after investing a major amount of capital on the road, the state or county might
• be very resistant to changing it.
4C:\ADM IN\M INUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 5
Council Member Marty stated he had spoken with City Administrator Whiting and Community
Development Director Jopke regarding this matter, and he believed it did merit further discussion
and investigation in regard to what they would like to see happen.
Mayor Coughlin inquired if it would be the consent of the Council to coordinate some type of
discussion group with the Planning Commission, the Council, and the people in that location. He
stated he was aware that the design center, which works with the I-35W Corridor Coalition, views
the highway as a major redevelopment issue, in light of the City's large right-of--way on both sides
of the road. He stated there might be an opportunity to relocate a section or side of the road to one
side of the right-of--way, and potentially open more land for commercial and industrial development
along the highway. Council Member Marty stated he thought this should be discussed, and in a
format which was opened to the public, as well. Mayor Coughlin noted that it was the consensus
of the Council to pursue the scheduling of a discussion group for possible Highway 10
redevelopment options.
City Administrator Whiting stated the City had received some telephone calls from residents who
expressed their frustration in regard to attempting to provide directions to people who are following
the signs along the highway as they see them. He stated he would be meeting with the city managers
• of Spring Lake Park and Blaine, and would mention this to them, and attempt to start some dialogue
m regard to the new name of the highway.
City Administrator Whiting stated the Council should have received a copy of a letter which was
directed to the Public Utilities Commission requesting they consider incorporating the City of
Mounds View in the (651) area code with the rest of Ramsey County, rather than the new (763) area
code. He stated this change would take place in approximately a year. Mayor Coughlin stated he
thought this was a good idea, and requested the Council be kept abreast of this matter.
Director of Public Works Ulrich provided an update regarding the water break repair issue, which
had been brought before the Council at its last regular meeting. He stated he had a conversation with
the attorney representing the resident who was dealing with this service break. He stated a number
of issues were discussed during this conversation, including the permitting process, the inspection
which was done on the premises, and that City Staff did assist to some degree with the repair, due
to the extreme wetness of the dig. He stated City Attorney Riggs had also spoken with the resident's
attorney that date.
Director of Public Works Ulrich stated he and City Administrator Whiting had discussed the matter
with the resident, in terms of providing a special assessment, and repairing the water leak. He stated,
at that time, she indicated she did not wish to proceed with the service replacement, but merely repair
the line. He stated staff had attempted to obtain bids for the repair, and had worked with the resident
• during the last week and a half, to attempt to determine how she would resolve this matter.
SC:AADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
•
•
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 6
Director of Public Works Ulrich stated, at this point, there is nothing that the City is legally liable
for. He stated an inspection had been performed on the repair. He stated the contractor has been
unable to locate the permit, which he may or may not have purchased. He explained there were
some shortages in staff at that time, with both the assistants to the Public Works Department, and
Community Development Department, absent on medical leave. He stated, whether or not the
permit was purchased, the permit requirement is merely to insure that an inspection is performed on
the job, and to insure the City is aware of any contractors that maybe working on private or public
facilities throughout the City.
Director of Public Works Ulrich stated they have come to the point where the leak not being
repaired, and they have not had any further contact with the resident, other than through her attorney.
He stated City Attorney Riggs had spoken with her attorney that date, to try and explain the City's
position on this matter. He stated, in similar cases, the City has generally notified the resident that
a leak has occurred in their service, and that they have ten days in which to repair the leak. He stated
the resident can also be held responsible for the amount of water that has leaked through the break,
once the size of the hole is determined, and that calculation can be made. He stated due to the
length of time the line has been leaking, or the hole expanding, there is a health, safety, and welfare
issue posed not only to the resident, but to her neighbors, and the remainder of the underground
utilities that are in that boulevard.
Director of Public Works Ulnch stated staff would request the Council direct staff to send the
resident a letter, allowing ten days to repair the service, and if not repaired in that time, the City will
hire a contractor to perform the repair, and will make options available for payment, either through
special assessment, or some other type of program.
Council Member Marty inquired regarding the length of time that the water line has been leaking.
Director of Public Works Ulrich stated it has been leaking for approximately five weeks.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney: To Have Public Works or Staff give 10 days notice.
Ayes - 3 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
•
Mayor Coughlin requested Director of Public Works Ulrich send a notice to the resident.
City Attorney Riggs stated that he had spoken with the resident's attorney, and had discussed this
matter. He stated he could provide the attorney with further information, but was not certain it
would be fruitful at this time. He stated he believed this was the proper action for the Council to
take.
No further reports were considered.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
6C:\ADM IN\M INUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 7
A. Approve Just and Correct Claims.
B. Consider Resolution 5362, a Resolution Authorizing an Interfund Advance from
the Special Projects Fund to the Golf Course.
C. Consider Resolution 5363, a Resolution Authorizing a Golf Course Assistant
position.
D. Consideration of Resolution 5361, Approving Traffic Control Signal Agreement
for Edgewood Drive and TH 10.
E. Licenses for Approval.
F. Set a Public Hearing for 7:10 p.m. on September 13, 1999, to consider First
Reading Approval of Ordinance No. 637, and ordinance amending Section 1008
of the Mounds View Municipal Code to set signage standards in PF Public
Facilities and CRP Conservancy, Recreational and Preservation zoning
districts.
Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to remove Items for discussion.
City Attorney Riggs stated he had discussed Item 7B of the Consent Agenda, the Interfund Advance
from the Special Projects Fund to the Golf Course, with City Administrator Whiting and staff. He
stated the City Code, Section 203.08, Subdivision 5, indicates the approval by resolution, by a four-
fifths vote of the entire Council. He stated that the language was somewhat ambiguous, but would
appear to indicate that the Code requires, with three Members present, all three votes in the
affirmative for approval. He explained rt probably means the entire Council, and would require four
affirmative votes, at any given time. He stated, as the Council did not have four Members present,
it would appear that this item could not be approved at this time.
Mayor Coughlin requested that Item B be removed from the Consent Agenda, until a later date.
Council Member Stigney requested the removal of Items C and D, for additional discussion.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Coughlin. To Approve the Consent Agenda for Items A, E, and F as
presented.
Ayes - 3 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
Council Member Stigney stated that Item C, was a resolution in consideration of hiring a full-time
position as an assistant superintendent at the golf course with a 1999 salary of $28,000. He stated
the salary range for this position was not indicated, and inquired in that regard. He stated that he did
not support afull-time position, for three to four months of work per year at the golf course, and
believed this should be a seasonal position.
John Hammerschmidt, General Manager of the golf course, clarified the full-time position, as
opposed to a seasonal full-time position. He stated landscaping positions, as indicated in that date's
newspaper, range in pay between $9.00 and $12.00 per hour. He stated to hire an assistant with any
qualifications, on a seasonal basis, the City would be looking at $15.00 per hour. He stated, if you
7C:~ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
•
•
L.J
Mounds View City Council August 23,1999
Regular Meeting Page 8
did this for the 40 weeks, and during those weeks the person worked 50 hours per week, there would
be overtime to consider, and the City would be paying $28,000 to $30,000 for those nine months on
a full-time seasonal basis. He stated, if that employee then took unemployment, which is paid by the
City, dollar for dollar, until the next season, the City would pay again for the three months that the
employee is off work. He stated it would benefit the City to have full-time salaried employees.
Mr. Hammerschmidt stated this person would be supervising five to seven people on the crew, and
would qualify as salaried personnel. He stated the majority of hours would be during the summer,
with 2,000 hours during the eight to nine-month season. He stated if they did not have to pay the
employee at an overtime rate, they could afford that position at the stated salary. He added this
position was covered under the 44 percent agreement in the City's contract, and there would be no
extra cost to the City or to the golf course. Finance Director Kessel explained the salary range would
be 24 percent less than that stated, and would be approximately $22,400 to $28,000.
Council Member Marty inquired regarding the number of hours worked in this position during the
summer. Mr. Hammerschmidt stated the position would require at least 50 hours per week. He
stated this person would additionally be responsible for many of the same things he was, such as
checking for vandalism at night, making sure the pumps were on, and other duties in his absence.
He stated it would be difficult to find a qualified and responsible person for a seasonal position.
Councll Member Shgney stated he believed they could have afull-time seasonal exempt position,
which would not require an hourly rate. Mr. Hammerschmidt stated he was not aware of this. He
stated, however, afull-time seasonal exempt position would still require compensation for time off.
Mayor Coughlin stated, as a businessman who has employees himself, he could see the wisdom of
this proposal, especially in regard to the massive amount of overtime they would have to pay out on
an hourly basis. He stated it would be beneficial to utilize a salaried position, with compensation
time during the off season. He stated this would provide they could keep a good employee for
several seasons at a lower cost.
Council Member Marty inquired if they could advertise the position to start at the low end of the
$22,000 to $28,000 range. Mr. Hammerschmidt stated he had advertised the position in the
Superintendent Magazine at the $24,000 to $28,000 range, for informational purposes. He stated
of 500 golf courses in the state, and 1,500 possible employees who would be qualified for the
position, they had received four responses. He stated the city of New Brighton had hired the same
position the previous year, and their low-end salary was $32,000.
Mayor Coughlin stated, as an employer in the State of Minnesota, with virtually zero unemployment
statistically, it was his observation that it was exceedingly difficult to find high quality people to
apply, much less accept a position. He stated if they could hire someone at $28,000, they would still
be paying $4,000 less than the city of New Brighton.
8C:~ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 9
Mr. Hammerschmidt stated they would be winning in two ways by hiring afull-time employee, who
they would pay slightly more. He stated you never really know when the season is going to end.
He explained that last year, they played every month except for January. He stated this position
would provide that someone is available during that entire time, rather paying seasonal people in
overtime. He stated another positive factor, is that the golf course attempts to do as much work as
possible "in house," and this type of employee would assist with various projects that they would not
have to contract out, which would provide a savings.
Council Member Stigney stated the salary was somewhat misleading, in that the contract also
includes fifteen percent of the gross revenues of the golf course is to be used as enhancements or
incentive pay for the employees. He stated this amount would be added on top of the salary, and had
not been mentioned.
Mayor Coughlin stated this was small change in order to keep quality people on board. He stated
if they hired a person who was not qualified or well trained, it would cost more money than it was
worth.
Council Member Marty inquired if the golf course had previously utilized this position. Mr.
Hammerschmidt stated they had, three times previously. He stated the first employee was hired in
an intern position, and lasted a little less than a month. He stated this person was not happy with the
• hours. He stated the second person they hired was very qualified and had gone through the Pebble
Beach program. He stated that his was a money issue. Mr. Hammerschmidt stated the third person,
once again, was unhappy with the hours, and decided it would be easier to go into a landscaping
position. He stated the salaries, at that time, were all approximately $18,000 to $20,000.
