HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 1999/10/12PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
October 11,1999
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
. _ -- -- 7:03 P.M.
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Marty, Quick, Stigney and Thomason.
NOT PRESENT: None.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A. Monday, October 11, 1999, City Council Agenda
Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to add items to the agenda.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomason. To Accept the October 11, 1999, City Council Agenda
as Presented.
Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Monday, September 27, 1999, City Council Minutes
Council Member Stigney requested a correction to Page 10 to indicate the discussion of the
motion to precede the vote tally.
Mayor Coughlin asked if it was the consensus of the Council that the minutes indicate the
discussion of all motions precede the vote. The Council agreed.
Council Member Marty requested a correction to Page 4, fifth paragraph, first sentence, to omit
the word he following "Mayor Coughlin..."
Council Member Marty requested a correction to Page 7, fourth paragraph, last sentence, to
indicate the correct spelling of the word forwarded.
Mayor Coughlin requested corrections to Page 10 of the minutes, in indicate the correct times of
recess and adjournment of the City Council and Economic Development Authority meetings.
l ;c: adm.minutesl0/ 11 /99.cc
Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 2
b~
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To accept the September 27, 1999 City Council minutes as
corrected.
Ayes - 5
Nays - 0 Motion carried.
5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
A. Council and Staff Rules of Conduct.
•
•
Mayor Coughlin stated the Rules of Conduct had been agreed upon during the Council and Staff
Retreat, earlier in the year. Pursuant to discussion at the previous Council Work Session, staff
has prepared a poster board, which indicates the Council and Staff Rules of Conduct as follows.
1. Respect and do not abuse each other.
2. Practice the Golden Rule in all of your interactions.
3. Appreciate the value of each team member.
4. Communicate the "whys" or the reasons behind comments and decisions.
5. Accept people's limitations, and be willing to learn from failure and
mistakes.
6. Have realistic expectations and demonstrate patience.
7. Follow the chain of command at all levels, with the Mayor being seen as the
leader of the Council, and the Administrator as the leader of the staff. This
does not pertain to information for information sake only interactions.
8. Identify and prioritize issues and clearly state direction and goals desired
relative to these issues.
9. Tell the "painful" truth in all interactions, and be candid.
10. Keep a sense of humor and find enjoyment in what we do in our interactions
with each other, in as much as we possibly can.
Mayor Coughlin executed the document, and presented it to the Council and staff for their
signatures.
Council Member Marty commented that Council and staff had discussed quarterly meetings in
regard to the Rules of Conduct, and suggested the first of these meetings be scheduled in
November.
Mayor Coughlin asked the City Administrator if he had spoken with staff to determine agreeable
dates for this meeting.
City Administrator Whiting stated he would speak to staff the following day, however, staff
would make themselves available at the convenience of the Council.
Mayor Coughlin noted it was the consensus of Council and staff to hold quarterly meetings, in an
attempt to divert any potential miscommunications.
6. REPORTS
Council Member Quick had no report.
Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 3
Council Member Thomason had no report.
Council Member Marty commented regarding a recent article in the Focus Newspaper, which
indicated that young people from the City of Mounds View had received third place in a national
competition for a youth television program. He commented he had asked Video Producer,
Patrick Toth, when this video would be broadcast, and he indicated the schedule is already being
broadcast on Channel 16, and provides the time and date this program will air. He thanked Mr.
Toth for his assistance in this effort, and congratulated the participants, adding that he was
looking forward to watching their video.
Mayor Coughlin added he also plans to watch this program. He commented that Mr. Toth was a
great asset, not only to the City of Mounds View, but also to the Cable Television Network as a
whole. He commended him for a job well done.
Mayor Coughlin reported he had attended an Executive Board meeting of the I-35W Corridor
Coalition, which was held for the preparation of their presentation of the I-35W Corridor Plan to
the Metropolitan Council. He stated he had also attended the joint meeting of the I-35W
Corridor Coalition and the Metropolitan Council, and extended his appreciation to Council
Member Thomason, who had taken time out of her busy schedule to join him at this meeting to
represent the City.
Mayor Coughlin noted that eight of the nine Planning Commission members attended this
• meeting, as well as three of the Parks and Recreation Commissioners, and members of the
Economic Development Commission. He commented that Mounds View was represented more
fully than the majority of the other cities in attendance. He pointed out this was a good thing, as
many times, the City has been underrepresented at these functions, and he believed they had
gained some ground in this respect. He explained there was a very good presentation of the I-
35W Corridor Coalition software, which is available to Council Members and Commissioners,
adding that anyone interested in obtaining this software may contact City Administrator Whiting
in this regard.
Mayor Coughlin stated he was a member of the Pinewood Elementary School Facilities
Committee, and had been asked to assist them in their determination of how to properly spend
their portion of the new school bond that was recently passed. He explained this was a group
comprised of concerned parents, teachers and the school principal. He remarked this was a great
group to work with, and he particularly enjoyed working with Principal, Paul Good, who invited
him to speak to the teachers at their staff meeting, and he had an opportunity to address them and
take their questions. He noted he would continue to work very closely with the school, as they
have indicated some specific needs, and have requested his assistance in this regard.
Mayor Coughlin reported Economic Development Coordinator Kevin Carroll has accepted a
position as Administrator of the city of Carver. He commented he has enjoyed talking with Mr.
Carroll, particularly during some of their most recent conversations. He stated Mr. Carroll is a
very intelligent man, well versed on a number of topics. He pointed out he will be sorry to lose
• an Irishman, as their numbers are dwindling, and the City needs its Irish representation. He
wished Mr. Carroll well, and extended his appreciation for his time and service with the City,
adding that he will be missed.
Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 4
Mayor Coughlin stated he was invited to attend North Heights Lutheran Church, for the
retirement of Pastor Morris Vaagenes. He remarked even in light of the fact that some of the
elected officials in the State have chosen to paraphrase Karl Marx, in terms of organized religion,
it requires and deserves some note that this humble, fairly quiet man has served his church and
community for 40 years, and has led his congregation unwaveringly over time.
Mayor Coughlin commented he had the opportunity to attend this Church for a few years, when
he was in college, and had benefited directly from Pastor Vaagenes. He stated it was good to
note, as Pastor Vaagenes had indicated in his final sermon, that "we don't know everything, we
can't do everything, but God can do everything, so we ask Him to do everything." Mayor
Coughlin stated this was very similar to the prayer he prayed before every meeting.
Council Member Stigney reported he had attended the Planning Commission meeting on October
6, where there was consideration of a variance request to allow for a garage with aone-foot
setback at the property located at 2075 and 2081 Hillview Road. There was also consideration of
a resolution for a Conditional Use Permit for an oversized shed at 8270 Eastwood Road, which
was approved by the Commission, and will be coming forward at the October 25 City Council
Meeting. He noted there was discussion and the review of options for amending the City Code
to allow for driveways wider than 35 feet.
Mayor Coughlin inquired if action had been taken in regard to amending the City Code. Council
Member Stigney stated no action had been taken at that time.
City Administrator Whiting reported he had also attended the joint meeting of the Metropolitan
Council and the I-35W Corridor Coalition. He stated the software the Mayor had referred to be
very worthwhile, in terms of the amount of information accessible to the community, which
included pictures of City blocks and property lines. He commented the three Metropolitan
Council members who were seated at his table were very impressed with this software.
City Administrator Whiting extended his appreciation to Economic Development Coordinator
Kevin Carroll. He stated he was very sorry to see like people leave the City, however, he was
very proud to see them not only improve themselves, but enter into a profession which he
personally chose a long time ago. He explained one of the advantages he has always felt in
being a lead staff person was the opportunity this provided to work on issues with Councils and
staff. He added Cari Schmidt, who left the City a few months prior, and Kevin Carroll will learn
much in terms of this type of work, and he wished them well.
City Administrator Whiting expressed his thanks to Video Producer Patrick Toth for his work on
the youth video Mayor Coughlin referenced, which was one of the City's recreation programs,
and explained he had noted this effort in Mr. Toth's personnel file. He commented that when
awards are received, especially on a national scale, it is a source of pride for the City.
City Administrator Whiting reported he had attended a meeting with the Association of
Metropolitan Municipalities who met with Red McCombs that morning, adding that he felt
compelled to go down, and find out what was really going on. He noted Mr. McCombs had
• simply wanted to discuss the new stadium proposal, however, he was personally more concerned
with what would happen in the next season.
Mounds View City Council October 11,1999
Regular Meeting Page 5
City Administrator Whiting reported that residents on-line, with access to the City's Website are
now able to obtain upcoming Council Meeting agendas. He explained that City was making
progress in this endeavor, and approaching the day when the residents may sign up to have the
agendas faxed or E-mailed to them directly.
City Attorney Riggs had no report.
Council Member Thomason stated she had also attended the I-35W Corridor Coalition meeting,
and extended her thanks to all the commissioners from the various commissions who had
attended. She remarked there was a massive turnout at this meeting, with more representation of
the City of Mounds View than any other city present.
Council Member Thomason stated she had attended North Heights Lutheran Church for Pastor
Morris Vaagenes' passing of the baton, after 38 years of service. She commented she could not
pass up this opportunity, as Pastor Vaagenes has been her pastor for the past 20 years. She
extended her appreciation to Mayor Coughlin for his attendance, and added that many members
of different communities had attended this event, including Mayors and State representatives.
She noted that 38 years ago, Pastor Vaagenes began with a congregation of 500 people, which
now extends to over 6,800 people, and as he is a shy, introverted Norwegian, this certainly
speaks to the testament of God. She expressed her deep appreciation to Pastor Vaagenes for his
many years of faithful service.
No further reports were considered.
•
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approve Just and Correct Claims.
B. Action Moving November 8, 1999 City Council Meeting to November 15,
1999.
C. Approval for Residential Dog Kennel License Renewal.
D. Approval of Resolution 5378, a Resolution Authorizing Application for
Livable Communities Demonstration Program.
Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to remove Items for discussion.
Council Member Stigney requested Item A of the Consent Agenda be removed for further
discussion.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Approve the Consent Agenda for Items B, C, and D as
presented.
Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
Council Member Stigney noted two items listed on Page 1 of the Just and Correct Claims, which
indicated two checks made payable to Michael Ulrich in the amounts of $147.87, and 131.40.
. He inquired regarding the nature of these expenses.
City Administrator Whiting explained one of these amounts was the reimbursement of mileage
to the Director of Public Works, who had utilized his personal vehicle for City business, and the
Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 6
other amount was the reimbursement of costs incurred during a Water Conference in Denver,
Colorado.
Council Member Stigney questioned the reimbursement of mileage for City business. He noted
staff vehicles were available for these purposes, and it was City policy these vehicles be utilized
for City business where appropriate or applicable. He inquired why a staff vehicle had not been
utilized.
City Administrator Whiting explained that the number of staff vehicles have been reduced, and
the Department of Public Works pickup truck is being utilized by Assistant Pittman. He stated it
was his decision to allow Mr. Ulrich to utilize his personal vehicle.
Council Member Stigney suggested the use of staff vehicles be revisited by the Council.
