HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 1999/11/15PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
., , November 15, 1999
Mounds View City Hall
-^ 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
7:05 P.M.
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Marty, Quick, Stigney and Thomason.
NOT PRESENT: None.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A. Monday, November 15, 1999, Amended City Council Agenda
Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to add items to the agenda.
Mayor Coughlin requested Item I, Airport Commission Appointments, be considered at the
beginning of Council Business. He stated the one of the two appointees for whom he is seeking
approval was present.
Mayor Coughlin requested the addition of Item J, Cable Broadcast Policy of Meetings in
Mounds View to the agenda.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Accept the November 15, 1999, Amended City Council
Agenda as Presented, with the Addition of Item 10 J, Cable Broadcast Policy of Meetings in
Mounds View.
Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Monday, October 25, 1999, City Council Minutes
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 3, seventh paragraph, last sentence, to indicate
"...one half more noise."
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 6, second paragraph of Item 9, sixth sentence, to
indicate "...address these issues in somewhat of a brainstorming or visionin process."
. Council Member Stigney requested a correction to Page 3, fourth paragraph of Reports, second
sentence, to indicate "This includes any new, changed, or continuation..."
Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 2
Council Member Stigney requested a correction to Page 11, Motion, to omit the following: "as
Amended to Stipulate `The Stormwater from the Home be Directed Away from the Wetland to
Allow for the Runoff to be Absorbed Into the Lawn Areas Instead of Being Guided Directly to
the Wetland. In Addition, the Driveway Shall be Constructed With Enough of a Slope to Direct
Runoff to the North, Away From the Wetland. "'
Council Member Stigney requested the vote tally on Page 17 be deleted.
Council Member Stigney requested a correction to Page 18, third paragraph, first sentence, to
indicate "... go over the TIF plan for the City, that it was somewhat premature to take the first
steps toward making a loan to the golf course."
Council Member Stigney requested a correction to Page 18, third paragraph, last sentence, to
indicate "He recommended they hold off action until after that meeting."
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Thomason. To accept the October 25, 1999 City Council minutes
as corrected.
Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Abstain - 1 (Marty) Motion carried.
5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
A. Acknowledgement of Presentation of Mounds View Plaque of Dedicated
Service, Kitty Hickok.
Mayor Coughlin stated this item was to acknowledge the presentation of a plaque to Kitty
Hickok at her going away party the previous week, for her dedicated service to the City of
Mounds View. He read the plaque, which indicates "For 12 years of dedicated service presented
to Kathleen "Kitty" Hickok, in appreciation and recognition of her humor, enthusiastic attitude,
and 12 years of exceptional service to the City of Mounds View, with sincere gratitude."
Mounds View City Council and staff, November 1999.
Mayor Coughlin stated he and Council Member Thomason had the opportunity to attend Ms.
Hickok's going away party. He commented it was very nice to see some of the same old faces,
and some who have gone on before, and returned for this occasion, however, it seemed more like
a funeral than a party. He stated it should be acknowledged that Ms. Hickok did a wonderful job
for the City.
Mayor Coughlin stated Ms. Hickok had been employed with the City for 12 years, and during
that time, never missed a payroll, although .she had gone on maternity leave, and at one point,
contracted pneumonia. He added, regardless of snow, sleet or hail, Ms. Hickok came in to work,
and made sure that everyone was paid, and everything was put in order. He advised that
anything done consistently for twelve years should be honored, and he had indicated this to Ms.
Hickok at her going away party.
Mayor Coughlin stated he was dismayed at the number of City employees who are leaving. He
pointed out that 29 people have left the City within the past three years. He explained some of
these individuals were of retirement age, and were leaving in due course, and off to better things,
and some people truly were just with the City temporarily, and then moved up the corporate
Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 3
ladder, however, this does not account for all of these people. He commented if the City
continues to do what they are doing, they will end up with the same results, and one definition of
insanity is when you continue to do the same thing over and over, and expect different results.
Mayor Coughlin stated this was not a staff or department level problem. He explained through
the City Charter, and the organization structure, the five Members of the Council are the bosses,
and the "evil management" as it were, and it should be noted there continues to be a morale
problem in the City, caused by certain elements of the City Council. He stated as Chairman of
the Council, and as Mayor, it is his responsibility to call these things out of bounds, and at times
he has failed to do so, therefore, he would extend his apologies to staff and the citizens he
represents.