Council Member Marty inquired how long this position had been vacant. Mr. Hammerschmidt
stated it had been vacant for almost a year. Council Member Stigney stated this might bring to
question whether or not the position is really necessary. Mr. Hammerschmidt stated to this point,
he had filled the position with senior citizens, who are not always available, or with high school and
college students. He stated the previous Friday, when they normally have a crew of seven to nine
people on the golf course, they had three. He stated when the students return to school, and in the
spring and fall, there are no people available. He stated that with afull-time person on staff, they
could better adjust the schedules of the part-time employees. He stated if they do not require apart-
time person, they reduce their hours.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Coughlin. To Approve Resolution No. 5363, a Resolution (Re)
Authorizing a Golf Course Assistant Superintendent Position.
Ayes - 2 Nays - 1 (Stigney) Motion carried.
Mayor Coughlin asked City Attorney Riggs, with three Members present, two voting in the
• affirmative and one opposed, did the motion pass. City Attorney Riggs stated it did.
9C:~.4DMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 10
Council Member Stigney inquired if Item D required only a simple vote to pass. City Attorney
Riggs stated this was correct.
Council Member Stigney stated he was never in favor of the percentage of cost sharing on the traffic
light, and did not see why he should vote for it at this time.
Council Member Marty inquired regarding the City's percentage of the cost of the traffic light.
Director of Public Works Ulrich stated this was 100 percent, however, there had been a contribution
by the Theater project for the traffic signal, the turn lanes, and the associated work in the median.
Mayor Coughlin stated this matter was basically a formality. He stated it had already been approved,
many have invested in it, and if the Council denied it at this point, they would be faced with legal
difficulties. He stated he could appreciate Council Member Stigney's opinion on the matter, adding
that he had been consistent in this regard.
Council Member Marty stated he also appreciated Council Member Stigney's opinion. He stated he
held a somewhat similar view himself, however, they were presently installing the traffic light, and
if not approved, they would simply not turn on the power. He stated he believed it was beyond the
point of reconsideration.
•
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Coughhn. To Approve Resolution No. 5361, a Resolution Approving
Traffic Control Signal Agreement for Edgewood Drive and Trunk Highway No. 10.
Ayes - 2 Nays - 1 (Stigney) Motion carried.
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR
Bill Werner, 2765 Sherwood Road, stated the time has come for the golf course to begin paying
back its loan. He stated the golf course is not making enough money to do that, so the Mounds View
taxpayers will have to make up the difference. He stated the Council appears to be interested in
ideas of creative financing, which impression he obtained from the previous Council Work Session,
and that he would like to propose a plan for getting the golf course some free money. He stated
many of the people of Mounds View were now receiving their state rebate checks in the mail. He
inquired if the Council could request those people who want the golf course to send their Minnesota
rebate checks to a Mounds View Golf Course fund. He stated this would be voluntary, similar to
the plan the Governor has instituted to finance the new stadium. He stated this plan would have an
. additional benefit, in that it would be better than a survey or poll to tell the Council what the
taxpayers really want.
l OC:~ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 11
Bill Larson, President of the Spring Lake Park Lion's Club, stated that last year their club had
embarked upon a project of park improvement, both in Spring Lake Park and Mounds View. He
stated one of their previous presidents had been very steadfast in this effort, and during his
presidency, he had managed to persuade the club to donate a large check to the Spring Lake Park
Parks and Recreation Commission, for the express purpose of improving Lakeside Park at Spring
Lake. He stated both the Mounds View Lions and Spring Lake Park Lions share that park, as well
as the residents of Spring Lake Park, Blaine, Mounds View, and the surrounding area. He stated that
this was to be one of their first projects.
Mr. Larson presented the Council with a facsimile of the check they have donated, in the amount of
$20,000, which funds were earmarked for the Lakeside Park improvement. He stated this was "seed
money," and it was hoped that future presidents could continue donations until the improvements
at Lakeside Park are completed. He stated they had ideas for improving the playgrounds, making
them AVA accessible, painting some of the existing equipment, the addition of a wading and
sanding area, park benches, new shelters and cement foundations, and to include benches along the
parkway. He stated the following day they would hold a meeting at the City Council chambers in
Spring Lake Park, with Park and Recreation Commissioners from Mounds View, Spring Lake Park,
and representatives of the YMCA. He stated this meeting was to determine what they would do with
the money. He stated they were going to attempt to get as many projects underway as possible
• before the snowfall. He stated they would utilize some of the members of both the Mounds View
and Spring Lake Park Lion's Club to perform some of the work themselves, as well as the Lioness's,
who would be interested in planting flowers, and doing some work to spruce up the Park.
Council Member Marty inquired if the meeting would be open to the public. Mr. Larson stated the
meeting would not be opened to the public, as there would be a committee comprised of
approximately twenty people selected from Mounds View, Spring Lake Park, and the YMCA. He
stated the Council Members were welcome to attend. Council Member Marty stated he had been
invited, however, would be unable to attend. Mr. Larson stated that he could contact him on
Wednesday, to learn the outcome of the meeting. He added that Jay McCluskey from the Parks and
Recreation Commission could send information regarding the approved items, and when the projects
would commence. He provided the Council with information with which to contact the Lions Club
members.
Mayor Coughlin and Council Member Marty expressed their thanks and appreciation for all of the
work the Lion's club had done.
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, inquired regarding a pickup truck, which had been purchased
by the City for use at the golf course. He stated he was aware that the golf course required good
transportation, however, he had thought they could purchase a new pickup for approximately
$28,000, and inquired how much the pickup had cost. He stated he had heard it was the "top of the
line.,,
11 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23,1999
• Regular Meeting Page 12
City Administrator Whiting stated he was uncertain, adding that he was aware it was purchased
slightly damaged. Mr. Hammerschmidt stated the total cost of the pickup was less than $25,000, and
had been purchased used, with a small dent in it.
Mr. Varner inquired requested the Council respond to his suggestion to request golf course funds
through the donation of taxpayers' state rebate checks. He inquired if the Council would pass a
resolution to set up such a fund.
Mayor Coughlin stated that any donations to such a fund would certainly be accepted. Council
Member Marty stated he had heard that the fund for the new stadium in St. Paul had collected $243.
Mr. Varner reiterated this plan was better than a poll or survey to indicate what the taxpayers want.
Mayor Coughlin stated, the City has obligations that must be met, regardless of whether or not a
member of the present Council cared for the creation of the project. He stated, with those
obligations, it was incumbent upon him, as leader of the Council, to attempt to keep this project
financially viable as possible. He stated that it was a workable situation, although certainly not
where he would like to be. He stated anyone who wished to donate, could certainly do that, and did
not think it would be necessary to initiate a separate fund for this purpose. He suggested that anyone
wishing to donate could, instead of paying the $15 green fee to the golf course, simply provide his
or her additional donation at that time. He stated he was in favor of whatever means were available
• to keep the City viable and accountable. Mr. Varner inquired therefore would the Council promote
the idea of people sending zn their refund checks for the golf course. Mayor Coughlin explained that
Mr. Varner's suggestion had just been aired on cable TV, and anyone wishing to donate to the golf
course could contact the Finance Director or John Hammerschmidt, in that regard.
There were no further requests or comments from the floor.
10. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. Public Hearing for the consideration of Resolution 5353, a resolution
contemplating denial of a conditional use permit for au over-sized garage to be
located at 2809 Woodale Drive.
Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 7:55 p.m.
Planning Associate Ericson stated this property is located at 2809 Woodale Drive, just off of Silver
Lake Road. He stated the property has a small house, approximately 400 square feet in size, and an
existing two-stall garage, which is 720 square feet. He stated the garage is already approximately
twice the size of the house. He stated the applicant proposes to construct a 476 square-foot addition
to the rear of the garage, making it 1,296 square feet in size, which would be three times the size of
the house.
Planning Associate Ericson stated this item was discussed at the Planning Commission level, and
the Planning Commission voted to recommend to the City Council that the request be denied on the
12C:AADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
•
•
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 13
basis of it being so disproportionately larger than the house. He stated that garages are intended to
be an accessory structure. He stated a garage three times the size of the house calls to question,
which is the principal structure on the property.
Planning Associate Ericson stated staffhad reviewed the adverse effects, as with any conditional use
permit request, and found that there are some adverse effects which would be associated with this
proposal, were it to be approved. He stated that the garage would be out of character with the
neighborhood, it would seem disproportionately large, and would certainly appear out of place and
obtrusive.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the Planning Commission felt some of the general requirements
associated with the conditional use permit were not met, and for that reason they recommended
denial of that request.
Planning Associate Ericson stated, based upon the Planning Commission discussion and
recommendation, staff has drafted a resolution for the Council's action, which does deny the
conditional use permit request for the oversized garage.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant was not present, although he was made aware of the
meeting.
There was no public input.
Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 7:57 p.m.
Council Member Marty stated he agreed with the good work the Planning Commission had put
toward this matter. He stated it appeared it had been well reviewed, and he was in agreement with
their recommendation.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Approve Resolution 5353, a Resolution Denying a
Conditional Use Permit for an Over-sized Garage at 2809 Woodale Drive; Mounds View Planning
Case No. 552-99.
Ayes - 3 Nays - 0
Motion carried.
B. Public Hearing for the consideration of a conditional use permit for an assisted
living senior residential facility and for the Introduction (First Reading) of
Ordinance 631, an ordinance rezoning property located at 2670 County Road
I from B-2, Limited Business, to R-4, High Density Residential.
Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 8:00 p.m.
13C:~.ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 14
Planning Associate Ericson stated MSP Real Estate has made an application to rezone the vacant
Kraus-Anderson property located at 2670 County Road I, behind the SuperAmerica Station, from
B-2, Limited Business Commercial, to R-4, High-Density Residential. He stated they have also
requested a conditional use permit to construct and operate an assisted living senior residential
facility, comprised of 48 units, to be located on that parcel.
Planning Associate Ericson stated this item was heard by the Planning Commission, at four prior
meetings. He stated the Planning Commission, the applicant, staff, and several residents had
discussed the issues, bringing forward a number of concerns to the City and the neighborhood. He
stated there was extensive discussion with regard to parking on the site, traffic circulation, taxes, and
other site related concerns as to whether or not this type of use would be appropriate at this location.
He stated a great deal of time had been devoted to this discussion, and as Council Member Marty
had indicated, the Planning Commission worked very hard on this issue.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the two issues for consideration were the rezoning request, and
the conditional use permit request. He stated the conditional use permit could be accomplished with
a resolution, which would be drafted, pending the Council's discussion and direction to staff. He
stated the rezoning would be accomplished through an ordinance, which would require two readings.
He stated an ordinance has been drafted for the Council's consideration, and the public hearing had
• been scheduled for the present meeting. He stated the Council could determine whether or not they
would entertain the reading of the ordinance at this time.