Council Member Stigney noted an item. listed on Page 3 of the Just and Correct Claims, which
indicated a check made payable to Elegant Times Catering, Youth Chairs, for the amount of
$11,042 and inquired regarding the nature of this expense.
City Administrator Whiting stated Elegant Times Catering was the caterer for the Community
Center. He was not certain what the youth chairs were utilized for, however, he would look into
this matter.
Council Member Stigney noted an item listed on Page 6 of the Just and Correct Claims, which
• indicated a check made payable to Superior Ford in the amount of $21,099.00, and inquired
regarding the nature of this expense.
City Administrator Whiting explained this amount was for the replacement of a water truck,
which had been driven or pushed into the golf course pond by vandals.
Council Member Stigney inquired regarding the disposition of the vandalized truck.
City Administrator Whiting explained the damaged truck had been removed from the pond,
cleaned up, and made operable. He stated this was an older City vehicle, and would be removed
from inventory.
Council Member Marty inquired if this vehicle was insured.
City Administrator Whiting stated it was, however, the deductible was $10,000.
Council Member Stigney stated it was his understanding that the vandalized truck was a golf
course vehicle, and not a Public Works truck.
City Administrator Whiting stated the new truck was a replacement for the damaged truck,
which was orange, and most likely a Public Works Department water truck.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To approve the Consent Agenda for Item A as presented.
Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 7
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
• None.
9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road inquired if there would be time available for the public to
comment upon the proposed franchise fee increase.
Mayor Coughlin explained there would be a public hearing in regard to this matter, at which
time, the public could provide their input.
Mr. Jahnke stated he was very pleased with the lively discussion between Mayor Coughlin and
Council Member Stigney at the previous Work Session, which presented both points of view,
and was handled very well. He stated he was disappointed in the comment that this was an
argument. He stated everyone's opinions were very good, and he hoped the Rules of Conduct
would be observed. He noted a comment during the discussion, which indicated "If you don't
stop arguing, I'm out of here." He remarked he did not appreciate this comment. He reiterated,
in his opinion, this was a lively discussion, presenting two good points of view.
Mr. Jahnke prefaced the following comment by asking the City Administrator if he could use
him as an example, adding he did not intend to criticize. He noted Mayor Coughlin has stated "If
you buy good tools you will not have to buy two," and commented "If they had a good
Administrator maybe they would not need a second one."
Mayor Coughlin stated this comment was summarily unfair.
Mr. Jahnke remarked that he had asked the City Administrator's permission, and this was just an
example, however, as he sees the spending and the issues raised, there appears to be a "rubber
stamp" for everything, and he did not believe the thoughts of the people were being followed.
He commented that the hiring of more people, the spending, and the golf course issues, indicate
to him that "there do not seem to be any `noes' any more." He stated he could understand Mayor
Coughlin's point of view, and Council Member Stigney's, but would like the Council to take a
look at the other sides.
Mayor Coughlin stated there are many sides to every issue.
Julie Olsen, 2663 Lake Court Circle, stated the residents of Mounds View voted to have their
City run under the processes and procedures of a "home ruled" Charter City, which indicates
citizens' input and rights. She asked Council Member Thomason to provide one reason she
believed the residents wanted and voted for this form of local government.
Mayor Coughlin interjected that Ms. Olsen was free to ask this, however, he would request she
clarify her point.
Ms. Olsen stated as long as her three minutes prevail, she would direct her question to each
Council Member. She clarified she was not requesting a response from only one individual.
Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 8
Council Member Thomason stated she would address this, however, she also would appreciate
• clarification of the question.
Ms. Olsen explained she would like Council Member Thomason to state her understanding of
why she believed the citizens wanted and voted for this form of local government.
Council Member Thomason stated she was not around when the citizens voted for the Charter,
therefore, she was unable to answer that specific portion of Ms. Olsen's question. She stated,
however, she was aware that ahome-ruled Charter was very popular in the State of Minnesota,
and that it allows for citizens to have voice.
Council Member Stigney stated the reason he was a member of the Charter Commission and
originally voted for the Charter was because the charter empowers the people with an alternative
to the Council. He explained the charter provides that the Council does not control all the
actions, and there is some recourse for the residents.
Council Member Quick stated he would decline to answer, as this was not in keeping with
Council rules, which indicate that all questions should be directed to the Mayor, and not put
forward in the form of a "drill session" to the Council Members.
Council Member Marty stated he was also a member of the Charter Commission, and he believes
this indicates another form of checks and balances for the City and the citizens with the Council.
- He added he viewed this as a positive and necessary thing for the citizens, as long as the Charter
is adhered to.
Mayor Coughlin stated he would echo Council Member Thomason's comment in that he would
not attempt to place himself in the minds of others and theorize on why he believed they did
something. He explained this was not something he could answer.
There were no further requests or comments from the floor.
10. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. Consideration of Ordinance 641 and 643, Implementing a Franchise Fee
Increase from 2.5% on Electric and Natural Gas Companies for the
Operation of the Utility within the City.
1. Public Hearing on Said Ordinance.
Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 7:25 p.m.
City Administrator Whiting stated the discussion of these two ordinances pertains to setting a
franchise fee on gas and electric utilities for the year 2000, and perhaps beyond, if the Council so
desires. He explained that during the past two years, the Council has seta 2.5 fee charge on gas
and electric uses, and anyone paying for gas and electric service, primarily through NSP and
• now, also Minnegasco, would see what amounts to a 2 percent charge on their usage. He added
that five years prior to this, the franchise fee was set at 3 percent. He explained that the revenues
generated from the fee have been directed to the City's General Fund.
Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 9
City Administrator Whiting stated that earlier in the year, as the budget discussion commenced,
it was determined the City Council would review this matter in the fall, in order to facilitate the
utility providers enough time to adjust their software for the billing cycle at the first of the year.
He commented that the amount of the fee had been discussed by the Council, and the
determination came in response to another question which had come forward, regarding how to
fund street improvements in the future. He explained the Council's reason for increasing the fee
from 2.5 to 4 percent was to provide that the increase could be dedicated to a fund that would go
toward future street improvements, an idea which originated from a report generated by the
Streets Policies Committee.
City Administrator Whiting stated the ordinance pertaining to the franchise fees sunsets each
calendar year, and therefore, requires to be revisited annually. He noted this matter generally
comes forward as part of the budget, and the intention of the prior City Council, by doing this in
one year increments, was to eventually eliminate the charge, by reducing it one half a percent
every other year. He stated each one-half percent represents $40,000 to $45,000 in revenue for
the City, and the difference proposed, between 2.5 to 4 percent, amounts to approximately
$125,000. He noted the next item on the agenda is a resolution, which authorizes staff to
proceed with the drafting of language that would insure the additional funds would be put toward
a dedicated fund for street improvements.
Mayor Coughlin stated, in keeping with the City Charter, the Council has the right to set
reasonable limits on input. He requested, in light of the number of people present, the audience
honor the time of other audience members who wish to speak, and keep their comments brief,
and further, once having spoken before the Council, allow any and all other people to speak prior
to coming forward to counterpoint. He explained he would allow additional input pnor to
closing the public hearing, however, he would like everyone to have the opportunity to speak so
that their voice can be heard. He added it was not easy for some people to speak before the
Council, and requested they be extended respect, as he would like their voices to be heard as
well.
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated when the franchise fees were instituted, the
residents were promised this was only a temporary measure, and the fees would eventually be
removed from their utility bills, however, the fee has not only continued, but is now proposed to
be increased. He stated he had a problem in this regard, and inquired how the fee could be
increased from 2.5 at the first reading, to 4 percent. He stated it was his understanding the first
reading was a public hearing, however, he had not seen anything regarding this in the newspaper.
He inquired if there was a requirement to publish notification, prior to holding the public
hearing.
City Administrator Whiting stated the City Code does not require a public hearing for the
passage of an ordinance. He speculated the reason for this is that once an ordinance is adopted,
the community has the opportunity to petition to overturn the decision. He noted that to do so
would involve much work, however, this is how the rules are written.
Mr. Jahnke requested clarification.
• Mayor Coughlin explained any ordinance passed by the Council could be challenged through the
process set forth in the City Charter.
Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 10
Mr. Jahnke asked if it was not proper to inform the residents that the fee was proposed to
increase.
Mayor Coughlin advised that the first reading of in ordinance is to provide an introduction of the
ordinance to the Council and the viewing audience. He explained the reason there are two
readings, is to provide the Council the opportunity to "tweak", or amend the ordinance, prior to
the second reading. He added that almost every ordinance that has come before him has been
finalized in a different from than its introduction. He stated this process allows the Council the
opportunity to discuss the issues, and change their mind, if necessary.
Julie Olsen, 2663 Lake Court Circle directed her frst question to the City Attorney, and
inquired if there has been a substantial change to an ordinance from the first reading to the
second reading, would this not constitute an amendment that would require the ordinance revert
to the first reading.
City Attorney Riggs requested clarification regarding which ordinance Ms. Olsen was referring
to. Ms. Olsen stated Ordinance 641.
City Attorney Riggs explained that the majority of ordinances are changed after the first reading.
He stated the Charter provides for the first introduction, and 14 days thereafter, adoption of the
ordinance. He added it was acceptable for the Council to draft an ordinance during its
consideration.
• Ms. Olsen inquired if there is a substantial change from the first reading to the second, would
this not be considered an amendment to the ordinance, which therefore, would require a first
reading. City Attorney Riggs advised that this would not be the case. He explained the Council
has it within their authority to change an ordinance at their discretion.
Ms. Olsen inquired from what statute or code it was derived, that a substantial change from the
first reading to the second does not constitute an amendment. City Attorney Riggs stated he was
not aware of a "substantial change" standard that would provide for this.
Ms. Olsen stated there was no formal written document at the First Reading of the ordinance in
September, therefore, the minutes of the meeting would substantiate as the First Reading, and
this presents a substantial difference from the present Second Reading and Adoption of this
ordinance. She inquired if State Statutes do not provide that this constitutes an amendment to the
ordinance.
Mr. Riggs stated he was not aware of any State Statute that would require this, adding that if this
were the case, the charter would control the matter, not State Statutes.
Ms. Olsen inquired if the charter supercedes State Statutes.
City Attorney Riggs stated the City of Mounds View is a Chapter 410 City, which is a charter
City. He explained if there are inconsistent provisions in Chapter 412, that the City has seen f t
through its electorate to change and modify in regard to the adoption of ordinances, the answer
would be yes. He advised there could be no general answer, however, if this was Ms. Olsen's
point of reference, the answer is yes.
Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 11
Ms. Olsen stated, under Chapter 10, Section 10.3, Franchises, the Charter indicates a public
hearing is required prior to the adoption of a franchise ordinance, or any rate, fares, or prices
charged by a public utility are fixed by the Council. She stated notice of such hearing should be
published at least once, in the newsletter, and in the official newspaper, not less than 10 days
prior to the date of the hearing.
City Attorney Riggs explained, with the understanding that the Public Utilities Commission
defines what rates, fares, and prices are, this is correct. He advised, however, a franchise fee is
not a rate, fare, or price under the Public Utilities Commission rules.