Mayor Coughlin explained that earlier in the year, an accusation made by a particular Council
Member, that members of the Police Department were utilizing their City codes to pay for
washing their private vehicles at a local car wash. He pointed out that no evidence was given to
support that claim, however, it was stated. He stated at that time, he left previous Police Chief
Ramacher to defend himself, however, in retrospect, he felt this was out of bounds, and
contributed to the morale problem within the City.
Mayor Coughlin stated there are members of the Public Works Department who come in at a
moment's notice to plow the streets, or handle sewer backups, and the like. He explained these
are thankless jobs, and these individuals are never seen, yet all of these things get done, however,
a particular Council Member has accused these individuals of misusing City resources to work
• on their cars after hours, in the shop, during the wintertime. He explained this destroyed morale,
and again he did not call this out of bounds, therefore he would further extend his apologies.
Mayor Coughlin advised that the Council Members are the leaders, and the ones who set the tone
and build or tear down morale. He stated he was aware that some individuals specifically left the
City, not because they wanted to, but because they felt they had to. He stated this was wrong,
and furthermore, it is immoral.
Mayor Coughlin advised that morale does not simply mean coming in to work with a plastic
smile on your face, it means feeling good about waking up and doing your job. He explained
when you have completed your job, you go home to your respective families, and they would
like mom or dad to come home in a pleasant mood. He pointed out if mom or dad is in a bad
mood when they return home, because of morale issues, it effects more than just the City of
Mounds View, it also effects families, neighbors and friendships.
Mayor Coughlin stated the Council is in place because of people, and there are people under the
Council who are employed to help serve people, therefore, it is all about people. He stated the 4
million-dollar budget does not simply represent numbers, but also people. He explained people
pay taxes in, and in turn, are served by those taxes being spent. He advised if they deal with
people as numbers, and do not recognize there are hearts and souls and minds beyond this, they
are remiss in their duty.
Mayor Coughlin extended his apologies to the citizens of Mounds View, and particularly to City
staff, not only those staff members who were present, but also those who have moved on. He
stated he would not take full ownership of this problem, as it was not only his problem. He
stated however, as Chairman of the Council, he has, at times failed to call things out of bounds,
Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 4
and therefore, would apologize in as much as he has helped cause some of the existing morale
difficulties.
• Mayor Coughlin called upon the Council to examine very carefully the manner in which they are
dealing with staff, and what their perspectives in the community are. He explained that staff
members are the individuals who conduct the administrative work, and none of the Council
Members are supposed to do this work, much less are able to. He advised these are talented
good, and devoted people, who want to work for the City. He stated in this day and age, when
there is essentially zero unemployment, to maintain quality people is key. He explained he did
not desire to have a group of interns or recently graduated college students in charge of
managing the City of Mounds View. He pointed out for some positions this is ideal, and
everyone has to begin somewhere, however, you can not run the entire town in that manner.
Mayor Coughlin explained he would like the Council to surround themselves with people who
are smarter, more professional, more talented, and more creative than they are. He explained this
is because Mr. Whiting, Mr. Ulrich, Mr. Ericson and Mr. Jopke, and the rest of City staff, are the
individuals who actually make the City work.
Mayor Coughlin commented the Council has the opportunity to be seen on television, and they
receive all of the accolades and the grief, however, they are not the ones who run the City. He
explained the day-to-day operations are carried out by people behind the scenes, and there is
actually a person behind the wheel of the snowplow at 2:00 a.m., who works eight hours without
a break, because the roads must be plowed for the health safety and welfare of the community.
• Mayor Coughlin stated from this moment forward, he would not allow these good people to be
accused of things they have never done, and then have to carry this unwanted and unnecessary
burden around, only to have the occasional person poke fun at them, or accuse them anew of
things they were accused of in the Council Chambers.
Mayor Coughlin advised the Staff/Council Retreat would be held the following day. He stated
one of the issues that should be discussed at this meeting is how this Council interacts, deals
with, and supports its staff. He stated elements of the Council come forward with the mentality
that everyone is considered guilty until they are proven innocent, however, this is not America,
and this is not Mounds View. He explained it is time to eliminate the negativity, and get back to
a point where staff, Council and citizens collectively can feel good about their town, and staff
does not have to look over their shoulder for the next "grenade" to be lobbed from the podium.
Mayor Coughlin indicated staff is not doing all they could do, for fear that next week they will
be attacked on television, and will then have to defend their good name. He explained this is not
necessary or warranted, and to place an honorable and noble person in the position of having to
defend themselves against accusations is not only wrong, it is immoral.