Planning Associate Ericson stated staff had reviewed the tax issues and discussed them with the
Ramsey County Tax Assessor's office. He stated this was in regard to the effects of the proposed
use on the tax base, and whether or not a commercial use would generate more tax dollars. He stated
it was determined that the proposed use would quite possibly generate more to the City's tax base
than a retail use, which would be permitted in the B-2 Zoning District. He stated the applicant has
indicated the valuation of the project would be approximately 1.5 million dollars. He stated, should
that be the case, the City could be acquiring a significant tax base with this proposal.
Planning Associate Ericson stated, with regard to the rezoning request, the Planning Commission
had requested there be a mechanism to revert the zoning of the property to the commercial
designation if the proposed use did not go forward. He explained that Ordinance 631, presently
before the Council, contained a clause in Section 3, which proposes that, in the event this project
does not proceed, the City Council may act to rezone the property back to its original zoning
designation. He stated this matter had been reviewed by the City Attorney, who indicated that the
language was in proper legal form, and would not create a situation in which the Council would be
obligated to act.
Planning Associate Ericson stated there are some specific site requirements, in terms of the
. conditional use permit, regarding side yards, side yard setbacks, and other similar matters. He stated
all of these criteria could and will be met. He stated one other action that would be required prior
to this request coming to fruition, would be that the developer would be required to come before the
14C:~ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
• Regular Meeting Page 15
City again in the form of a Development Review, and this process would clarify all of the site-
specific requirements. He stated, at that time, the City would review sidewalks, the parking access
to the property, and the layout and elevation of the proposed facility. He stated while the preliminary
information in this regard was before the Council, any additional questions would be clarified at the
Development Review stage.
Planning Associate Ericson stated another issue of concern with this proposal was the parking. He
stated the neighborhood was very concerned that there not be any overflow parking or traffic
encroaching into the neighborhood. He stated the developer has proposed 31 parking stalls, which
exceeds the City's requirement for this type of use, and the Planning Commission recommended that
the City Council adopt an ordinance that would revise the City Code pertaining to parking
requirements of these types of uses. He stated that this ordinance, Ordinance 639, was also before
the Council for consideration, however, the public hearing had not been set at this time. He stated
staff would require direction from the Council to schedule the First Reading of Ordinance 639.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the Planning Commission recommended City Council approval
of the conditional use permit request, the rezoning request, and the Code Amendment to the R-4
Zoning District which clarifies the language pertaining to assisted living facilities. He stated there
were a number of options available to the Council for action. He stated one option would be to
• direct staff to prepare a resolution approving the conditional use permit, to hold the public hearing
and First Reading for the ordinance rezoning the property, and to direct staff to schedule a public
hearing for the ordinance which amends the code. He stated the Council could also direct staff to
draft a resolution denying the request for justifiable reasons. He stated, in this event, staff would be
required to provide some reasons why denial would be appropriate. He stated another option would
be to table the matter until the next City Council meeting, in the event that further information is
required.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicants and their representatives were present. He stated
the residents in the neighborhood had been very involved in the discussions, and had provided some
good comments and suggestions, and that this was appreciated. He stated there was still some work
left to be done with regard to the site plan, should the conditional use permit was approved, however,
those matters could be further discussed by the Council at one of the future meetings in September.
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, inquired if this was the same developer who had previously
requested TIF financing. He inquired if the proposal was to develop apartments for senior citizens.
Mayor Coughlin stated he would classify the proposal as an assisted living/compartmentalized
nursing home, with personal living units, and a common space in the center for dining and kitchen
facilities.
Mr. Jahnke stated he was concerned regarding the discussion that the City had met their quota of
• apartment buildings, and that they continue to build more. He inquired how many of these types of
developments the City wants. Mayor Coughlin stated it is his understanding and belief that a
community should have a good portion of life-cycle housing. He explained there should be housing
15 C:\ADM IN\M INUTES\CC\8-23 -99. CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
. Regular Meeting Page 16
available for people like himself, starting out in live with young families, larger homes to
accommodate larger families, and when the children are grown, and not so much space is required,
there should be condominiums, apartments or smaller dwellings available to meet those needs. He
stated he believed this facility would be filling a niche for those individuals who suffer with
Alzheimer's disease to some degree, as well as other disabilities which require some assistance, and
to honor and provide dignity to their lives, and allow them as much independence as possible. He
stated he viewed this proposal as a unique development within the City, which would provide
services that might not otherwise be available, to those less fortunate in regard to their physical and
mental health. He stated this facility would provide the opportunity for these individuals to remain
in the community, with their families, friends and neighbors. Mr. Jahnke stated he appreciated
Mayor Coughlin's explanation of this proposal.
Mr. Jahnke stated another of his concerns was in regard to this particular developer, who had
requested the City to amend its position in regard to parking requirements and other similar matters.
Mayor Coughlin stated that the Planning Commission had reviewed this issue at four meetings, and
the parking requirements were not only of major concern to the Commissioners, but also, to the
residents who had testified at those meetings.
Council Member Marty stated he had spoken with Planning Associate Ericson regarding the parking
• requirements as set forth in the City Code, and that this developer proposes to meet or exceed those
requirements. He requested Planning Associate Ericson further clarify the parking issues for the
Council and the residents.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the City Code, with regard to nursing homes and other types of
similar uses, requires that for every three beds, there be one parking stall, with an additional four
stalls at the facility. He stated this was a 48-unit facility, and the maximum number of possible beds
was 52. He stated the Code would require a total of 22 parking spots. He stated that staff, the
Planning Commission, and the residents felt this may not be sufficient, even though it is what the
Code requires. He stated research was done in regard to what other cities require, and what other
similar institutions have provided, and whether or not their parking is sufficient for their needs. He
stated the Planning Commission felt that the parking requirement should be drafted in such a way
so as to require one stall for every three beds, plus one stall for every employee present on the
busiest shift, in lieu of the additional four stall requirement. He stated the applicant has indicated
that the maximum staff could be as many 14, and the Planning Commission indicated that 31 parking
stalls would be sufficient for any parking needs.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant has secured an agreement with the neighboring
Silver View Plaza, to utilize the back half of their parking lot, to accommodate overflow parking,
during the holidays, and in the event ofstaff/resident parties. He stated this was one of the reasons
the Planning commission felt very comfortable with 31 parking stalls. He stated that is parking
• allowed on Mounds View Drive, however, the applicant, City staff, and the residents would rather
not see parking in that location, due to the curvature of the street, and the issues of visibility. He
16C: W DMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
• Regular Meeting Page 17
stated that although additional overflow parking was available, the parking in Silver View Plaza was
seen as a much more acceptable solution.
Milo Pinkerton, representative of MSP Real Estate, stated they have built two other facilities in the
community of Mounds View. He stated these are the Silver Lake Point apartments, and the Silver
Lake Commons, which is a renovation of two existing apartment buildings. He stated they have also
built ten new town-homes within the City. He stated each of those facilities is considerably different
from the others, as is the proposed facility. He stated the Silver Lake Point apartments are for senior
citizens, 55 years or older. He clarified that the Silver Lake Commons did not receive any TIF
financing, but rather found financing through MHFA and other sources, which are available to
anyone who can qualify for Section 42 rent income limit. He stated the proposed facility is for the
continuum of care for the residents who perhaps presently reside in Silver Lake Point, Silver Lake
Commons, or the ReaLife Cooperative. He stated there are almost 300 residents in those three
buildings, as well as senior citizens who live at home, and require nursing support staff in daily
activities and socialization. He stated the proposed facility would provide a supervised supportive
facility to meet these individuals' needs. He stated Ed Meyer, was presently considering managing
the proposed facility.
Ed Meier, President of Senior Solutions, stated that Mayor Coughlin had properly summarized the
• proposal. He stated the facility would be for those people who were unable to live at home by
themselves anymore. He stated the typical profile of their resident will be 85 to 90 years old,
requiring assistance with approximately three activities of daily living, which include bathing,
dressing, incontinence, medication reminders, and mobility. He stated they could guarantee a safe
environment for these individuals, which provides proper nutrition, socialization, independence and
dignity, within the community they grew up and worked in.
Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 8:20 p.m.
Council Member Stigney inquired if the applicant was requesting financial assistance from the City,
in any manner, including the co-signing of loans or documents to secure financing. Mr. Pinkerton
stated they were not.
Mayor Coughlin stated he had heard some questions in regard to the City's consideration of what
was termed "down zoning" of the B-2 property to an R-4 zoning, and some concern that this might
be anti-business or the removal a parcel that could have been developed for business. He stated he
assumed that, even if considered nonprofit, the facility would still be considered a business, and in
that regard, they were considering a business operation in that area. He stated that the property has
been zoned B-2 for quite some time, and there have been no active seekers to develop this parcel.
He stated it appeared the market forces have spoken, and the B-2 zoning might not have been the
best for this particular parcel, or it would have been developed before this time.
• Council Member Marty stated when this first came up to the Council, he was not in favor of it,
however, through the discussion and research presented, he thought this proposal could meet some
of the needs of the City. Mayor Coughlin stated we are all getting older. He stated the
17C:~,4DMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
•
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 18
demographics indicate the median age would increase significantly within the next ten to fifteen
years, in the inner cities, core cities, and first string suburbs. He stated these types of facilities would
be called upon more and more, to take care of these residents, and to attempt to keep them in the
area, and engaged in the community. He added that some of these individuals had built the
community of Mounds View, and he would not wish to lose their presence and input, simply because
there were no facilities in the City to accommodate them.
Council Member Marty stated the developers appeared to be doing their homework and their own
footwork, and were not asking for any special assistance or TIF from the City, and he thought that
was a positive factor.
Mayor Coughlin provided a picture of the proposed facility for the television viewers. He stated this
was an attractive building, which he thought would provide a good buffer between what is
considered the residential area, and the business area. He stated he thought this would be a much
better transition to that area than a video store, a gas station, or a liquor store.
Council Member Stigney stated that there had been discussion regarding a sidewalk around the
facility, and possibly at the front of the building, to provide pedestrian access for the overflow
parking. He inquired if this issue would be addressed at the Development Review. Planning
• Associate Ericson stated it would. Council Member Stigney stated the Planning Commission had
discussed several times what would happen to the facility if the proposed use did not materialize,
and had wanted some assurance that it would not be turned into ahalf--way house, or a drug
rehabilitation type of situation. Planning Associate Ericson stated that Ordinance No. 639 was
drafted in such a way to address that issue. He stated there was some ambiguity in the Code at
present, in regard to the definition of nursing homes and similar group housing, in that the term
"similar group housing" had raised some questions as to the definition of the use. He stated the
Planning Commission and staff had proposed that the language of Ordinance No. 639 be amended
to indicate "Nursing homes and other elderly congregate housing." He stated the conditional use
permit that the Council would be approving for this operation would be specific to this operation,
in that it would be for a senior citizen assisted living facility, and not for a drug rehabilitation center
or anything of that nature. He stated as a result of amending this language in the Code, a drug
rehabilitation facility would not be allowed in the City. He stated, although they may wish to
consider this at some point in the future, there was no provision contained in the conditional use
permit by which it would be allowed. He stated he believed that Ordinance 639 sufficiently
protected the City, in the event that the facility is built, and a different use should come under
consideration. He stated the conditional use permit would allow the facility to be used for exactly
what was being proposed, and nothing else. City Attorney Riggs added that if the stated use did not
continue on at some point in time, the conditional use permit would cease to exist, and the matter
would have to come back before the Council.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Approve the First Reading of Ordinance 631, an
Ordinance Approving a Rezoning of 2670 County Road I From B-2, Limited Business Commercial,
18C:WDMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
•
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 19
to R-4, High-Density Residential and Amending the city's Official Zoning Map; Planning Case No.