Ms. Olsen stated Section 10.5 indicates an application to renewals or extensions, and the present
consideration was a renewal of the franchise fee.
City Attorney Riggs stated this was correct, it was the renewal of the fee, however, this is a
distinct ordinance, and not related to the existing ordinance.
Ms. Olsen noted this Section also references modification.
City Attorney Riggs stated this was also correct, however, this relates to the franchise itself, not
the franchise fee, which is a separately enacted ordinance, called for within the franchise
ordinance, from which the authority for this is derived.
Ms. Olsen stated it was not logical to hold a public hearing on the second reading of an
• ordinance that is substantially changed from the first reading, which was not even in document
form, and not to provide any notification to the citizens. She stated the citizens could not attend
the public hearing if they are not aware of it.
City Attorney Riggs stated City Administrator Whiting had answered this, in that there is no
requirement for a public hearing for the general adoption of an ordinance.
Ms. Olsen stated she was referring to common courtesy to the citizens, in regard to an
assessment being addressed to them in the form of an additional tax, and an increase rather than a
decrease, for which no notification of the public hearing was provided. She stated this was the
consideration of 2.5 percent as the renewal of the franchise fee, however, there was also a
resolution dedicating the additional l.S percent to a public improvement. She questioned the
separation of these two issues, and inquired under what rules or regulations this falls into place.
Ms. Olsen requested, prior to the adoption of this ordinance, the citizens be provided the right to
review and examine the matter, and to hire an attorney to determine with absolute clarity what is
considered a substantial change, rather than having to go to a formal ballot-type petition. She
stated she did not believe this matter was in the best welfare of the citizens.
William Werner, Sr., 2765 Sherwood Road asked Mayor Coughlin if he considered the
proposed change from 2.5 to 4 percent to be a "tweaking," a word which generally connotes a
minor adjustment.
• Mayor Coughlin stated this amount would affect his household approximately $18.00 per year,
and in this context, he would say it was.
Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 12
Mr. Warner stated this provided him with insight into Mayor Coughlin's philosophy regarding
finances.
Brian Schipe, representing Sysco Corporation, 2400 County Road J, stated their company was
very pleased two years prior, when the franchise fee was decreased from 3 percent to 2.5 percent.
He explained that being a very competitive marketplace, keeping costs low to their customers,
and keeping on the competitive edge was very important to their company, and they were
looking forward to and hoping fora 2.5 to 2 percent franchise fee.
Mr. Schipe stated his company's utility bills are over one half a million dollars per year. He
explained that any increase only hurts their company by increasing their operating expense,
which must be adjusted by cutting back employee salaries or raising prices to their competitor,
neither of which are favorable for their company, and they view this as a significant issue.
Mr. Schipe stated the proposed 4 percent franchise fee represents an approximate 70 percent
increase in taxes. He thought this to be absurd adding that any government agency that would
increase someone's taxes 70 percent was ridiculous. He explained this might represent $18.00 to
some, however, 70 percent of over a half a million dollars is a very significant amount of money.
He commented that from the perspective of a company that had moved into Mounds View to
conduct their business, they were very disappointed in this.
Mayor Coughlin pointed out that the documents posted on the wall of Council Chambers
reflected the debate of this issue, which commenced at the beginning of the budget process
• several months prior. He explained the Council has discussed for some time, how the City can
preserve, not add on to, the existing infrastructure. He stated Mounds View is an older town,
with roads and sidewalks, and some of the even the most conservative residents of the City have
indicated they desired to have trails as well. He advised all of these things come with a cost. He
explained that various people have commented the City streets were in a state of disrepair. He
noted the Public Works Director would agree with this, as he is often spending more in staff time
and money, attempting to use "spit and bail twine" to hold the infrastructure together, than if
they would just begin to address some of these issues.
Mayor Coughlin commented what constitutes good infrastructure could be debated, and this is a
separate issue, however, the City has infrastructure that is falling apart. He explained that part of
his job as a good steward of the community is to preserve that which was invested in years ago.
He noted the residents have paid taxes over many years, before he was even born, to create and
maintain the City roads. He stated he would not turn his back on his duty, and would look
beyond his term in office, to find a way to set up a mechanism by which, through the years, they
can pay for their infrastructure. He advised it was of the utmost importance, even in regard to
business, that they provide a community that is nice to look at, and nice to live in. He stated both
business and residents use the City roads, and they cause wear and tear, and break them down.
He commented he would Like to wave a wand and simply say "a11 roads be nice," however, there
are very large areas of town, developed 30 and 40 years ago, which are in desperate need of
repair.
Mayor Coughlin pointed out if there was a lesson to be learned, it is that when you set out to do
something new, without planning for how to pay for it, the Council is obligated to find means to
cover the debts. He added this is the case with the golf course, as the previous Council did not
foresee the problems that could occur. Mayor Coughlin stated, if he was to receive some of the
Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 13
credit for changing the City's road policy, which reduces the assessment rate on business and
residents from the present 50 percent, to 25 percent, he would not bind a future Council with an
unfunded mandate. He stated he did not enjoy this, and would rather cut the fee in half,
however, the State of Minnesota has set levy limits and restrictions on city government, and
there must be a funding source for the roads. He explained the next road projects will be coming
forward in 2 to 3 years, and either he, or a future Mayor, would be receiving a report that a road
must be done, and there will be no funds available.
Mayor Coughlin stated he was planning for the future. He commented this was a painful
process, and he wished past Council's had considered the long term, and provided a plan to pay
for the roads. He explained, however, "the buck stops here", and he would take responsibility
for it. He stated it was his desire to leave a City that is in as great, or better shape, when his
children are grown, and he is an old person, in one of the senior high rises. He added that
whether or not you agree with this explanation, the Council has a duty to protect the investment
of the citizens who have gone before, in the streets, sidewalks, trails, and infrastructure of the
City.
Mayor Coughlin reiterated that Mounds View is a small town, and they have not invested in the
infrastructure when they should have, and when it would have been much less expensive. He
reiterated that what is good in terms of road standards can be debated, however, the City can not,
and he will not, ignore this issue, and pass this responsibility on to someone else. He added he
was not about to sign a document to reduce assessment rates on citizens when their roads need to
be redone, if the City does not have funds available to make up the difference. He explained the
• good faith of the City begins with the Mayor, and he intends to meet these obligations, adding
that if this proposal is overturned, he will propose an 100 percent assessment rate for everyone,
so they can pay for the road in front of their house.
Mayor Coughlin noted a recent street project on his road, and a number of people who live there
had asked him how they were going to pay $7,000 to $9,000 for assessment. He explained that
many of these people live on fixed incomes and can not afford to pay this amount, even on a ten-
year payment plan. He advised that he must protect the interests of these people as well. He
stated these projects would cost a certain amount of money, whether they are paid for in small
increments, or up front. He noted that bonds are delayed taxation, plus interest, and he advised
the City could set money aside, and earn interest on it to provide there is a little more to work
with when the time comes to undertake some of these projects, or there will be no funds
available.
Mayor Coughlin stated this matter was not optional, and must be addressed. He added if anyone
could come forward with a better idea of how to generate the funds necessary to deal with these
issues, he was more than willing to listen. He explained, however, the hands of the City have
been tied with levy limits and the like, and the City must act now. He reiterated there are streets
and roads in the City that will require attention in a few years, and that will not be the time to
deal with the funding issue.
State Representative Barbara Haake stated her home was located on County Road I, one of
the roads that has recently been resurfaced. She commented that many people have driven down
her road, and are aware of the condition it was in, and how very important it was that it was
upgraded. She added this was not the only road in Mounds View in this type of condition. She
stated she sat on two committees at the State House of Representatives, that relate to the present
Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 14
consideration, Transportation Policy and Transportation Finance, which are addressing State
policy in terms of the roads, and how they will finance them.
Representative Haake stated she had attended a meeting that date with the Metropolitan Council,
in regard to the original master plan for transit. She explained there has been discussion at this
level in regard to inter-modal systems, roads, light rail, commuter rails, and every aspect of
transportation. She stated whatever they decide to do, they are aware it will cost money. She
explained that continued maintenance of the roads is imperative, as this is how the Sysco
products are brought into the City, as well as all other products that must be transported, and the
roads are to the benefit of the people.
Representative Haake indicated the State is considering three priorities for the year 2000, and the
second of these priorities is transportation, as relates to the costs of transportation links, such as
the highway system, bottlenecks, and bridges. She noted the University of Minnesota is
developing sensitivity design training, which is similar to the process utilized in the Mounds
View area for Spring Lake Road and County Road I. She explained these residents received the
road they desired because they did not utilize MSA funding, which limits the residents' control
of the roads. She explained that the new road policy in Mounds View allows the residents of a
neighborhood to decide what type of road they desire for their neighborhood. She pointed out
with the sensitivity training, the engineers are beginning to research new concepts in street
design, and with this research they may discover that the City can obtain the roads less
expensively than anticipated in the original plan, due to the sand based soils in Mounds View.
• Representative Haake commented she was going to be assessed approximately $4,500 for the
improvement of her road, and the average street assessment would be approximately $4,200 to
$4,500, which represents 50 percent. She explained the Streets Policies Committee had provided
a recommendation that the road in front of a resident's property be considered the starting point
and allow the resident to "buy up" if they desired, and the second recommendation was to reduce
the assessment rate to 25 percent. She explained by doing this, they were aware the citizens
would benefit very much, however, the City must provide the balance of the funds, and bond
issues and different forms of funding were discussed in this regard.
Representative Haake stated she was present during the implementation of the original franchise
fee, and had looked forward to seeing it sunset, and continue to decrease, however, there are
issues at the State level, in terms of the levy limits, which have been extended for another year.
She noted one of the taxation Chairs has indicated the levy limits might be lifted next year,
however, they were uncertain this would occur, and in the interim, neither the City or the State
have the funds to proceed with street improvements. She pointed out this was the result of a
"crunch" felt not only by the City, but also at the State level. She added that the infrastructure
throughout the State is beginning to fail, and must be provided for. She indicated although
increasing the franchise fee is not the most popular solution, she was not aware of how they
would otherwise obtain the necessary funds. She inquired if the proposed ordinance would
sunset.
Mayor Coughlin stated it would, on an annual basis.
Representative Haake stated she appreciated Ms. Olsen's arguments, which were logical. She
suggested that if the ordinance sunsets in a year, people will have the opportunity to indicate
their feelings at that time, and in the meantime, they can salt this fund with $125,000, an amount
Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 15
that could be spent very quickly, when redoing the roads. She explained something must be
• done to provide for this, and as long as these are dedicated funds, this might be the appropriate
way to proceed.
Carol Frey, President of the New Brighton/Mounds View Chamber of Commerce, stated their
Chamber represented a number of small and mid-sized businesses in Mounds View. She
indicated they are very concerned regarding the proposed increase in the franchise fee, however,
the majority of them also recognize that the quality of the streets and the quality of life in
Mounds View is very important to their success as business owners.
Ms. Frey requested the Council make a sincere effort to insure that the small and mid-sized
business owners receive much notice in regard to the City's future plans. She explained some of
the proposed increases would be very difficult adjustment for the business owners. She
explained that some of these businesses have utility bills of $4,000 to $5,000 per month, and the
present proposal represents an increase of $1,000 to $1,500. She added it was important to
realize that many of these businesses employ a number of people in Mounds View. She noted
they will see an increase on their home utility bills, as well as their business utility bills, and this
represents a difficult issue for them.
Ms. Frey stated most of the businesses are concerned with ongoing tax issues, and recognize that
an increase at this time might indicate an increase again next year, or that what they had expected
to sunset will not, and therefore they are planning for that. She requested the Council insure that
the business owners be informed of the City's plan for the future, and that they communicate this
• plan on a regular basis.
Mayor Coughlin commented he would be attending the Chamber function with Mayor Norm
Coleman on Thursday, October 14, and would have the opportunity to speak with people in
regard to this subject at that time.
George Weineke, 2704 NE Highway 10, complimented the Mayor and Council on their hard
work in addressing these difficult issues. He stated he was a small business owner in Mounds
View, and enjoyed conducting his business in the City. He stated small businesses were aware
that things were apt to change, and therefore, budgeted for this. He stated he was certain the City
was aware of these problems years ago, and it was difficult for him to understand why they did
not make some decisions at that time. He stated this was difficult to understand.
Mr. Weineke stated he required water brought onto his property, which cost $21,000, and he did
not request funds from anyone for this purpose, rather, he paid for this expense from his savings.
He commented his parking lot required resurfacing, and again, he paid this $6,000 expense out of
his own pocket. He explained he did not request other people to pay for the services on his
property, and he felt he had an obligation to pay for them himself. He added he had a problem
with the assessment reduction from 50 percent to 25 percent, as he believed people should pay
for what they are using. He stated there always appears to be another increase required to pay
for these services, and this seems to be anever-ending problem.
• Mr. Weineke stated that if the current proposal goes forward he would request the funds be
dedicated as indicated, and no other Council be permitted to utilize those funds for any other
purpose, no matter what the emergency. He reiterated this was a difficult decision to make, and
he did not envy the Council in this regard.
Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 16
• Mr. Weineke stated he has been in the insurance business for approximately 20 years, and the
fore-mentioned $10,000 deductible for the City's water truck is shocking to him. He explained
the City saves nothing in terms of the difference between a $10,000 or $1,000 deductible. He
stated he would like to discuss this matter with the person who made this decision.
Mr. Weineke stated he budgets, small businesses budget, and even large companies budget,
however, government does not seem to be able to comprehend this concept, and he could not
understand this. He remarked this builds a tremendous amount of animosity towards
government. He reiterated that when the funds are set aside for street improvements, they must
not be utilized for any other purpose.
Mayor Coughlin stated he is also a small business owner in the Metropolitan area, and
understands the concept of budgeting. He commented that when he entered into government, he
had a very difficult time understanding this as well. He explained, however, government has
mandates upon it, and pressures from may different directions that business does not.
Mayor Coughlin explained he was going to push for language in this fund creation, which would
outline exactly what these monies are to be utilized for, so that the fund can not be raided, and
any other proposed use of these funds would require a vote of the people. He stated this may
ultimately become the largest pool of money at the City level, and he has seen what the
temptation can be, in terms of borrowing from such sources, however, that is not the purpose of
this fund. He explained the purpose is to attempt to deal with the infrastructure, and if this is a
• true, honest, and genuine need, the funds can not be dedicated for any other purpose. He stated
this was his personal goal m the discussion of this issue.
Cam Obert, 8315 Greenwood Drive, inquired if anyone remembered the telephone operated
water meters, or more recently, the Bel Ray, and what occurred in these situations. He stated
that he could not comment on the fact that Mounds View is a home ruled Charter City, because
he is not necessarily in favor of that, however, this is what the City has, and therefore, it must be
abided by. Mr. Obert stated promises were made over a year ago, that things would be different,
and not the way they have always been in the City. He stated the City Charter governs and tells
the Council how to operate the City. He added the Clerk Administrator's job description is
indicated the Charter, and his performance is rated based upon the standards set forth therein.
Mr. Obert stated the residents have been told that public notification is not required for the
passage of an ordinance, and if the public does not like the ordinance, they can petition to have it
overturned. He explained all were aware how difficult a process this is, adding that this matter is
being viewed as "another sneaky, backroom deal," due to the manner in which it has been
handled. He stated he would not even comment on whether or not he is personally in favor of
the proposed fee.
Mayor Coughlin noted this is the purpose of the present public hearing, and he would request
Mr. Obert keep his comments germane to the issue.
• Mr. Obert stated he believed his point was very germane, as it has already been brought forward
in a citing of the Charter. He noted the City had also been "backhanded" in terms of the
pedestrian bridge that did not follow through, which was an issue before the previous Council.
He stated the Council owed the community, as a Charter City, at least the courtesy of public
Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 17
hearings without the three-minute rule, to provide for a free flow and exchange of ideas and
. thoughts, and the decision should be based upon this. He explained it may be this Council's
legacy to raise the franchise fee and set money aside for street funds, which is very admirable,
however, the matter will always "smack" of the "Bel Ray backroom deal," or the telephone
operated water meters, unless the people are provided the opportunity to have full input.
Mayor Coughlin stated one of the things he sees as different with this Council, is the number of
Task Forces, committees, and citizen's groups which are given the charge of examining many of
the issues. He explained that good citizens have spent a fair amount of time, and this City has
spent a fair amount of money over the year for facilitators and the like, to determine solutions to
problems. He commented the reports are given, the Council accepts them, and the
recommendations are then put on the shelf to collect dust. He explained the Streets Policies
Committee was given the charge of researching the background of this issue, and to recommend
a comprehensive street policy to the City Council. He noted this group was open to everyone,
and in fact, extended the time it was open for citizen participation, because they desired the
citizen's input. He explained the committee's recommendation has been provided to the
Council, the Council has accepted it, and the matter will not collect dust. He stated they are
listening to the citizens.
Mayor Coughlin explained, in regard to "sneaky, backroom dealings," as even the documents on
the Council Chamber walls can attest, the issues have been out in the open for months, and every
single meeting was open to the public. He commented he was pleased to see Mr. Obert in
attendance, adding that his testimony at a recent Planning Commission meeting indicated he was
• not paying much attention to City business. Mayor Coughlin stated there have been countless
opportumhes for information, and m fact, Council Member Quick had insisted the Council
provide two public hearings to discuss the Streets Policies Committee report. He explained this
report contained a recommendation to reduce the assessment rate to 25 percent, and a
recommendation to create along-term fund dedicated to the infrastructure. He stated with the
exception of the committee members, no one attended those hearings. He noted the entire report
was published in the Mounds View Matters, and was reported on in the newspapers, however,
nobody showed up for the discussion.
Mayor Coughlin stated every opportunity has been extended for comment, at every step along
the way. He advised that every citizen has a responsibility to remain informed of the issues. He
reiterated they had attempted to provide notification, and the hearings were published. He added
it might have been done better, as they all make mistakes and can play "hindsight is 20/20,"
however, he would not allow the Council to be painted with the brush that they are not listening
to the citizens, and are trying to "ramrod" an item through. He stated this was a difficult issue,
and he would rather be at home with his family, however, this is his responsibility as a good
steward of the entire community.
Naja Werner, 2765 Sherwood Road, asked Mayor Coughlin if the proposed funds were being
set aside simply to cover the costs of re-surfacing of the streets, or if these projects would
involve tearing up the infrastructure.
. Mayor Coughlin stated this depends upon the specific project, and what it requires. He
explained some roads will simply be ground up and recycled, like Spring Lake Road and County
Road I. Some roads, such as County Road H-2, in light of its truck traff c, may actually have
been deteriorated, in terms of the substructure.
Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 18
Mrs. Werner inquired who would determine if the infrastructure was to be replaced, adding that
by definition, she was assuming the infrastructure involved water and sewer lines.
Mayor Coughlin stated sewer and water lines are typically buried to a depth that will not be
affected. He explained that generally the infrastructure is comprised of a two-inch binder of
asphalt, the first layer, and an additional layer of approximately two inches on top of that. He
added, however, there is also the substructure, which is comprised of limestone and class five
rock that becomes compressed over time, and may require repair.
Mrs. Werner inquired if she was correct in assuming, therefore, that when the roads are re-
surfaced, the citizens will not also be assessed for replacing water and sewer lines.
Mayor Coughlin explained this would only be the case if absolutely necessary. He stated if there
is nothing wrong with the present utilities, he would not care to replace them. He pointed out
there were places in the City where these lines are fairly old, however, new technology may
provide solutions to this in terms of liners which can be installed in the utility lines, and this
repair process does not require that the infrastructure be disturbed.
Mrs. Werner inquired in the event that extensive work is required on water or sewer lines, if the
people affected will be notified. Mayor Coughlin stated they would.
Mrs. Werner stated the Mayor's road is beautiful, and she was very glad that they did not make it
• wider, and install curbs, as this would have destroyed all of the beautiful trees. She stated there
is a beautiful canopy over the road now. She commented that had they made the road wider and
installed curbs, the root systems of the remaining trees would have been destroyed, and they
would have died. She inquired regarding Mayor Coughlin's expense for the improvement of this
road.
Mayor Coughlin stated this was a County turnback road, and the County was planning to give
the City the funds to make this improvement, however, decided to do this "in house."
Mrs. Werner suggested Mayor Coughlin request the County to extend this largess to the senior
citizens in the area. She explained they have already paid for the water and sewer assessments,
not only from a frontage standpoint, but also, area wide, and there are older people within the
City who are still paying of that obligation. She requested Mayor Coughlin give the matter some
consideration.
Mrs. Werner noted that Mayor Coughlin had not cut her comment period off after three minutes.
She requested to make an additional comment.
Mayor Coughlin inquired if it was germane to the issue.
Mrs. Werner stated she was not aware if it was or not, however, as a citizen of a democracy, she
did not believe there should be time limits when citizens speak. She explained that the Mayor
• should be able to determine when a citizen is going off track. She stated she has thought this
ever since Mayor Coughlin instituted this policy.
Mayor Coughlin explained he did not institute this longstanding policy, he simply enforces it.
Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 19
Mrs. Werner stated she understood. She explained she was a great believer in democracy, and
has lived twice the years as Mayor Coughlin, through the triumphs and the debacles of
democracy, and they still have the First .Amendment, which is freedom of speech, and she
believes this is very important.
John Theis, representative of Northern States Power Company (NSP), stated that his company
was somewhat concerned regarding the time frame of the proposed franchise fee ordinance. He
explained after the passage of the ordinance, NSP has 60 days to implement the new program
into their system. He commented they do not oppose the franchise fee increase, as long as their
customers understand this is not an NSP rate increase on gas or electric service, but rather a tax
by the City for necessary services, collected by NSP, who will return the money to the City.
Mr. Theis commented that the proposed increase represents a fairly substantial impact to
commercial and residential ratepayers, and particularly to small business owners, who are
attempting to stay competitive, and perceive this as a negative proposal. He explained that NSP
would prefer the City wait until after the first of the year to implement the increase. He stated at
this time they would have the opportunity to discuss the matter with the City Administrator and
City staff, and draft an ordinance with provisions for a meter fee charge, rather than a flat fee, in
light of future deregulation.