559-99.
Ayes - 3 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Set the Public Hearing of Ordinance No 639 for 7:15
P.M., September 13, 1999, and to Direct Staff to Publish the Notif cation Pursuant to the
Requirement.
Ayes - 3 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
Planning Associate Ericson inquired if the Council would also direct staff to prepare a resolution of
approval for the consideration of the conditional use permit at the next Council Meeting. Mayor
Coughlin stated this was the consensus of the Council.
C. Public Hearing to consider wetland alteration permit and the Introduction (First
Reading) of Ordinance 638, an ordinance vacating part of a drainage and public
utility easement over lots 17 & 18, Edgewood Square.
•
•
Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 8:30 p.m.
Planning Associate Ericson stated Greg Peterson, representing Oakwood Land Development, was
requesting the City vacate a portion of a drainage and utility easement upon Lots 17 and 18 of
Edgewood Square, which is located to the north of City Hall, on Pinewood Circle. He stated a
similar request was made in 1997, before a previous City Council, for the partial vacation of the
easement, as well as a Wetland Alteration Permit. He stated the Council at that time, denied the
request.
Planning Associate Ericson stated this item was brought before the Planning Commission at their
meeting on August 4, and the Planning Commission unanimously recommended to the City Council
that the request be denied.
Planning Associate Ericson stated this request was to allow for two single-family homes to be
constructed upon Lots 17 and 18. He stated at the time the plat was recorded, there was a drainage
and utility easement dedicated over the entirety of the two lots, and an adjoining third lot, under the
assumption that they were not buildable. He stated there were less clear definitions regarding what
constituted a wetland at that time, and the prevailing opinion was to base the definition upon a
specific contour and elevation. He stated, in this case, it was the 904- foot contour, which extends
across all three lots. He stated in order to approve the plat, Ramsey County Soil and Water
Conservation District, and the City Engineer, recommended that there be easements upon these lots,
which were dedicated to the public in perpetuity.
19C:\ADM IN\M INUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23,1999
Regular Meeting Page 20
Planning Associate Ericson stated the lots no longer serve a purpose for drainage and utility. He
stated that a wetland delineation has been done on the subject properties, which indicates the
applicant's proposal would not impact the wetland, and that the construction would fall outside of
the wetland. He stated Rice Creek Watershed District had verified this delineation, and has issued
a permit for the proposal.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the consideration is whether or not there the easement presents
any public benefit. He stated upon speaking with the City Attorney, it was determined the City
Council is not necessarily under any obligation to vacate the easement, particularly if there is a
possibility that there is some present or future public benefit to be gained by retaining the easement.
He stated this factor could also be considered in terms of the buffer between the developed area and
the wetland.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the delineation indicates the proposed construction would fall
outside of the wetland, therefore, no impact or encroachment would be made to the wetland. He
stated there would be some filling of area that has been set aside as flood storage, however, the
applicant's plans indicate that they would create additional flood storage capacity on the back half
of one of the subject lots. He stated this proposal would replace 11,000 cubic feet of flood storage
capacity with 33,000 cubic feet of flood storage capacity. He stated in that regard, the City Engineer
• had determined, there would be no impact to the water quality standards and water levels. He stated
this was an issue of whether or not to allow the construction of two houses upon the vacant land,
which acts as a buffer between the developed and undeveloped areas.
Planning Associate Ericson stated staff is seeking the Council's direction, based upon the Planning
Commission's discussion and recommendation on this matter. He stated there were two options
available. One option would be to vacate the easement, as the applicant has requested, and approve
the Wetland Alteration Permit. The other option would be to direct staff to prepare a resolution of
denial of the request. He stated there was an ordinance presently before the Council, which would
approve the vacation of the easements, and would require two readings. He stated, in the event the
Council felt there was just cause to vacate the easement, a public hearing had also been set. He
stated that the First Reading of this ordinance could be held that date, if so desired. He stated the
other option would be to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial of the vacation and Wetland
Alteration Permit request.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant was present.
Annette Gazmarek, 7730 Edgewood Drive, stated her home was located north of County Road I.
She provided the Council with a picture of her neighbor's home, 7740 Edgewood Drive, which
indicated the flooding problem in that area. She stated she was aware that the problem did not
previously exist, however, the people that live down the road have recently sold their home, and that
• having new residents in that area has contributed to the flooding problem. She stated the picture was
taken July 30, 1999, and indicates that the flooding occurs up to the neighbor's shed. She stated that
a small creek located behind the property turns into a lake every time it rains. She stated the new
20C:~ADMINIMINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
•
Mounds View City Council August 23,1999
Regular Meeting Page 21
homeowner's were very unhappy about the flooding problems. She stated her neighbor at 7740
Edgewood Drive has had his property re-graded and re-sodded, however, this did not solve the
problem. She inquired, in light of this type of flooding, how could they justify building two more
homes in that area. She stated the backyard of the home on the very edge of the proposed
construction was basically a swamp. She stated this house was vacant from the time she moved into
her home, 3~/2 years prior, until 6~/2 months ago. She stated she could not see how this proposal
would help this situation.
Kathy Gryzmala, 2374 Pinewood Circle, stated her home was directly across the street from the
proposed building site. She stated she purchased her home in 1992, and at that time, she contacted
the Rice Creek Watershed District, and inquired if they could purchase the subject property, for the
purpose of constructing a playground. She stated she received correspondence from the Rice Creed
Watershed District, which indicated the entire lot was subject to drainage easement, which meant
that no fill material or structures could be placed upon it. She provided the Council with a copy of
that correspondence.
Ms. Gryzmala stated she had obtained a copy of the plat map, shortly after moving to the property.
She stated this map contained the language "have caused the same to be surveyed, platted, and
known as Edgewood Square, and do hereby dedicate to the public for public use forever, the
. drainage and utility easements, drive circle, and the road shown as the plat." She stated Marcellias
Hasehus, the property owner, had signed this document, on Apnl 15, 1983.
Ms. Gryzmala inquired why Mrs. Haselius was not present at the meeting. She stated she had
attended every other meeting regarding this matter. She stated that Mrs. Haselius had never spoken
openly regarding her feelings on the matter, and it was her understanding that it had just recently
come to her knowledge that she is the owner of the property and stands to make some money out of
it.
Lisa Gilpin, 2358 Pinewood Circle, stated that she had challenged the Planning Commission and
would challenge the Council to look at the area, and tell her where the wetland starts and where it
ends. She stated that this was not possible. She stated that during the school year, she spent a
number of hours volunteering, and speaking about the environment. She stated she believed if they
were going to tell the children about the importance of the wetland, it was their responsibility to
make their words stand for something. She stated rather than being willing to give up their
convictions, they should make their words mean something.
Barb Liukkonen, 2367 Pinewood Circle, stated she opposed this development. She stated, while
it is not in the wetland as delineated by the Soil and Water Conservation District and the Rice Creek
Watershed District, it is within the 100-foot buffer, therefore, to say there would be no impact to the
wetland, she believed was incorrect. She stated all of the oak trees in that area will have to be
removed to construct the houses, and the vegetation will be disrupted and destroyed. She stated the
natural drainage patterns would also be disrupted. She stated there would be an impact upon the
21 C: W DMIN\MINUTES1CC18-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
• Regular Meeting Page 22
wetland, even if the buildings were not constructed within the official wetland delineation. She
stated they were within the 100-foot buffer, which is recommended to protect wetland areas.
Terry Lulf, 2365 Pinewood Circle, stated he was a new resident to the area. He stated his property
was adjacent to the proposed building site. He stated he had been affectionately dubbed the "Pit
Boy," because of the pit in his backyard. He stated, in his understanding, his home had been vacant
for at least two years, and some of his neighbors indicated they were not sure if anyone would ever
be interested in purchasing the property. He stated the property currently meets his needs, however,
he was not in favor of the proposed construction, which would be adjacent to his property, and would
utilize another backyard pit. He stated he liked his home and neighbors as they are, and concurred
with the Planning Commission in their recommendation of the matter.
Greg Peterson, representing Oakwood Land Development and Peggy Haselius, stated Mrs. Haselius
was not present at the meeting because, regardless of the outcome of this matter, she would still be
neighbors with those present, and would like to remain on friendly terms with her neighbors, as best
she can. He stated that Mrs. Haselius did not feel comfortable speaking in this environment.
Mr. Peterson stated when the plat was developed in 1982, Mrs. Haselius agreed to dedicate the lots
to the City for easement purposes, because the City and the County required that. He stated she, in
• good faith, agreed to do that, as she believed there was nothing else she could do, and that they were
the experts and made the decisions. He stated, since that time, they have become better informed
in delineating wetlands. He stated that Rice Creek Watershed District had found that the subject lots
are not located in the wetland. He stated that it was not uncommon that a permanent decision has
been made, and upon the introduction of new facts, the decision is subsequently changed.
Mr. Peterson stated he understood the neighbor's argument. He stated there were, however, two
problems in this regard. He stated one problem was that they are not the landowner, and it was not
their land being discussed. He stated the other problem is that they are not wetland delineation
experts. He stated the neighbor's primary argument is that they like the property the way it is. He
stated he understood this, however, in his opinion, it was really a land use question, and inquired
how much right does a landowner have. He inquired, in light of these new facts, should Mrs.
Haselius have the right to sell her land. He stated Mrs. Haselius has been a resident of Mounds View
for 51 years. He stated he thought it was only fair to her to give her back what she had originally
agreed was wetland, in consideration of the new facts.
Mr. Peterson stated that he agreed that the flooding problem was not good. He stated, however, they
were proposing to create three times the existing flood storage capacity, which should assist with the
problem in that area.
Mr. Peterson stated when Mrs. Haselius dedicated the easements to the City, it was voluntary, yet
• she felt she did not have a choice. He stated in order to develop her property, she had to do this. He
stated it was the City, the County and the Engineer's determination that these were wetlands. He
stated that now they know they are not. He stated the buffer zone argument is the most valid, as the
22C: W DM IN\M INUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 23
construction would be within the buffer zone. He stated he did not believe it uncommon for City
Councils and Planning Commissions to allow people to build within those buffer zones. He stated
he believed this matter was intrinsic to land use rights. He stated Mrs. Haselius paid taxes on the
subject property for many years, and when Good Value and Oakwood Land Development thought
they owned the land, they paid the taxes on it as well. He stated it has not been the City's property,
it is their property, which the City uses for drainage.