Mr. Theis stated NSP feels their nuclear plants are now compliant and ready to proceed in 2000,
however, the plan to increase the fee from 2.5 to 4 percent may impact this, in terms of the new
• programming in the system. He noted they would upgrade their computer system for gas and
electric service at the end of the year, m the event something might occur, and this is somewhat
of a concern as well.
Planning Commissioner Brian Kaden, stated he came to speak on this as someone who
originally was opposed to the Spring Lake Road street reconstruction project, and as a member
of the Streets Policies Committee. He explained that one of the reasons he became a member of
the Streets Policies Committee was, during the opposition of this particular road project, he
became aware of the poor condition of the roads within the City, and the lack of a means to
finance them in the future. He stated he desired have a part in determining how to make things
better for the future.
Mr. Kaden stated the Streets Policies Committee had researched many surrounding suburbs, in
terms of how they financed their street projects. He advised that the assessments for the Spring
Lake Road/County Road I street projects ranged between $2,500 to $8,000 per resident, and the
resident who was assessed over $8,000 was Ruth White, a retired person. He noted this was the
amount she would have been required to pay, had the project gone forward as originally planned.
Mr. Kaden explained the city of Coon Rapids charges a flat rate of $800 per lot for street
projects, and the remainder is paid for by the general taxpayers. Other cities charge between 20
and 25 percent for this purpose, and they all have other mechanisms in place to help pay for the
remainder of the street construction costs. He commented that one of the best programs is that of
White Bear Lake, which has a 30 million-dollar fund, of which only the interest is utilized to pay
for their street reconstruction projects, thereby removing the burden of this expense from the
citizens. He explained they had the foresight years ago, to set this money aside and dedicate it
for that purpose, and it can not be utilized for anything else.
Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 20
• Mr. Kaden stated he would be in favor of the proposed franchise fee increase, if this money is
dedicated for street reconstruction, and can not be used for any other purpose. He explained that
Mounds View desperately needs to provide for this, if the citizens don't want to see assessments
in the range of $4,000 to $8,000. He noted that many people could not afford to pay this amount.
Mr. Kaden stated he will be one of the last people in the community to see any benefit from this
franchise fee, as his street was completed last year, and will not be done again for 20 or 30 years.
He explained that everyone else would see the benefit before that time, when the reconstruction
of their roads takes place. He added that businesses generate much truck traffic, and it is only
fair that everybody pays for the roads. He stated commercial properties realized a decrease in
their property tax rates at the State level, and whether or not they noticed this depends upon their
current property value assessment, however, this will provide some relief in relation to the
proposed franchise fee increase.
Mr. Kaden stated that it does not seem unreasonable to pay between $14 and $20 per year for the
next 20 years, to cover the cost of road reconstruction projects, when the alternative could be an
$8,000 assessment.
Planning Commissioner William Laube stated he was involved in many organizations within
the City. He stated one of his concerns with the current proposal was in regard to some of the
key words he was hearing, such as "preserve," "protect investments," and "good faith." He
stated these were good words, however, there should be an attempt to look at the overall picture.
• He explained that not only are they attempting to preserve Mounds View as it is today, but also
for the future, and instituting a high tax on the citizens will result in a city which looks like
Columbia Heights, or other smaller towns who can not afford this.
Mr. Laube stated he has been watching the budget discussions for the last few months, and he
was highly disappointed, due to the fact that the City "rubber stamps" things. He stated they do
not seriously consider where the City's money is going. He noted a good example of this is the
current airport negotiation. He pointed out the City is spending money for attorney fees,
however, he has not been able to obtain a dollar amount in this regard. He explained, in his
opinion, since they do not know how much money is being expended for this purpose, it is a
waste of money, and would be better directed elsewhere. He stated the tremendous amount of
money being expended on attorney fees was up to the sole discretion of the City, and the citizens
have no say in where these funds go. He reiterated that this is very disappointing to him, and
there did not appear to be any challenges to this.
Mr. Laube stated his complaint in regard to the proposed franchise fee increase is the lack of
notice to the citizens. He stated from his perspective, this was just another issue that was "rubber
stamped" as part of the budget process, and would be enacted.
Mr. Laube stated he lives on a private street, and will have to pay 100 percent of the cost when it
is done, and will not see any part of this money. He commented he did not have a problem with
putting money aside for streets for the rest of the City, however, he would rather see some
honest, hard work at attempting to determine where the City's money is going. He pointed out
that what he has seen in the City for nine years indicates that the money is just spent, the City has
an endless pocket, and the citizens can afford it. He noted a good example of this is Tax
Increment Financing. He stated the citizens are bearing the tax burden in the City. He suggested
Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 21
they start using some of the Tax Increment Financing funds in these areas. He advised the City
should not spend the money out to the budget of 2025, but direct the money where it needs to go.
He stated it was difficult to watch these things occur, and the information is not forthcoming to
the residents. He stated it was very difficult to obtain information, and he felt this was very
unfair for the citizens.
Planning Commissioner Ordeen Braathen, stated in his personal opinion, the proposed tax
increase percentage was not a problem, whatsoever. He thanked the Council for, in his opinion,
being more responsible for the finances of the City, than has been seen in quite some time. He
added that he believed the Council was doing a good job.
Duane McCarty, previous Mayor of the City of Mounds View stated he has lived in Mounds
View for 35 years and a year after he moved in, the new sanitary sewer and water system was
installed, and they filled in their cesspool, and he thought this was a good deal. He explained
over the 30-year assessment process, he paid $32 per year, for a total of $960. He stated he was
aware the City's infrastructure was getting old. He stated he wanted the sanitary sewer system
replaced when it breaks down, but he doesn't want to pay for it. He stated he wants good roads
around him so the value of his home stays up with the surrounding cities. He explained his
property value is computed on a cost comparison basis, and if a like home in a near City has
better infrastructure, it will demand a higher price than his home. He stated he wants his home
value protected, and wants good roads around him, but he doesn't want to pay for this.
Ex-Mayor McCarty stated he did not like taxes or franchise fees. He explained the reason the
City went to the franchise fee for this consideration, was because the Council at the time it was
implemented, did not have a plan or policy in place for the use of those funds. He stated the road
policy was being attacked from all fronts. He noted during the very last months of his service on
the Council, they managed to appoint the Streets Policies Committee, however, the committee's
work was not completed until this year. He stated, for the first time, since the City has run out of
the road funds that were dedicated from the Silver Lake Woods Project in the early 1980's, they
now have a plan in place, and the opportunity to fund that plan, to assist with the infrastructure
and keep it healthy. He stated this would provide that the property values don't decrease,
however, he doesn't want to pay for it.
Ex-Mayor McCarty explained it appears to be at such cross-purposes to be calling for these
services and understanding the ramifications if the infrastructures are let go, and on the one hand
cry for that, and on the other hand, howl about the cost. He stated the reason the City lowered
the franchise fee last year, and set up a schedule to reduce it out of existence, was because they
had enough movement in the levy to absorb the costs that the franchise fee had formerly
supported. He stated it was determined with careful consideration that if they were going to take
the money for a program, then they should take it in the most proper and visible source, the
property taxes. He stated he did not like paying property taxes, however, the matter was that
simple. He explained that now that there is a road plan in place, via the Streets Policies
Committee recommendations and the Council's adoption of those recommendations, they need
to pay for this, or do nothing and let the infrastructure deteriorate, which would not be very wise
stewardship for the future, or for themselves, and simply does not make sense.
• Ex-Mayor McCarty stated there was not a "cast in stone" promise that the franchise fee would
eventually disappear. He explained there was a plan in place with a sunset caveat attached, that
the matter would be reviewed on an annual basis, and kept at the front of the debate, so that
Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 22
people would be aware of what was happening, and would have the opportunity to make their
• wishes known.
Ex-Mayor McCarty commented, of all the arguments he has heard against the franchise fee, if it
weren't for the fact that they now have a plan in place and the funds are needed, he would be
standing on the other side of the issue. He stated, however, he also recognizes that these things
that are demanded and seen as a definite need, are a service to the community. He noted the
Council could not possibly make their decision on the basis of the 25 people who spoke to this
issue that evening, and should bear in mind there are 12,758 people in the City. He stated it was
his belief that they might be surprised, as he was surprised with the vote on the Bel Ray, which
response was totally opposite of what he thought he had heard, and passed with a very heavy
affirmative vote. He stated if this subject were to go to a referendum of the people in the City,
there would be a hands down victory in favor of getting the roads fixed, and keeping the
franchise fee in place.
Ex-Mayor McCarty asked if the proposed increase did not represent approximately $20 per year,
adding that the reduced value of his home would be much greater than this amount, if the
proposal does not move forward. He remarked as a person who has disliked the franchise fee
with a passion, it was not easy for him to stand before the Council and take the opposite position.
He explained, however, he would make the same statement he made at the last budget, when
they did away with some departments and other things that were not popular, he was going to
make this decision with his calculator, and suggested the Council do the same.
• Mr. Weineke stated he was concerned, in light of this discussion, that there must be many other
financial problems within the City that required to be addressed. He added he was concerned
that things might "snowball," and the franchise fee might go from 4 percent to 5 percent, and so
on.
Mayor Coughlin explained that this fee could not go any higher than 4 percent. Mr. Weineke
stated other fees might be implemented in the future. He inquired if there were other major
financial concerns that would be coming forward in the future, adding that the residents might
not be aware, and these matters should be brought to their attention.
Ms. Olsen noted Mayor Coughlin's comment that bonds are delayed taxation plus interest. She
commented that in her understanding, bonds are not all delayed taxation, but some, such as the
school bond, are additional taxation. She inquired how the 2.5 franchise fee was utilized during
the past year.
City Administrator Whiting stated the franchise fee, from its inception, has been directed to the
City's General Fund to supplement General Fund revenues.
Ms. Olsen asked if there was any specific area to which the franchise fee was directed, or if this
was simply additional taxation, going into the General Fund. Mayor Coughlin explained the fee
was directed to the General Fund, adding that it could be called a fee or an assessment, but it is
essentially, a tax.
Ms. Olsen inquired if there were any different plans for the 2.5 percent fee during the upcoming
year, or if it would again be directed into the General Fund as an additional taxation.
Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 23
City Administrator Whiting explained the discussion to date indicates the amount of the
• franchise fee proposed to go into the General Fund is 2.5 percent, as it was for the last two years.
He explained that it is with the understanding of Council, that in keeping with the original plan,
the fee was to be reduced to 2 percent this year.
Council Member Marty stated he would request staff research the possibility of trimming the 2.5
percent portion of the fee as close to half, or 2 percent, as possible, and direct the balance to the
street fund, rather than diverting it into the General Fund, in that it was hoped the franchise fee
would go into the street fund in the future.