Mr. Peterson stated that they were requesting that Mrs. Haselius be allowed to sell her property. He
stated it was her property, and there is no wetland or water drainage issue, they were simply
requesting that Mrs. Haselius be allowed to sell her land.
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated he would like to caution the Council regarding a similar
wetland issue, which had previously arisen. He stated the City had and a contractor had engaged in
a dispute regarding that matter, and he did not believe the City won that argument.
Ms. Gilpin stated Mrs. Haselius was present at the very first meeting they had, and fought against
the proposal. She stated all of the people present had purchased property in this area, and were told
that those lots would not be built upon. She stated the proposal would have an impact on them.
• Mr. Peterson stated the reason Mrs. Haselius fought against the proposal the fist time, was because
she thought the City owned the land and was attempting to sell it to the developer. He stated they
thought they owned the land and were attempting to develop it, and when Mrs. Haselius learned that
she owned the land, she decided to sell it.
Ms. Gazmarek, stated she did not believe any of the residents present were attempting to take away
Mrs. Haselius' right to sell the land. She stated, what they were opposed to, was allowing her to sell
the land under the contingency that the developers have to build two houses on the property.
There was no further public input.
Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 8:54 p.m.
Council Member Stigney stated the developer had stated this proposal would not infringe upon the
wetland, however, it would infringe upon the buffer. He stated the purpose of the buffer was to have
something in between the improvement and the wetland, therefore he was very opposed to building
within a buffer. He stated the proposal to mitigate the wetland with ponds was not, in his opinion,
the most desirable manner of mitigation.
Council Member Stigney stated the people who purchased into the developed project, did so under
the assumption that the drainage and utilities easements would be there forever. He stated the
residents had the right to expect that this was what happens to the property. He stated in order to
develop the area, the property had to be set aside, for drainage and utility easements. He stated when
Mrs. Haselius originally sold the property, she sold it with that condition, forever. He stated that
23C:~ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 24
nobody was preventing her from selling her property for whatever the market indicates. He stated
the market would be much less if they are not allowed to build houses upon it, and that is what the
developer would like to do. He stated he had no problem with Mrs. Haselius selling the property,
however, not for houses.
Council Member Stigney stated he was opposed to granting the vacation of the easements. He stated
he had been a member of the City Council in 1997, when the matter first came forward. He stated
he had heard Mrs. Haselius state that she gave the easement to the City and did not want any
construction upon that property, until she learned she was the property owner. He stated he
understands her position, however, he understands the residents present have rights as well. He
stated he believed the right that was granted to them when the bought their property was that there
would be a drainage and utility easement in that area forever, and therefore, he did not think it should
be vacated.
Council Member Marty stated the attorney indicated this proposal did not interfere with the wetland,
however, Chapter 1010 of the Municipal Code relating to the Wetland Zoning District states "any
work occurring within a wetland or the 100-foot buffer surrounding a wetland." He stated he agreed
with Council Member Stigney that the buffer area was there for a purpose. He stated as far as he was
concerned, the 100-foot buffer is the wetland. He stated the Council had received the minutes from
the Planning Commission meeting, and there was much good discussion there as well. He
commended the Planning Commission for their consideration, as well as Planning Associate Ericson
and Community Development Director Jopke for their presentation of the matter to the Commission.
He stated in 1981, the Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation Districts stated the policy of the
Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation Districts supervisors is not to recommend the development
of wetlands better suited for storm water retention, and they recommend that Lots 17, 18, and 19
remain undeveloped.
Council Member Marty stated that Kathy Gryzmala had presented a good comment at the Planning
Commission meeting, and was glad she was present to reiterate that. He stated that he had no
problem with Mrs. Haselius selling her land, however, the land is not to be developed. He stated,
if Mrs. Haselius can find a buyer, that is her right, however, the land has already been set aside.
Council Member Marty stated that during the Planning Commission meeting, there was an inquiry
regarding the infringement upon the wetland buffer, which indicated that it was substantially within
the 100-foot buffer. He read the statement of Planning Commissioner Brian Kaden, as reflected in
the minutes of August 4, 1999, "Mrs. Haselius signed the document indicating these were permanent
easements, and in light of this, he assumed that both she and the developer were of the understanding
that the lots could never be developed by anyone."
Council Member Marty stated the Planning Commission made a motion to recommend to the City
Council that they not vacate the drainage and utility easements on Lots 17 and 18, Edgewood Square
(Pinewood Circle), and it was by unanimous vote.
24C:~ADMIN\MIl~IUTES\CC\5-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
• Regular Meeting Page 25
Mayor Coughlin stated many might be aware that he is a building contractor by trade, and happened
to be in New Brighton when the 100-year rainfall event occurred. He stated he was installing a back
door on a house at the time, and saw the rain coming down. He stated he saw a nice soggy backyard
turn into 7 ~/z feet of water. He stated he had to stop installing the door, and help salvage people's
wedding albums and personal items. He stated water was literally pouring through basement
windows. He stated this situation affected six to eight houses in that area.
Mayor Coughlin stated one of the major contributing factors to that problem, was that this was
lowland, with a low spot across the street that the City of New Brighton had decided to develop,
even though it was marginal land. He stated this resulted in the water having no where to go other
than the next lowest spot, which happened to be these people's backyards, on the other side of the
street. He stated the city of New Brighton has spent a considerable amount of time and money
rectifying that situation, by installing a huge drain in the back of those people's yards, in order to
accommodate the storm water. He stated he had seen first hand what developing even marginal
buffer drainage area, can do to surrounding properties.
Mayor Coughlin stated he was not one to chain himself to a tree, and protest for environmental
causes, nonetheless, he considers himself somewhat of an environmentalist. He stated he had been
raised on a farm, and learned to appreciate the environment. He stated in the most basic sense,
• wetlands means it is "wet land." He stated that you can discuss what plants and animals are there,
or its delineation off of a satellite photograph, but essentially, it is wet. He stated the more footprint
of buildings you put into that area, the more displaced the water becomes, and will go into someone
else's basement.
Mayor Coughlin stated he was a property rights advocate. He stated he has been all of his life, and
he did swallow hard in a situation where an individual owns property that they essentially cannot
develop, however, this is not a matter of the City taking this property. He stated this person signed
in good faith, signing over these parcels so that she could reap the development rewards of the other
properties, that some of the individuals present now own and occupy. He stated he did not view this
as "taking" in any sense of the word. He stated the Council must weigh the needs of the many
against the needs of the few. He stated the surrounding neighbors also have property rights, which
include not having their basements fill up with water, or having their contractor attempt to save their
wedding album the next time they have a major thunderstorm.
Mayor Coughlin stated, in driving by the area, he would concur it would be very difficult to
specifically delineate where the wetland starts and ends. He stated his heart goes out to the
individual who owns the property, and is required to pay taxes on it, however, they signed in good
faith, and he would stand by the decision made on April 15, 1983.
MOTION/SECOND: Coughlin/Stigney. To Deny the Introduction (First Reading) of Ordinance
No. 638, an Ordinance Vacating a Portion of a Drainage Easement Over Lots 17 and 18, Block 1,
. Edgewood Square.
Ayes - 3 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
25C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 26
Council Member Marty commented he had driven by the wetland with his two sons, and thought the
area was beautiful.
D. Public Hearing Amending Chapter 202 of the Mounds View Municipal Code
Entitled "Public Improvements."
Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 9.05 p.m.
Director of Public Works Ulrich stated this item was in consideration of amending Chapter 202 of
the Municipal Code, pursuant to the recommendations provided by the Streets Policies Committee.
He stated staff had provided a report at the last Council meeting, which briefly outlined the possible
proposed changes in this chapter, which pertains to assessments. He stated staff has included the
proposed changes to the draft ordinance, as indicated in bold print. He stated that blank spaces have
been inserted for the percentages of street improvements, to include total reconstruction, overlays,
mill and overlays and recycle and overlays. He stated that verbiage has also been included relating
to the percentage of pavement assessed, percentage of curb and gutter assessed, the percentage of
an MSA street project assessed, as well as language regarding the assessment of improvements
performed on a County or State Highways. He read the proposed changes to Section 1, Subdivision
2 of the ordinance as follows:
a. The cost of street reconstruction shall be recovered by the adjusted front footage
method. The front footage rate shall be determined by dividing the project cost by
the total number of adjusted front feet in the project area, times the individual
adjusted front footage xone-half (~/z). The assessments per adjusted front foot may
vary depending on the underlying zoning of a parcel. Assessments for residential
properties, which are on collector or arterial streets, (MSA) shall be assessed for
percent of the pavement surface equally divided by both sides of the street.
a.l. Residents requesting Curb and Gutter installation on a construction project will
be assessed percent of the total cost of the Curb and Gutter, which will
include engineering, additional removals, base and all other associated expenses.
a.2. percent of the turn back funds received from Ramsey County will be
applied to the new construction or pavement cost of the road that was received.
b. Assessments shall be determined by the adjusted front footage method at
percent to properties on both sides of the street. A mill and overlay to an
existing paved road will be assessed by the adjusted front footage method at
percent, to properties on both sides of the street. A recycle and overlay
to an existing paved road will be assessed by the adjusted front footage method
at -percent to properties on both sides of the street.
26C:~ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
• Regular Meeting Page 27
c. Sidewalks are generally installed on the City's major streets, which will connect
several neighborhoods and community attractions in a logical pattern.
e. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main replacement will be assessed at percent.
f. Trunk sewer and water mains are usually designed to carry larger volumes of flow
than are necessary within an immediate property area in order to serve additional
properties beyond the area of their immediate placement. Therefore, 100 percent
of the cost of trunk improvements will be assessed on a unit basis to all
properties within a district deemed to be benefited from the trunk
improvements.
j. In projects involving new street construction, and mill and overlays, mailboxes
will be grouped on gang posts in numbers logical to the spacing required. This
practice will insure the proper placement of the mailboxes, reduce potential
roadside hazards, and generally clean up the edge of the street. The cost of the
new posts and installation will be added to the project. Residents of overlays
and mill and overlays may request the new posts and installation, which will be
added to the cost of the project.
r r n d b the treets Policies
Directo of Public Works Ulnch stated one of the items ecomme de y S
Committee was to consider the existing design /width of the particular street section, the standard
by which future projects would begin. He stated this change would require a resolution amending
the resolution that earlier set the construction standards for all streets. He stated the total street
reconstruction, including curb and gutters shall be assessed. He stated staff indicated some type of
design on MSA streets, with all amenities in the street right-of--way to be paid for by MSA. He
stated if the street is a collector, and requires drainage, MSA would like to have curb and gutter
installed. He stated the pavement surface would be assessed, and the remainder of the cost would
be paid by MSA.