City Administrator Whiting noted the next item on the agenda relates to how this can be
determined, and the choices that follow. He explained the Council has not completed its budget
deliberations, and has another two months in which to do this, and a hearing in one month. He
noted they have not reviewed all of the specific details in the final budget. He explained there
are several ways to proceed with this ordinance and the policy that is put into place. He
envisioned at this point, the franchise fee would continue to go into the General Fund, and the
Council will commit to a portion of the revenues to be dedicated to the street fund on an annual
basis.
City Administrator Whiting noted that based upon the discussions to date, it appears that an
equivalent to 1.5 percent of what is collected on the franchise fee will be dedicated to the street
fund in the form of a transfer from the General Fund. He reiterated that the franchise fee sunsets
on an annual basis, and the matter will have to be revisited year after year, and this will provide
• the opportunity to reconsider the issues.
City Administrator Whiting explained that at this time, he was not aware of the exact numbers,
however, he did not believe this would represent anything similar to the 30 million dollar fund of
White Bear Lake. He stated that if the franchise fee generates approximately $125,000 per year
from the 1.5 percent, this fund would be viewed in terms of providing the ability to cash flow the
projects, so the City does not have to borrow for this purpose. He commented this will require a
substantial amount of money, however, he did not believe the franchise fee will be the only
source of revenue replenishing the street fund on an ongoing basis.
City Administrator Whiting noted in five or ten years there will be some money accumulated in
the street fund. He explained, however, there will also be projects that draw down the cash,
which will likely be replenished at a ratio of 1 to 3, as at a 25 percent assessment rate, the City
will receive a quarter back for every dollar spent on a project. He added the fund will generate
some interest, which will help replenish it, in addition to revenues from the franchise fee. He
explained that transfers to the dedicated funds generally occur late in the year, when the City has
a full assessment of the budget, and how what is affordable. He stated they would have the
option of transferring unspent General Fund-budgeted monies into this fund, if so desired, find
ways to reduce expenditures, or dedicating a different percentage of the fee to this fund.
City Administrator Whiting explained the Council will have to decide the term of this ordinance.
He stated that in the last two years, it has sunset annually, which provides that the issues can be
. revisited in the following year. He suspected by the end of the budget period, there would be
clarification of the details of the street fund, and what it will be able to accomplish.
Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 24
Council Member Marty stated Director of Public Works Ulrich had indicated it costs
• approximately $700,000 to refinish a mile of road. He noted this is the "Cadillac" of roads, 50
feet wide, with sidewalks and gutters, etc. He explained to Mrs. Werner that when it comes time
to redo her road, the Streets Policies Committee has recommended the citizens affected on that
road will meet at public hearings for their specific road, and will decide what type of street they
desire. He explained if the residents decide to have the "Cadillac" of roads, they can, although
they will still be required to 25 percent of its cost. He added if they decide they want to keep the
beautiful trees, it will be their decision, and the City will not come in with rules or mandates.
Council Member Marty noted that he and Mayor Coughlin were members of the Streets Policies
Committee at its onset, and these were the discussions that were coming forward. He
commented after he and Mayor Coughlin were off the committee, the Streets Policies Committee
came forward with their recommendations. He stated he was very impressed with their work.
He stated Mary Malerick, Chairperson of the Streets Policies Committee has indicated that the
neighboring cities of New Brighton, Spring Lake Park, Blaine, Roseville, Fridley, and St.
Anthony have had a tax through the operating levy, or separate funds through sewer and water or
street Lighting, which have been instituted and in place for some time for street replacement. He
explained that until now, the City of Mounds View has not had anything in place to generate
revenue to replace the streets. He stated he did not know how they had gotten this far without it,
but believes it is high time that something is done.
Council Member Marty stated the cities of Arden Hills and White Bear Lake have street funds of
which they can only utilize the interest, and not the principal. He noted much could be done with
• the interest on a 30 million-dollar fund, however, Mounds View does not have anything set
aside. He explained that 1.5 percent, m the form of a franchise fee, will provide approximately
$125,000 a year, and fora $700,000 per mile road, this amount will not go very far. He stated
this was why he was hoping to be able to apply more of the franchise fee directly toward the
street fund.
Council Member Marty stated he had attended the League of Minnesota Cities conference in
June, along with other Council Members and members of staff. He noted this was the
conference at which Council Member Stigney had won a $1,000 door prize. He stated he
attended a seminar at this conference, in regard to explaining taxes to the citizens, and had
questioned one of the experts teaching the seminar, in regard to Tax Increment Financing. He
stated the expert indicated, with commercial and business taxes being lowered by the State in the
last couple of years, cities with Tax Increment Financing situations could be in for some difficult
times. He stated that some of the cities entering into new Tax Increment Financing programs are
specifying this is not just based upon taxes, but the minimum payment. He explained that the
City had researched a Tax Increment Financing situation this spring, in terms of minimum
payments, to insure the City will not be caught short if the State continues to lower the business
and commercial taxes. He noted, however, the expert speaker further indicated the only way
cities can cover themselves, or possibly recoup, if the State's course of action follows true with
the past couple of years, is to maintain their franchise fee. He advised this is the only means the
City has to correspond with the taxes coming into the City, and if commercial and business taxes
continue to be decreased, the only way to cover the operating expenses of the City is the
franchise fee.
Ms. Olsen stated that Mounds View does not need to be concerned about this, as the majority of
the City's commercial Tax Increment Financing Districts are "pay as you go" situations. She
Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 25
explained whether or not the actual tax capacity percentages decrease, this will not hinder or hurt
the City. She stated however, there is a potential problem with the Council's desire to look at the
potential of meeting the "big plan", prior to making any future Tax Increment Financing
modifications within its policy. She explained if they continue projected spending or cast it out
into the future, with money they believe exists for financing the "big plan", there is a potential
problem.. She stated the City would not be in its present situation, if the old districts were closed
out and decertified, because that tax money has nothing to do with running the City and does not
go into the General Fund, rather it relates to continuing enactment for developers.
Ms. Olsen inquired what expenses were cut in terms of balancing the budget, or was reviewed
and suggested could be cut in terms of excessive spending in any area. She stated the City
Administrator was charged with determining what is needed for the upcoming year, in order to
run the City, in a "perfect world" situation, and based upon this concept what was questioned in
terms of potential cuts in expenses.
City Administrator Whiting explained that based upon the discussion with the Council and
Department heads, in terms of what they thought they needed to run their departments, the
budget was simply proposed to include no new projects for the year 2000, and no capital
expenditures at a rate higher than what the City has had. He stated they recognized their
limitations from the Legislature, in terms of a property tax increase of less than one percent. He
noted the only consideration not incorporated into the budget was the 1999 airport issue. He
stated there was a projected revenue surplus of approximately $13,000, and a budget of
approximately 3.7 million at first draft, without much critical review, but simply as an effort to
• prepare for the setting of the preliminary levy at the first meeting in September.
Ms. Olsen noted Mayor Coughlin's statement that the Street Policies Committees
recommendations were well delivered to the citizens in the Mounds View Matters, and the
newspaper. She stated, however, a committee's recommendation does not constitute policy. She
stated this recommendation appeared to be a good one, and she believed, had she been on the
Streets Policy Committee, and there were no funds available for the streets, she would attempt to
find a means to create a fund to do this. She explained, however, this does not automatically
indicate an increase of the franchise fee. She remarked that it was not apparent to the public that
these recommendations became enacted as policy and there was going to be a franchise fee
mcrease.
Council Member Marty stated the Streets Committee meetings were open to the public, and their
reports were submitted to the Council at open meetings as well. He pointed out they could have
another "bloodletting" if the citizens don't feel there has been enough blood let yet, and they can
touch upon this subject again, with the changes from the first reading. He stated he was not
aware of a huge time rush, although there was a time frame for consideration. He suggested they
could possibly fit this in at the next Council meeting.
City Administrator Whiting stated the practical concern is being able to give the service
providers due time. He explained there are 30 days from the date of publication in which the
residents can contest the ordinance. He stated they could inform the utility providers that the
Council has taken action, however, it will not be enacted until 30 days after the publication. He
stated this would be, at the soonest, next week, and they would be looking at the third week of
November before they could actually advise NSP and Minnegasco of what was going to occur.
He explained they would want to put the utility providers on notice to go as possible, so there is
Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 26
no delay. He explained that if there is a delay, it will mean the first billing cycle implemented
• will be later in the year, and for every month this would represent one-twelfth of the proposed
revenue that would not be attainable
Ms. Olsen commented that the interpretation of franchise and franchise fee, if nothing else,
enlightens the Charter Commission for their review of changes and modifications to the Charter
for clarification to address franchise fee within a franchise so that there can be a public hearing
and notification to the residents. She stated this was a very important thing, did not happen, was
not required to happen, and was not done as a courtesy. She commented that the budget review
would consist of consideration of all the issues as a whole, adding that when the issues are
segmented, and considered separately, the resulting decisions may be different.
Ms. Olsen noted Ex-Mayor McCarty's statement that he would like to have services, however,
he did not wish to pay for them, and explained, in her opinion, this did not properly reflect the
attitude of the citizens of Mounds View. She stated no one was indicating they did not care
about the infrastructure, however, this depends upon how the funds are taken. She stated citizens
are not aware of everything that happens within the City, and probably do not have to be, as
residents were voted into office because it was hoped their beliefs were similar to the beliefs of
the majority of the people. She stated, however, when the issues are considered independently,
and appears to be justified, this is not necessarily the case. She stated she had a difficult time
believing there was nothing allocated in the City's budget for streets.
Mayor Coughlin explained that reconstruction of the streets was a different issue than street
• maintenance. Council Member Marty added that the Director of Public Works has been
attempting to do as much chip seal and patching as possible. He explained that Mr. Ulnch
provided the Streets Policies Committee with a map, which indicated streets projected for work
up to two years prior. He stated the Department has not had any funds to perform the work on
these roads, and therefore, have been chip sealing and patching until they can come up with a
plan. He stated this was the reason they were trying to proceed with this matter, and designate
what they can from the franchise fee. He reiterated he would like see if a higher percentage
could be allocated to the street fund.
Ms. Olsen stated she was aware of this. She reiterated she could not believe there were no funds
allocated for this purpose, and questioned why retreats were important to the City, and why a
secretary would not be sufficient, instead of an assistant to the Administrator. She remarked she
would like to have these matters evaluated.
Mayor Coughlin pointed out that the reason the documents were posted on the Chamber walls,
was because the Council realized, early in this process, that they were going to look at the big
picture and understand what the goals were, and to let the specifics follow the goals.
Mrs. Werner inquired what had happened to the $1,000 door prize that Council Member Stigney
had won at the League of Minnesota Cities conference. Council Member Stigney stated it has
not been spent yet, and the plan was to have a luncheon or dinner for all of the commission
members. Mrs. Werner suggested a dinner for all of the Charter Commission members and their
• wives
Mrs. Werner stated the present franchise fee is 2.5 percent, and in her understanding, the entire
franchise fee is going into the General Fund, and they were proposing to increase the fee to 4
Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 27
percent. She inquired if they would put a portion of this into the General Fund, or if the entire 4
percent would be put into a fund specifically for streets.
City Administrator Whiting explained the money comes into the General Fund, and then is
allocated to another fund, or is designated in a way still to be determined by the City Council.
He stated the following agenda item, the resolution, directs staff to work with the Council to
determine a way to do this, and how restrictive the Council desires to make it, in terms of
whether they want to act with an ordinance, a Charter amendment, a resolution, etc. He stated
there were many questions in terms of the appropriate way in which to do this, as well as the
traditional means of dedicating funds to the City.
Mrs. Werner stated this was not what she was interested in, but wanted to know if the entire 4
percent would go into a fund strictly designated for streets, or if they were going to do something
creative with the funds, and find themselves in the same position they are in now.
City Administrator Whiting explained that the language in the resolution suggests, unless the
Council chooses to indicate otherwise, that anything over the 2.5 percent will be the amount that
goes into the street fund.
Mrs. Werner inquired what was wrong with putting the entire 4 percent into the street fund. She
stated if it was not, it could just be "funny money" in the General Fund.
City Administrator Whiting explained that the City does not have any "funny money." He
• explained that because this decision on the franchise fee must be made ahead of the final
discussion, some of the questions she was asking have yet to be determined.
Mrs. Werner stated the citizens of Mounds View should have some assurance of where the funds
were going, and if they indicated that the entire 4 percent would go into a fund and "cast in
stone" that it was for the streets, they might receive a very favorable response.
Ex-Mayor McCarty stated his comment that he wanted to have services, however, he did not
want to pay for them, was an attempt to point out that asking for services, and at the same time,
opposing an increase in taxes simply does not work. He stated through his experience, he was
aware that the proposed budget for the year 2000 is "bare bones," under State mandates, paying
sales taxes on municipal purchases, and under mandates that must be funded whether necessary
or not. He stated, without having seen that budget, he would wager it is "bare bones" and there
are not enough funds in the General Fund budget to make the road project work. He stated the
greater majority of the citizens of Mounds View want their infrastructure protected. They want
their streets driveable, and the value of their homes protected, and they would embrace this plan.
Ex-Mayor McCarty explained the City did have a fund in place for the streets, which expired in
1997, so if the time frame is correct, the adoption of the franchise fee this evening will provide
the opportunity to make a comparison, and hold it up to the budgetary challenges. He stated that
if in the future, it is determined that the total levy is not being utilized, this can be adjusted for
the time being, which will not provide permanency, but will provide "breathing room," and time
. to allow the debate to settle out. He stated, however, to suggest that the City Council has any
"float" or "humorous money" simply is not correct, and he knows this from experience. He
stated he would challenge anybody who views this as a wrongful act of the Council, out of
respect for the forum, to show him their alternative.
Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 28
• Ex-Mayor McCarty stated as he left office the previous year, he did not know any of the three
new Council Members, however, after seeing the debates, watching the election, and talking with
them, he made the statement that this would be the best Council the City ever had. He stated
nothing has changed his mind, and this is the best Council the City has ever had. He requested
the Council persevere, as there were many people behind them. He added that he was aware that
this was a difficult job, and most of the people recognize this.
Mr. Jahnke stated he believed the majority of people want to pay for their services, however, one
of the issues is that the fee increased from 2.5 to 4 percent, which caused a problem in terms of
communication, and he believed this should be looked at. He stated another issue is that the
people have been told many things, which have changed. He explained that he understood that
the franchise fee would go into a road fund, and he had no problem with this, however, if it goes
into the General Fund, which is supposed to bail out the golf course for $200,000, that is
different. He stated the people are thinking that if the golf course situation worsens, more of this
fee will be directed to it. He stated these were the fears and concerns of the people.
Mr. Jahnke stated he has discussed many things with Mayor Coughlin, and the Mayor has even
called him and apologized for a statement he had made. He stated he really commends that type
of honesty. He stated he did not think, and has been given no reason to think, that the comment
regarding "backroom dealings" is appropriate.
Mayor Coughlin requested Mr. Jahnke remain at the meeting for the consideration of the
following resolution, which will designate the funds. He explained, in terms of communication,
he has been one of the mayor proponents of putting every commission meeting on cable
television. He explained that the only commission meeting that is not broadcast is that of the
Charter Commission, and he will request, once again, they consider televising their meetings, as
this is the citizens' Charter.
Mr. Obert stated once again, it appeared that the audience misunderstood his comments. He
explained he did not accuse anybody of conducting "backroom dealings" nor did he do this in
regard to the Bel Ray issue, or the telephone operated water meters. He explained he was simply
attempting to communicate that this was the perception this issue conveyed. He stated his major
concern with this proposal is this perception. He stated he had not read the Streets Policies
Committee report, which was indicated to state that the assessment was reduced to 25 percent,
with an outside funding source to pick up the balance. He inquired if the report had indicated a
1.5- percent increase in the franchise fee. He explained that this represented the communication
problem. He stated this matter had been rushed along, with consideration that date, and then
enactment. He stated there was a difference between a street commission's recommendation and
discussion, and the enactment that was being proposed that date. He stated through the years,
one of his frustrations has been in regard to the difficulty in getting word out to the community.
He stated there must be better notification, and as a Charter City, the citizens' input is necessary.
Mr. Obert stated he was aware that the Council was honorable, and had not conducted a
"backroom deal" however, there are citizens who are still angry regarding previous actions
• because of the way in which they were handled. He reiterated there were no "backroom deals,"
and he was not accusing anyone of this, however, this was the perception. He requested they try
something different and attempt to get the people more involved.
Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 29
Council Member Marty explained the Streets Policies Committee has been before the Council a
• number of times, and has been before the Work Session, both of which are televised. He stated
the Streets Policies Committee never requested or projected the raising of the franchise fee. He
stated this has come up in Council Work Session discussions a number of times, and those who
care enough to view these meetings are aware that this is not a new subject. He stated the
present consideration is an attempt to clarify the details, and spell out exactly where the funds
will originate, and exactly what they are to be spent on, which are the streets. He noted the only
discussions he has had in this regard have been in the Council Chambers, and he does not know
where the "backroom dealings" perception might have originated.
Council Member Thomason stated the documents on the Chamber walls, which have been posted
for approximately 3 months, indicate under Council Expectations, Number 2, Franchise Fee,
with an arrow pointing upward at government funds and street funds. She stated this document
was created at a meeting with facilitator Carl Neu, with whom they had discussed ideas for
funding of these projects. She stated they have also touched on these issues at other Council
meetings. She reiterated this was not a case of the Council failing to inform the public. She
commented that the pubic is welcome to come down, tune in, and inquire regarding the meaning
of these things.
Mayor Coughlin added that this topic has been mentioned in an article in the Focus Newspaper
in the last month, and in addition, was the subject of considerable discussion during the
"Conversation with the Mayor" program on cable access. He stated, not only are these meetings
being re-broadcast over and over, but he has been very vocal on this issue, and understands the
controversy behind it. He stated if they can do better they will, they will take suggestions, and
do something. He stated he has pushed to continue televising the Work Sessions when someone
had requested to have them removed. He reiterated he has put all of the commissions on cable so
that the citizens can view these issues from their home, as they realize that a lot of people are
busy, and don't have time to sit through these lengthy meetings. He stated they were trying, and
hope to continue on that open forum path.
There was no further public input.
Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 9:27 p.m.
2. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance.
Council Member Stigney noted Mayor Coughlin's comment regarding an article published in the
Focus Newspaper, and stated he did not believe there was any mention of the proposed increase
from 2.5 to 4 percent to the franchise fee. He stated he had called and left a message with the
newspaper to attempt to notify the public, and was informed that the time frame was such that
they could not do publish this information. He stated he had also informed the New Brighton
Bulletin, and the St. Paul Pioneer Press. He noted there were no published hearings in any of the
newspapers. He stated at the City Council meeting of September 13, they had discussed the
franchise fee, and perhaps carrying as it is, however, no residents he has spoken to were aware of
the proposed increase. He added that a poll of the audience would indicate they were all
informed via telephone call. He stated the information provided to the residents is poor, and to
proceed on this basis, without further notification of the public is, in his opinion, intolerable.
Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 30
Council Member Stigney advised that the franchise fee is only one pay option, and he hoped to
• have the opportunity to discuss the other alternatives. He made a motion to pass ordinance 641
and 643 at 2.5 percent to sunset in a year. He stated this would provide time to inform the
residents and receive their input, and determine which direction to take. He stated all were aware
that a problem exists, and there is a need to create funding for street reconstruction projects,
however, they have not examined the plan, the revenue sources, the costs or any of these factors.
He stated it would be premature to pass the franchise fee increase at this time. He added he did
not believe it would be harmful if the Council desired to dedicate a portion of the 2.5 percent fee
to the streets, and he would not oppose this.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/ To Adopt Ordinance 641, an Ordinance Implementing
a Franchise Fee on Northern States Power Company Electric and Natural Gas Operations Within
the City of Mounds View, and Ordinance 643, an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on
Reliant Energy Minnegasco Natural Gas Operations Within the City of Mounds View, at the
Rate of 2.5 Percent, to Sunset in One Year.
Motion failed for lack of a second.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Waive the Readings and Approve Second Reading and
Adoption of Ordinance 641, an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Northern States
Power Company Electric and Natural Gas Operations Within the City of Mounds View, and
Ordinance 643, an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Reliant Energy Minnegasco
Natural Gas Operations Within the City of Mounds View, at the Rate of 4 Percent, to Sunset in
• the Year 2000.
Council Member Stigney explained as the Council was not aware of how much money is
required, or when it will be required, this one year only fund will not do anything for street
reconstruction, and this will be an ongoing issue. He explained the interest accrued on the City's
Tax Increment Funds is 2.4 million dollars, and this could be channeled toward the
reconstruction costs rather than implementing an additional franchise fee. He stated within the
three year time frame discussed for road reconstruction projects to continue, they must have an
idea of which roads require reconstruction, which are MSA, what is the shortfall of necessary
funds, and what money are they attempting to make up, in what period of time. He noted, if this
is an ongoing consideration, and he was certain they would be constructing roads for many years,
the golf course was planned to begin to provide money to the City after 16 years, in the year
2015, which could be a good source of revenue. He stated Tax Increment Financing District
expirations will occur in the year 2015, and all of that money could go back into the tax base.
Council Member Stigney explained that the creation of a fund that will sustain itself, i.e., a 30-
million dollar fund, this was not realistic, and would never occur by increasing the franchise fee
to 4 percent. He stated the issue to consider is cash flowing the projects, and that is to determine
what money is needed when, and what is the best source for obtaining it, rather than increasing
the franchise fee.
Council Member Stigney reiterated there has been no communication in terms of notifying the
• residents of this proposal, and if they support it, so be it, however, in lieu of any support from the
residents, he opposes this action.
Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 31
City Administrator Whiting stated the ordinances which were provided to the Council Members'
• should indicate not only 4 percent, but a sunset date which was originally drafted as the year
2001. He pointed out that the discussion at the prior Work Session, and that date, has indicated a
sunset in the year 2000.
Mayor Coughlin asked the motioner and seconder if they would agree to an amendment of the
sunset dates as stated.
Council Members Quick and Marty agreed.