Director of Public Works Ulrich stated another recommendation was to lower the percentage
assessed to the property owners from 50 percent to 20 - 25 percent. He stated the 50 percent
assessment was the same for water and wastewater main replacement /improvement, and the
reduction if this assessment would require an amendment to the ordinance that established the
current percentage.
Director of Public Works Ulrich stated staff had received estimates from construction companies for
various pavement rehabilitation methods for the Council's consideration in determining the
percentages of assessments. He provided a brief outline of the estimates, noting that they are based
upon a street width of 28 feet, for average calculations, and the various strategies for rehabilitation
• are recommended based upon the Pavement Condition Index (PCI). He explained if the PCI is
higher, the required amount of the pavement repair and preparation would be less, thereby lowering
the amount of the improvement. He stated that, in the event that rehabilitation is necessary, staff
27C:\ADM IN\M INUTES\CC\8-23-99. CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 28
would like to research undergrounding utilities. He stated this process could be assessed to the
residents at a certain percentage.
Director of Public Works Ulrich stated staff had also received an estimate for lining existing sanitary
sewer mains within a project area. He stated this process would not correct any deficiencies or
defects in the residential service. He stated the cost would be $36.00 per lineal foot, for the total
width of the main.
Director of Public Works Ulrich stated that staff and Mayor Coughlin had discussed the
implementation of a wastewater infra-structure flat charge, as a means to reduce the assessment. He
stated the water and sewer trunk improvements would be assessed at 100 percent for the entire area,
and if the entire main required repair, all of the residents would be assessed. He stated currently, the
City is not responsible for water or sewer line repairs, with the exception of the impervious surface.
He explained if a resident's property was located on the same side of the street as the water main,
the cost for repair to that main would be less than the cost to a resident whose property was located
on the opposite side of the street. He stated that the water mains within the City are, for the most
part, in good condition, however, the system is getting older, and staff would like to find a way to
make the repair process easier for the residents. He explained that the implementation of a water
service charge to the entire community, at 3 to 5 dollars per quarter, would allow the City to assume
• the entire responsibility for the water lines, from the main to the house.
Director of Public Works Ulrich stated, if the Council so desires, staff will dra$ a final copy of the
ordinance for formal approval, and the City Attorney will be consulted for the appropriate format
and language. He stated that staff requests the Council discuss the proposed amendments, and
provide input and direction as to the final percentages to be assessed on public improvements.
Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 9:21 p.m.
Mayor Coughlin stated he resided on one of the roads in question, and was in favor of this proposal.
He suggested a Work Session discussion to address the percentages to be assessed for public
improvements. He stated he would like this to be done correctly, and was in favor of approving the
First Reading, conditioned upon further discussion.
Council Member Marty expressed his thanks to Director of Public Works Ulrich for his report, and
remarked that he appreciated the bold type. He stated he would also like to bring this matter forward
for discussion at a Work Session, adding he thought these were good ideas, and merited further
investigation. He stated that a water line break could greatly impact a resident, and that he would
like to see something like insurance, similar to the service policies utilized by Northern States
Power, whereby the City could warranty the water system.
r
28C:~ADMII~3\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 29
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Defer to a Work Session for Further Discussion, and to
Approve First Reading or Ordinance 600, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 202, Section 202.09 f
the Mounds View Municipal Code Entitled "Public Improvements."
E. Resolution 5364, Approving Agreement Between the City of Mounds View and
Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. Local No. 232
•
City Administrator Whiting stated that this resolution provides the Council authorize the Mayor and
the Clerk Administrator to enter into the labor agreement with the City, and the Law Enforcement
Labor Services, representing the City's two police sergeants. He stated the negotiation of this
contract commenced well over a year ago, and pertained to the years 1998 and 1999, and will expire
in approximately 4 ~/2 months. He stated the language in the agreement had been mediated and
determined by an arbitrator, therefore, the City was now obligated to abide by the language and
conditions therein, so no modification can be made at this time.
City Administrator Whiting stated the resolution was essentially in keeping with the provisions
applied to work conditions in regard to such matters as pay and uniform allowance, as has been
agreed upon by the Union and the employees in general.
City Administrator Whiting stated he would attempt to answer any questions of the Council, and
would request Council approval of Resolution 5364
Council Member Marty requested clarification of Article 23, the Cafeteria Plan. City Administrator
Whiting stated this was in reference to options for health insurance, as provided to the employees.
Finance Director Kessel explained there were two different manners in which the Cafeteria Plan is
defined. He stated that an employee could take a portion of their salary, and set it aside in a pre-tax
plan, for daycare or un-reimbursed medical expenses. He stated the other option, was in the case of
a Single Health insurance plan, wherein the City allows the employee to select benefits, not to
exceed the cost allotted for Family Health insurance coverage, and any remaining balance is unused.
Council Member Marty stated it appeared this matter had already been agreed upon by the City, the
Union, and the arbitrator, and that the arbitrator's decision was binding.
MOTION/SECOND: MartylStigney. To Approve Resolution 5364, a Resolution Approving the
Labor Agreement between the City of Mounds View and the Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc.
(LE.L.S.), Local No. 232, Dated January 1, 1998 -December 31, 1999.
Ayes - 3 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
F. Consideration of Resolution 5360, a resolution authorizing abatement of a
nuisance vehicle located at 7656 Greenfield Avenue.
• This Item was withdrawn at the request of the City Administrator.
29C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\C C\8-23-99.CC
u
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 30
G. Changing Space/Showers at MVCC.
Terri Blattenbauer, YMCA Program Executive, stated on August 16, the Parks and Recreation
Commission had a special meeting to develop a plan regarding how to maintain a safe environment
with the addition of showers and changing space at the Mounds View Community Center. She
provided the Council with three models of different facilities and how they manage their showers
and changing space. She stated the YMCA model represented nine branch facilities.
Ms. Blattenbauer provided an outline of the proposed plan to achieve this goal, and continue to
provide quality programs, attract more users, and maintain a safe facility. She stated YMCA staff
would assure that the locker room space was locked during special events, such as teen nights,
family nights, etc. She stated supervisors and lead staff would monitor periodically, and use a check
off system for monitoring. She stated signs would be posted such as: "We ask you help us provide
a safe and clean environment. If you witness suspicious or behavior, please report to service
desk. Thank you!" She explained that the YMCA staff would use the windowed office areas as an
advantage and monitoring tool as well. She stated that during peak times and seasons it would be
possible to double staff the Community Center, which would assist in building circulation. She
stated one staff member would remain behind the desk and the other would act as a floater.
Ms. Blattenbauer stated they were presently working with a construction company, in regard to
lowering the costs, and had been provided with estimates for good quality amenities, however, not
necessarily the highest quality. She stated they have been informed that TIF funds are available until
the end of the year, and are interested in pursuing this option.
Mary Benz, 8335 Sunnyside Drive, stated the Parks and Recreation Commission had received
complaints regarding the lack of showers at the Community Center. She stated that this addition
would provide for the use of the facility during peak times, when children were not in the facility.
She stated the showers and changing space would be a good investment, which would allow more
use of the facility.
Mayor Coughlin stated, upon his first tour of the Community Center with Council Member
Thomason, he had noticed there were no shower facilities available. He stated that the safety
concerns were paramount to this proposal, and that he felt it would balance out the needs of the
community. He stated it was necessary that the proposal be economically viable.
David Jahnke, 2848 Eastwood Road, stated the original cost of the facility was 3.4 million dollars,
and had gone to 6.2 million dollars. He stated that this figure continues to grow.
Council Member Marty stated he had noticed the gymnasium had no shower facilities. He stated
the TIF funding was available to the Parks and Recreation Commission until the end of the year, and
suggested they speak with Finance Director Kessel in regard to the funding.
. Finance Director Kessel stated that the Parks and Recreation fund were authorized, and required the
funds be spent, contracts entered into, or a plan is in place, prior to December 1, 1999. He stated the
30C:~ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 31
TIF plan was very broad, identifying $20,000 for such uses. He stated the allocation of these funds
should be discussed.
Council Member Stigney inquired regarding the projected revenues and payback of the proposal.
He noted that there would be additional maintenance costs. Ms. Blattenbauer stated she was
uncertain regarding the payback figures. She stated that the facility currently utilizes one daytime
cleaning person who has been included in the maintenance costs, and a nighttime cleaning person
who could be included if necessary.
Council Member Stigney stated that there would be additional costs for maintaining and operating
the facility, as well as heating, hot water, and ongoing costs. He stated he would require some
projections regarding the costs of the proposal. He explained the facility was originally designed
without shower facilities, as the Task Force had intended it to be utilized just by children, to keep
them off the streets.
Finance Director Kessel stated the Council should determine how they would like the building to
be utilized. He stated it would be unrealistic to expect less than aten-year payback for the project.
Council Member Stigney stated the facility had been built in line with the St. Anthony facility, for
• the support of the children. Ms. Blattenbauer stated they would like to get as much use out of the
facility as possible. She stated they could keep the facility for the use of children only, however, the
YMCA and Parks and Recreation Commission would like to see more use of the building. Council
Member Stigney stated that the more users they have, the more maintenance costs are incurred.
Finance Director Kessel stated if the facility was to be utilized to reach more of the public, for
example aerobics classes before work, etc., it would require the addition of showers. Mayor
Coughlin stated that part of the discussion should be deferred to the community. He stated that
originally, the volleyball group was intended to generate revenue for the Community Center, and that
proposal had fallen through. He stated would be good for the community to go through with the
addition of showers at the facility, and that more use of the facility would be positive. He stated he
had put himself through college as a custodian, and was aware that the cleaning of a small locker
room would probably require less than one hour of work. He stated, at most, it would require two
hours. Council Member Marty stated that he thought the lack of showers at the Community Center
was an inconvenience, and he would like to see the facility used more, as well.
Mayor Coughlin stated there was a narrowing window of opportunity to utilize the excess TIF funds
to finance the project, so that it does not come out of the City's general fund, or other dedicated
funds. He stated if they wished to proceed with the project, he would suggest acting sooner rather
than later. He stated that the Council could make a motion to direct staff to pursue the financing of
the showers through TIF.
r~
31C:~ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
• Regular Meeting Page 32
Council Member Stigney stated he would like information regarding the additional maintenance and
staff costs. He stated he would like research regarding TIF financing, and noted the golf course was
also requesting TIF financing.
City Administrator Whiting stated comments and judgements had been made regarding how certain
matters took place at the golf course. He stated as a staff person who was involved, this was not
how these things took place. He stated the decisions at the golf course were made by the community
and elected officials, and could easily be misinterpreted at this point.