Council Member Stigney noted there was also a Special Projects fund by which they were going
to loan $200,000 to the golf course. He stated he was not aware what the total of that fund was,
however, this is also a possible revenue source, rather than increasing the franchise fee without
proper notification of the residents.
Mayor Coughlin explained that the interest of this fund is presently utilized in entirety to perform
chip seal and other road repairs.
Council Member Marty stated the one year sunset period had come forward during a Work
Session discussion of the issue. He explained the reason he had suggested one year increments
was because he did not desire to saddle a future Council with a decision that this Council has
made, as they have found to be the case in a number of situations. He noted Council Member
Stigney had indicated, and he agreed with him, that each Council should have the right and
. ability to make their own decisions, if another Council is able to find a better solution, this one
year sunset does not he their hands.
Council Member Stigney noted this fund was to be set up as a perpetual fund for street projects
only, and would not be utilized for any other purpose. He asked the City Attorney if it was true
that the City Council, on an enactment of three out of five Council Members, can change
whatever they want to do in regard to an ordinance.
City Attorney Riggs explained there are cities that have set up funds they agree to abide by, and
there are means to craft language, which restrains the ability of any Council to amend the
ordinance.
Council Member Stigney inquired if there were means to draft the language to insure that future
Council's would have to abide by whatever the present Council indicates.
City Attorney Riggs stated if that is the agreeable language of Council, they would be able to set
up funds that are restricted to that degree.
Council Member Stigney inquired if a future Council would not have the ability to overturn that
decision, for any reason.
City Attorney Riggs advised he would not go so far as to indicate that, as the City Charter
• provides the citizens the ability to undo any ordinance. He explained he could not provide a 100
percent answer that this can never be undone, however, mechanisms can be put in place which
would make it very onerous to do so.
Mounds View City Council October 11,1999
Regular Meeting Page 32
3. Vote: Stigney, Thomason, Quick, Marty, Coughlin
Ayes - 4 Nays - 1 (Stigney) Motion carried.
B. Consideration of Resolution 5379, a Resolution Dedicating the Increase in the
Franchise Fees Collected in Fiscal Year 2000 to Streets Improvements and
Maintenance and Directing Staff to Draft a Dedicated Fund Ordinance for
this Purpose.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Approve Resolution No. 5379, a Resolution to Dedicate
the Increase in Franchise Fees for Fiscal Year 2000 to Street Improvements and Maintenance,
and to Direct Staff to Draft Ordinance Language Creating a Dedicated Fund and Stated Purpose
for Long Term Fund Management for Street Improvements and Maintenance.
Council Member Stigney reiterated he had the same objections to this resolution as he did to the
previous action.
Council Member Marty requested the Council consider increasing the amount of the franchise
fee to be dedicated to the street fund.
Mayor Coughlin stated he would agree to indicate this as part of the staff directive, if the
seconder agrees.
• Council Member Quick did not agree.
City Administrator Whiting noted that the determination of this matter be up to the discretion of
the Council.
Mayor Coughlin suggested the resolution stand as it is written, and if they are able to dedicate
more money to this fund, this will be pursued.
Ayes - 4 Nays - 1 (Stigney) Motion carried.
C. Board Appointments -Two Appointments to the Anoka County-Blaine
Airport Advisory Commission.
City Administrator Whiting stated the Council has reviewed the by-laws for this newly formed
advisory commission, and the City of Mounds View will fill two seats. He stated he had put this
item on the agenda to provide the opportunity to bring it forward to the public one more time,
adding it has been published in the newspaper for anyone who might be interested in serving on
this commission. He requested interested persons contact him at the City Hall. He explained
that in two weeks, he would request the Council appoint two individuals to the commission.
Mayor Coughlin stated they were seeking volunteers for these appointments, and it is a big step
toward having some representation in this issue, and providing a good showing. He stated he
• might consider nominating himself to one of the positions, to lend his office and position to the
legitimacy of this newly founded group.
Mounds View City Council
Regular Meeting
October 11, 1999
Page 33
D Continuation of Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 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.
1. Continued Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance.
Planning Associate Ericson stated this ordinance, which has been before the Council on a
number of occasions, adds language to the City Code which clarifies that existing non-
conforming driveways would be allowed to remain, as long as there is not public safety hazard
presented with these driveways.
Planning Associate Ericson explained that the other change contemplated with this ordinance is
an amendment to Chapter 902 as it relates to rights-of--way, which cleans up the Code in relation
to the previous right-of--way ordinance that was passed.
Planning Associate Ericson requested the Council's indulgence to set the public hearing for a
Conditional Use Permit for an oversized shed to be located at 8270 Eastwood Road. He
explained the public hearing has been published in the newspaper, and notice has been sent out,
however, the item was inadvertently omitted from the Consent Agenda.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Stigney. To Set the Public Hearing for Resolution No. 595-99,
a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Shed
Located at 8270 Eastwood Road, for the October 25, 1999, City Council Meeting.
Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomason. To Waive the Reading and Approve Second Reading
and Adoption of Ordinance 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, as Amended, to Include the Date, October 11, 1999.
Council Member Stigney stated, upon close examination of this matter, he wondered if a there
might be a "loophole" in terms of providing that someone could install a driveway without a
permit or the Code, and be able to keep it forever. He explained the language appears to indicate
this, and the addition of two words may offer clarification. He suggested the addition of the
word "current" in the language which indicates "Permanent-surfaced driveways which do not
conform to the current City Code" and the word "allowed" in the language which indicates "may
be rebuilt, constructed or replaced in the same manner, fashion and location as allowed before,
unless the location of said driveway poses a significant public safety hazard."
Council Member Stigney stated this closes the possibility of a resident installing in a driveway
without a building permit, and being fully aware of it, however, would otherwise have license to
proceed.
• Planning Associate Ericson stated this amendment to the language was acceptable from staff's
perspective.
Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 34
City Administrator Whiting pointed out that the word "current," might be subject to
• interpretation in the future.
City Attorney Riggs stated it would be more appropriate to indicate a specific date. He requested
Council Member Stigney clarify his concern.
Council Member Stigney stated the purpose of this ordinance was to provide if a resident has a
non-conforming driveway, they can rebuild it in that same form, and he had no problem in this
regard. He explained, however, his concern is that if they were to "bootleg" the driveway in,
without a permit, and everyone was aware of this, but utilized the language of the ordinance to
allow them to keep the driveway. He stated he was simply suggesting language, which might
prevent this from occurring.
Planning Associate Ericson commented that previous ordinances with similar situations include
language, which indicates "existing, non-conforming driveways, as of the date of the passing of
this ordinance, (or a date specific}," which could ultimately be today's date. He noted, however,
a problem exists in that a driveway may be constructed in a location where none previously
existed, and the property owner may indicate it existed prior to the date indicated on the
ordinance, which would make this a difficult situation to enforce.
Council Member Stigney agreed, adding that if the driveway was not previously allowed
without a permit, it should not be allowed to perpetuate. He explained by indicating the word
"allowed," and indicating a date from this point forward, it would close the gap on this type of
. occurrence.
Council Member Quick commented that this might reward someone for not obtaining a permit.
Council Member Stigney stated this was what he was attempting to avoid.
Council Member Quick inquired if he was to install a driveway which meets the Code, but he did
not obtain a permit. Council Member Stigney stated that it would not be allowed pursuant to the
Code.
Planning Associate Ericson stated a number of things occur that the City is not aware of, and
people do not obtain building permits for. He stated staff attempts to resolve these issues by
requiring a building permit after the fact. He advised this would always be an issue, and he did
not believe the language of the ordinance would prevent it from occurring.
Council Member Stigney suggested the word "permitted" might be more appropriate than the
word "allowed, however, the language of the ordinance, as it is currently written, presents a
problem. He explained that if a driveway was not previously permitted, this would imply that
they did not obtain a permit for it, and it should not be allowed to proceed.
Mayor Coughlin noted a motion would be required to extend the meeting at this time.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Extend the Meeting for no More than One-half Hour.
• Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
Mounds View City Council October 11,1999
Regular Meeting Page 35
City Attorney Riggs explained the addition of today's date, after the initial words "conform to
the City Code as o£ .." would set a time frame that the Council could use for enforcement
purposes. He stated, however, as Planning Associate Ericson has indicated, there will always be
issues, and he did not think this could be addressed through the ordinance. He stated the date
would be automatically set through the adoption of the ordinance, however, when the City Code
is updated and codified in the future, the ordinances generally lose their "as adopted' dates
within the ordinances themselves. He suggested that the indication of a date in the ordinance
might be a better option, as this would provide as much clarification as is possible.
Council Member Stigney inquired if the word "permitted" or "allowed" should be indicated in
the language.
Planning Associate Ericson explained the fact that they were dealing with non-conforming
driveways would signify they are not permitted, and this language might not be necessary.
Mayor Coughlin stated it should be assumed that people are innocent until proven guilty, and
that 99.5 percent of the residents in town are good, God-fearing, law-abiding people. He stated it
was unfortunate that a few people might make this difficult for the rest, but hopefully the Code
Enforcement staff can address these incidents.
Council Member Marty suggested the date, October 11, 1999, be indicated after the words "City
Code..." in the language of the ordinance.
• City Attorney Riggs stated this would be sufficient.
Mayor Coughlin inquired if the motioner and the seconder would agree to this.
Council Members Stigney and Marty agreed.
2. Vote: Quick, Thomason, Stigney, Marty, Coughlin
Ayes - 4 Nays - 1 (Quick) Motion carried.
11. Next Council Work Session: Monday, October 25, 1999 - 6:00 P.M.
Next Council Meeting: Monday, October 25, 1999 - 7:00 P.M.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Coughlin adjourned the meeting at 10:06 p.m.
Transcribed and recorded by:
Trish Pearson
Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
•
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MO UNDS VIEWCITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MO
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
October 25,1999
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN02 P1M
1, MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER
2, ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Quick, Stigney, and Thomason.
NOT PRESENT: Marty.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
p,, Monday, October 26,1999, City Council Agenda
Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to add items to the agenda.
ou hlin stated Assistant to the City Administrator Reid has requested the addition of
Mayor C g
Consent Agenda Item F, Granting Kennel License Renewal.
N/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Accept the Septem Fr Grant ng9Kennel Locense
MOTIO
Agenda as Presented, with the Addition of Consent Agenda I ,
Renewal.
Nays - 0 Motion carried.
Ayes-4
4, APPROVAL OF MINUTES
,~. Monday, October 11,1999, City Council Minutes
Cou lin requested a correction to Page 3, fourth paragraph, first sentence to indicate "as
Mayor gh
well as three of the Parks..."
in re nested Page 3, seventh paragraph, first sentence be corrected to indicate the
Mayor Coughl q
name "Pastor Morris Vaa,gnes."
ou hlin requested a correction to Page 7, eighth paragraph, first sentence and all
Mayor C g
references following, to indicate the correct spelling of the name "Julie Olsen. 1
Cou lin requested a correction to Page 11, tenth paragraph, first sentence, and al
Mayor gh
ar, references following, to indicate the correct spelling of the name "William Werner, Sr.'
i m