City Administrator Whiting stated there appeared to be a misunderstanding regarding the cost of
construction. He stated if it is attempted to be recovered by use of the facility, this would be
completely contrary to what has been done previously with the Community Center. He explained
the Community Center has been a capital investment project to this point, rather than a debt financed
project. He stated the entire approach has been to fund operations by the use of the facility, however,
the use of the facility would not pay for the proposed construction.
Mayor Coughlin stated he would request staff provide additional information regarding costs. He
stated this would be appropriate to be presented at a future Work Session. Council Member Marty
agreed.
• MOTION/SECOND: Mart /Cou hlin. To Direct Staff to Pursue TIF Financin For the Showers
Y g g
1 Changing Rooms at the Mounds View Community Center, and to Research an Architect and Obtain
Estimates for Construction, and to Provide Information Regarding the Additional Costs for Staff and
Maintenance of the Facility, and Bring the Proposal Back to Staff to Provide it in a Forum that
would Allow the Council to Move Forward.
Ayes - 3 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
H. Review of Staffing Positions for Housing Inspector, Planning Associate and
Assistant to the City Administrator.
Community Development Director Jopke stated at the last City Council Work Session, staff
discussed a number of options for filling the Housing Inspector position, which was left vacant upon
Steve Dorgan's departure to the City of Minneapolis, as well as upgrading other positions within the
City. He stated staff reviewed a number of options within the Community Development Department
regarding how to best fill the Housing Inspector position and others, and what changes they would
like to see, in light of the opportunity presented.
Community Development Director Jopke stated staff s recommended option was to hire a Code
Enforcement Inspector, who would handle the housing and code inspection portion of the Housing
• Inspector position. He stated at the same time, they would upgrade the Planning Associate position,
to handle the program side of the Housing Inspector position, as well as other duties including
neighborhood liaison, GIS, website management, Internet surveying, and community visioning.
32C:~ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 33
Community Development Director Jopke stated the Council had requested information regarding
the financial impact of the proposed options, and he had provided that information in the
spreadsheets contained in the staff report. He stated the recommended option, hiring a
HousinglCode Enforcement Inspector at Level 1, versus the Step 5, that the previous Housing
Inspector position utilized, would result in a 2000 budget impact of a cost savings of $5,775. He
stated that upgrading the Planning Associate's position cost by $6,897 would lead to a total impact
of an approximate $1,100 increase on the 2000 budget. He stated the proposed 2000 budget was less
than the 1999 budget, therefore, the total impact under the recommended option would be
approximately $283, compared to the approved 1999 budget.
Community Development Director Jopke stated staff recommended approval of Option 3, and at
minimum, would request the Council authorize staff to proceed to advertise to fill the HousinglCode
Enforcement Inspection position.
Council Member Marty stated, upon reviewing the three options presented, he was in agreement with
staff's recommendation. He stated he had spoken with Planning Associate Ericson, Community
Development Director Jopke, and former Police Chief Ramacher, regarding the amount of time
involved in the enforcement of Code and nuisance violations. He stated, to his understanding, during
the summer this alone was afull-time job. He stated he believed this proposal would be the most
economical and efficient manner to provide housing and Code enforcement. He stated during the
winter and the slower months they could assist Planning Associate Ericson, who has taken the lead
in the areas of GIS and the Internet surveys, etc. He stated in regard to salary and impact to the
budget, the recommended option represented the largest cost savings to the City.
Mayor Coughlin stated that a motion would be required to extend the meeting at this time, and
requested the meeting be extended, in order to deal with the remaining issues in a prompt manner.
MOTION/SECOND: Coughlin/Marty. To Extend the Meeting to No More than One-half Hour.
Ayes - 3 Nays - 0 Motion Carried.
Council Member Stigney stated the Council was being requested to base their decision upon a
Stanton Survey of cities with the population of 10,000-25,000, and therefore, establish a salary
structure based upon that, not for a Planner, but for a Senior Planner. He stated they should not base
the salary on the average salary paid by cities of this population level. He stated, as he had indicated
since he was on the Council, that they should be regulating and establishing their salaries upon cities
which have comparable tax bases to the City of Mounds View, not on population. He stated that
population does not provide a proper comparison. He stated if they compared themselves to a city
of 25,000 population, with a tax base of the city of Edina, the City of Mounds View could not
• compete. He stated they should be comparing against cities with a comparable tax base to Mounds
View, not population. He stated the Stanton Survey utilizes population to categorize different groups
33C:~.ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23,1999
Regular Meeting _ _ Page 34
in order to present their survey, and they caution, when using this for salary comparisons, to do so
with great care.
Council Member Stigney stated, in computing the salary ranges based upon the average for these
cities, staff had determined a Step 2 of $3,594. He stated a Planner in those 12 cities, would utilize
the salary range of $2,679 to$3,433, and therefore, they have exceeded that range already as a
starting point for this particular position. He stated requested staff to take a step back to see what
the City can afford to pay for this position, in relation to other cities.
Council Member Stigney inquired regarding the step increases as projected to the 2000 budget. He
stated this proposal was to start the position at a Step 2, and inquired regarding the following years.
He inquired where they were going with the salaries for the City. He stated, if they are offing job
functions from one employee and placing them on another, then the cost savings should go from one
to the other. He stated they should not necessarily grant someone up into a different bracket, and
make the City pay forever. He stated he was strongly opposed to what he had seen presented.
Community Development Director Jopke stated he had reviewed the Stanton Survey to base the
proposed salary range for the upgrading of the Planning Associate position. He stated the Housing
Inspector /Code Enforcement position would remain at the existing level, which would provide a
cost savings from a Step 5 to a Step 1, however this would progress in future years. He stated that
staff acknowledged this, and had attempted to account for what would occur within the next two
years, in terms of step increases, in staff s analysis.
Community Development Director Jopke stated he had researched the Senior Planner level, as he
believed the functions requested of this position were consistent with those requested of Senior
Planners in other communities. He stated he did not take the average of the salaries within that
range, but decreased it by 5 percent, so they would be at the low end of the communities within that
range. He stated he had also looked at the communities in the Stanton Survey at the next level down,
basically for communities under 10,000, whose average is approximately the starting level that is
being proposed, but the range is not as high on the upper end. He stated he believed that based upon
what they were asking of this position, this was a fair level of compensation.
Council Member Stigney stated he would contend they should be basing this salary upon cities with
a comparable tax capacity, which is the City's ability to pay, and whether or not the City can afford
to compensate. He added if they are offloading a function from one position to another, he would
like to see this done with no additional cost effect at all. He stated he was firmly opposed to this,
and the City had been following this same procedure year after year. He stated he could understand
Community Development Director Jopke's point of view, however, they should not base the salaries
upon the population.
• Council Member Marty inquired regarding the salary at the step 21eve1, and how many steps there
were. Community Development Director Jopke stated there were 5 steps. He explained the reason
he was proposing Step 2, was in consideration of a six-month probationary period at the Step 1 level.
34C:~ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-94.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 35
Council Member Marty stated that Planning Associate Ericson had already completed his
probationary period. Community Development Director Jopke agreed, adding that he should be at
a Step 2 level, and that was why this was proposed.
Council Member Marty inquired regarding the top salary of this position at Step 5. Council Member
Stigney stated this would be $4,504. Council Member Marty stated that this salary was based upon
a Senior Planner position, and he believed Planning Associate Ericson with a Masters Degree in
Planning, has the educational qualifications of a Senior Planner. He stated they were asking more
technical services of him. He stated they could hire someone at a lower pay grade just to do "busy"
work.
Mayor Coughlin noted that with Option 3, Planning Associate Ericson would be designated as
Planner and Neighborhood Liaison. He stated it has been the focus of the Council, and himself
personally, to provide more dialogue with the people on specific issues. He stated it would be of
benefit to have a person with the personality and knowledge to work with the community. He stated
he had been contacted by numerous Planning Commissioners who provided unsolicited kudos and
praises to Jim Ericson, for his professionalism and competence in this area. He stated he was in
favor of honoring an employee who was doing excellent work, with compensation that reflects that.
. Council Member Marty stated he agreed with this. He stated that Planning Associate Ericson did
possess very good public demeanor. He stated he was outgoing, and could relate to people.
Community Development Director Jopke stated Planning Associate Ericson was an excellent
employee, who should be rewarded for his efforts.
City Administrator Whiting expressed his appreciation to Community Development Director Jopke
for taking it upon himself to delve into what is considered a personnel matter. He stated typically,
they would have someone in personnel administration conducting some of this research. He stated
he would like the Council to understand that this represents an issue, which would resurface again
and again, as it had in the past. He stated that regardless of the policies or choices of the Council,
in regard to determining a salary plan or a comparative basis for employee salaries, the reality was
that Community Development Director Jopke has had to do this research. He added that he had also
been involved in this discussion to some extent.
City Administrator Whiting stated the reality of this situation is that staff thinks Jim Ericson is an
excellent employee, and they would like to provide some type of future for him with the City of
Mounds View. He stated there would be no reason to consider this proposal, if that were not the
case. He stated he believed there was an opportunity presented to further develop an employee who
the City has already invested in, and to structure a position for someone who is yet to be determined,
to come into the City, and perhaps start their career or continue it.
City Administrator Whiting stated during his three and a half years with the City, he had seen people
come and go. He stated these are people the City has invested in, and people they may choose to
further invest in to the City's advantage, as well as their own, due to their work skills and abilities.
35C:~ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-94.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 36
He stated he did not believe there was a formula that could be arrived at which would allow this to
happen in a manner that would be acceptable for every situation. He stated when staff comes to the
City Council regarding personnel and personnel changes, they are knowledgeable regarding the
issues. He stated in this case in particular, he felt strongly that proposal should be approved. He
stated he was fully confident, that with the reconstruction of these positions, they would not only
being doing something good for Jim Ericson, but also for the Department, and for the City. He
stated if this was not the case, the proposal would not have been presented.
Council Member Marty stated he thought Jim Ericson had much ability and knowledge that he
would like to see the City take advantage of, rather than spending his time on menial tasks. He
stated he thought this was a good time to reevaluate these positions, as they are presented. He stated
Planning Associate Ericson had indicated that he and the former Housing Inspector in their
respective positions, were inspecting the same houses and properties, and could not understand why
this was necessary, however, that was what each of their job descriptions called for. He stated this
was a duplication of job services, and a waste of time and manpower. He stated this proposal was
a creative effort on the part of Community Development Director Jopke and his staff, to attempt to
streamline their department, and make it more efficient. He stated he would also like to commend
Community Development Director Jopke for his efforts.
Community Development Director Jopke thanked Council Member Marty for his comment. He
stated their intention was to do things in an efficient and effective manner, and he believed this
proposal would assist in that goal.
Council Member Stigney stated he had no problem with the concept being presented, regarding how
they wanted to merge their staff to do the jobs, and he would prefer they did not even talk about
specific individuals in this regard. He stated he was referring to the factors they were utilizing to
establish a salary range, a Stanton Survey, based upon population. He stated the information
indicated, after one year, the new salary would be $4,504, however, there would be additional 3
percent increases during that time.
Council Member Stigney inquired when the City would begin to look at how much these things were
costing. He stated it was his understanding that the largest cost to the City taxpayers was the cost
of City employees and their benefits, yet everything that he had seen indicated the City was spending
more and more. He stated he thought government should be researching ways to reduce costs.
City Administrator Whiting stated he agreed with Council Member Stigney in his comment that this
discussion of these matters should be separated from the individuals being considered for the
positions. He stated the points Council Member Stigney made were in regard to the policy of how
to establish a pay plan. He stated he did not disagree with this. He stated they had entertained this
discussion numerous times, and it was actually included within the budget discussion as personnel
costs, personnel, and staff assessment. He stated, however, they were going to have to make some
judgments as to how to proceed. He stated he would like to have a system in place, which would
make these types of discussions moot. He stated no matter what system they utilize, it would not
36C:~ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-49.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 3?
be so broad or all encompassing to allow them to deal with all of the specific situations they face,
and the opportunities they are presented with.
City Administrator Whiting stated, in regard to Cari Schmidt's position, and presently with Jim
Ericson's position, these proposals were mindful of the persons performing the job, and attempting
to structure the positions to take advantage of the employee's skills. He stated that many City
employees are never provided this opportunity, primarily because of the nature of their position, not
their abilities. He stated this was a good opportunity to rectify this situation. He stated Council
Member Stigney's points merited consideration during the upcoming budget discussion, however,
he believed the present recommendation was good.
Council Member Stigney stated if the Council utilized a basis of cities with a similar tax capacity
to the City of Mounds View, it would alleviate many of these problems. Mayor Coughlin stated he
was agreeable to utilizing a different tool, however, as a businessman with employees, he was aware
that there is a cost of doing business. He stated, although you may wish things to cost less,
sometimes they just don't. He stated he pays a couple of his employees in excess of what was being
proposed, and therefore, was well aware of the cost involved, both in salary and benefits, and in
future increases. He stated he saw it incumbent upon the Council to attempt to keep good people
with the City as long as possible, and attempt to utilize their talents and skills to the best advantage.
o ncil M M rt i i d i h th s determine cities with similar tax bases.
C u ember a y nqu re f staff ad e mean to
Community Development Director Jopke stated they did. Mayor Coughlin stated there were many
different tools with which to do this, however, it was a judgement call as to whether or not they
wished to do so. City Administrator Whiting stated they had done this with cities Council Member
Stigney had selected from around the state, and other questions had been raised regarding the merits
of that procedure. He stated there might be some other ways of calculating this, perhaps combining
tax capacity with population. He stated there were not very many communities with comparable tax
bases and population, however, it could be done with some effort, and sufficient staff.
Council Member Stigney stated they had researched tax capacity, and cities in the metropolitan area
that were equivalent to the City of Mounds View in tax capacity and population. He stated the
population does not have much bearing, except in extreme cases, where the population is much
larger than the City's, and they require twice as much work out of an individual as the City does.
Mayor Coughlin stated tax capacity was a broad concept representing a variety of things in different
contexts, and it might take quite some time to define what it really represents. Council Member
Stigney stated tax capacity basically represents the base available to tax the residents' property,
which brings money into the City in which they live. Mayor Coughlin stated this, however, does
not take into account that the community may desire to move in a particular direction, or demand
• additional services. He stated that regardless of the tax capacity compared to another city, at some
point, it is an unequal comparison, as they are their own City, and can set their own priorities.
37C:~ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23,1999
. Regular Meeting Page 38
MOTION/SECOND: Coughlin/Marty. To Direct and Authorize Staff to Proceed with Option 3,
as Presented, Hiring a Housing and Code Enforcement Inspector, and Upgrading Only the Planning
Associate Position, and Utilizing the Payment Steps and Salary Levels as Presented to the Council
on Salary Budget Impact Options for Option 3 on the Reverse of the Staff Report.
Ayes - 2 Nays - 1 (Stigney) Motion carried.
Council Member Marty inquired if the Council was in agreement in regard to Option 3, however,
not the basis of establishing the salary as recommended. Council Member Stigney stated this was
correct. Council Member Marty inquired how much time staff would require to attempt to compute
the salary upon tax capacity, and base these decisions upon this criteria in the future, to prevent this
matter from coming up every time the situation arises.
City Administrator Whiting stated his assistant had traditionally done this research, and at this time,
he would require staff to do this. He stated he could attempt to find some other means of providing
some information, and the Council could make some judgement calls, however, there was more to
it. He stated that tax capacity was not the ability to pay taxes, or how much tax you can pay. He
stated they would require another meeting to explain this. He stated they should bring this up and
discuss it as best possible, during the budget discussion, and attempt to make a determination within
the next couple of months. He stated there were many factors to be considered.
Council Member Stigney stated he agreed, in that there were problems with using just tax capacity,
however, there were certainly more problems in utilizing just population, especially in light of using
populations that are more than twice the size of the City's.
Mayor Coughlin stated he would concur with City Administrator Whiting in that these were complex
issues, which were being made out to be rather simplistic. He stated he would rather take the
discussion to a deeper level than simply tax capacity, which if quizzed by a professor, they would
probably all fail in the definition of.
In the interest of time, City Administrator Whiting suggested the Council consider Items I, J, and
K, simultaneously. He stated they could approve the First Reading of Ordinance 640, and set the
Second Reading for the September 13 City Council meeting. He stated they could continue the
Second Reading of Ordinance 635, and set the Public Hearing for September 13, continue the
Second Reading of Ordinance 630 to the September 13 Council Meeting, and hold both Public
Hearings and the consideration of all three ordinances at that time.
Mayor Coughlin asked City Attorney Riggs if the Council could consider one motion for all three
items, or if they required separate actions. City Attorney Riggs stated that one motion would be
appropriate.
I. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 635, an ordinance to enact a new Chapter of
the Mounds View Code of Ordinances to Administer and Regulate the Location,
38C:~ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
•
LJ
Mounds View City Council August 23,1999
Regular Meeting Page 39
Relocation, Installation and Reinstallation of Facilities in the Public Right-of-
Way in the Public Interest.
J. First Reading of Ordinance No. 640, an ordinance amending Title 900, Chapter
902 of the Mounds View Municipal Code relating to driveways and repealing
provisions of Chapter 902 relating to street openings.
K. Continuation of Second Reading and approval of Ordinance No. 630, an
ordinance to enact a new chapter of the Mounds View Municipal Code of
ordinances to administer and regulate the public Right-of--Way in the public
interest, and to provide for the issuance and regulation of Right-of--Way
permits.
MOTIONISECOND: CoughlinlStigney. To Approve the First Reading of Ordinance 640, and Set
the Second Reading of Ordinance 640 for the September 13, City Council Meeting, Continue the
Second Reading of Ordinance 635, and Set the Public Hearing for Ordinance 635 for the September
13 City Council Meeting, and Continue the Second Reading of Ordinance 630, and Set the Public
Hearing of Ordinance 630 for the September 13 City Council Meeting.
Ayes - 3
11. Next Council Work Session:
Next Council Meeting:
Nays - 0 Motion carried.
Monday, September 7,1999 - 6:00 P.M.
Monday, September 13, 1999 - 7:00 P.M.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Coughlin adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m.
Transcribed and recorded by:
Trish Pearson
Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
39C:~ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
September 13, 1999
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
7:02 P.M.
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Marty, Stigney and Thomason.
NOT PRESENT: Quick.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A. Monday, September 13, 1999, City Council Agenda
•
Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to add items to the agenda.
City Administrator Whiting requested the addition of 10 A-1, Second Reading of Ordinance 630,
which had been inadvertently omitted from the present agenda.
City Administrator Whiting explained Item 0, the Authorization of an Interfund Advance from
the Special Projects Fund to the golf course, had been discussed with the City's Bond Attorney,
and suggested the ensuing information be brought forward to the Council, prior to Council
Business.
Mayor Coughlin requested Item 0 be removed from the present agenda, and discussed during the
consideration of Reports.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Stigney. To Accept the September 13 1999 City Council
Agenda as Presented, with the Addition of Item 10 A-1, Second Reading of Ordinance 630, the
Withdrawal of Item 0, and Waiving the Readings of All Resolutions and Ordinances Presently
Under Consideration, Unless Otherwise Specified By the Council.
Ayes - {4?) Nays - 0 Motion carried.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Monday, August 23,1999, City Council Minutes
CJ
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 5, end of second paragraph, to include the
sentence "Mayor Coughlin noted that it was the consensus of the Council to pursue the
scheduling of a discussion group for possible Highway 10 redevelopment options."
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 2
Mayor Coughlin requested all references to Bill Varner on Pages 10 through 12, be corrected to
indicate the spelling of the name "Bill Werner."
Mayor Coughlin requested the vote tally on Page 25 be corrected to indicate "Ayes -3, Nays -
0."
Council Member Stigney requested a correction to Page 5, first paragraph, first sentence, to
indicate "...incorporating the City of Mounds View in the (651) area code..."
MOTIONISECOND: Stigney/Marty. To accept the August 23, 1999 City Council minutes as
corrected.
Ayes - 3 Nays - 0 Abstain - 1 (Thomason) Motion carried.
5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
None.
6. REPORTS
Council Member Marty reported the Park and Recreation Commission had requested he bring
before the Council a request to approach Ramsey County to examine relocating the compost site,
from Ardan Park to the golf course. He stated Golf Course Superintendent John
Hammerschmidt had suggested this previously, in light of the amount of the compost utilized by
the golf course. He stated this would provide that the compost site was accessible to the golf
course, and there is sufficient room for this. He noted they had also discussed the reclamation of
Ardan Park as a park area. He explained they did not feel the residents in the area would be
opposed to the removal of the brush and compost from the area. He commented that Ramsey
County would have the final word on this matter.
Mayor Coughlin inquired if Council Member Marty would request this matter be discussed at an
upcoming Work Session. Council Member Marty stated he would.
Mayor Coughlin stated it was the consensus of the Council to add this item to the agenda for
discussion at an upcoming Work Session.
Council Member Marty noted discussion regarding retro-fitting the park bleachers at City Hall
and Greenfield Park would be considered during the next meeting of the Park and Recreation
Commission, in order to bring these into compliance with the new State Statutes.
Council Member Marty stated the Park and Recreation Commission was presently obtaining bids
for the volleyball court lighting fixtures. He informed the Council that the pathway along a
portion of Silver Lake Road and Silver View Pond had been completed, and they had done a
very good job. He commented he and his children had visited the site the prior evening, and there
were many visitors present.
Council Member Marty stated the project of upgrading the drinking fountains in some of the
parks had been approved to proceed, and the two half-court basketball courts at the Community
Center have been completed, and are open for public use.