Mayor Coughlin stated he desired to acknowledge Kitty Hickok for her job with the City, and
also extended his thanks to the other 29 people, some who left for legitimate reasons, and some
who simply just fled. He stated he would commit himself anew to look at the "big picture" in
Mounds View, and help support the staff that supports the City, because to do no less would be
against his oath of office and his integrity.
Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 5
Council Member Marty stated he did not have the opportunity to attend Ms. Hickok's going
away party, as he was out of town, and he was sorry to have missed it. He stated Ms. Hickok
• would be missed. He pointed out he had heard many things from her fellow staff members and
former staff members that once City Hall began to downsize, Ms. Hickok took on the
responsibility of someone else's job, in addition to her own, without receiving any additional
compensation.
Council Member Marty stated he applauded Ms. Hickok for remaining as long as she had, and
extended his appreciation for her great contribution to the City. He stated 29 people have left the
City, and at times are not being replaced, and if the Council begins to perform the administrative
work, things will really begin to decline. He advised the City required good, qualified people to
perform the jobs. He commented Ms. Hickok was hired for a job, and performed it for a number
of years, and then City staff downsized, and she performed two jobs. He indicated now, they
must attempt to find someone else to hire for one position, to perform two jobs, and there are
problems in other areas of the City, because this is not the first time this has happened.
Council Member Marty stated staff would not go the extra mile anymore, for fear of personal
attacks or questioned motives. He pointed out there have been a number of personal attacks on
City staff, and he would apologize also, for the same reasons expressed by Mayor Coughlin. He
noted a situation he had observed as an audience member, during which he thought to himself
that he was glad he was not a Member of the Council at that time, and did not have to get
involved. He stated, however, he was elected, and elected by the people to speak for the people,
therefore, he should have spoken up in defense of these unfounded accusations.
• Council Member Marty stated he did not desire to hear any more personal attacks, slams, hazing,
or degradation of staff at Council meetings or through the newspaper. He took this personally, in
terms of communication, and he would have liked this to be communicated directly to him,
instead of reading about it in the newspaper. He pointed out the Council has made some inroads,
however, they have a long way to go, and this issue needs to be addressed. He advised the
morale of the staff, and the morale of the Council as well, is not what it could be.
Council Member Marty stated the Staff/Council Retreat the following evening would not be
televised, however, it begins at 5:00 p.m., and is open to the public, therefore, if anyone is
interested in attending, they are welcome to do so. He stated accusations have been made, and
you are considered guilty until you prove yourself innocent. He explained he would like to see
these issues confronted and resolved before they get to the point of being aired on television or
printed in the newspaper, as these are not proper forums for these matters. He added that he
hoped the Council would attempt to address this, as well as the communication issue, during the
Staff/Council Retreat.
Council Member Marty stated he personally applauded staff for all of their efforts. He
commented that prior to becoming a Council Member, he did not have a very high opinion of
staff. He advised, however, he has since become aware of the magnitude and caliber of work
staff performs, and the number of jobs performed by fewer people than were managing the City
5 or 10 years prior. He reiterated he applauds the entire City staff. He added that many staff
members have become very creative in completing tasks that were previously performed by
more individuals. He indicated he looked forward to the Staff/Council Retreat the following
evening.
Mounds View City Council November 15,1999
Regular Meeting Page 6
City Administrator Whiting expressed his appreciation for Mayor Coughlin and Council Member
Marty's kind words. He stated many people would miss Ms. Hickok, who was a fixture and
. close friend to many people, and a very reliable person, in terms of their personal interests with
regard to the payroll and health insurance questions. He extended his compliments to Ms.
Hickok who was able to provide assistance to everyone, whenever necessary.
City Administrator Whiting advised, in regard to the concern staff would not continue to give
110 percent, staff has attempted to assume neutral roles in dealing with the Council and
residents, so as to avoid any appearance of a possible politicized agenda on their part. He
indicated it was possible staff could do more, however, over the past 2 or 3 years, they have
attempted to assume a role of professionalism and work in the best interests of the Council, the
City Code, and the policies of the City. He explained that staff is not perfect, however, this has
been their objective in the past 2 or 3 years, and individuals who have been with the City longer
than he have indicated the same.
6. REPORTS
Council Member Stigney stated at the previous Council Meeting, the Mayor indicated the
Charter Commission had overspent their budget one and one-half times, and at that time, he had
taken exception to this statement, as he is a Charter Commission member and did not believe this
to be the case. He stated the next morning he discussed this matter with the City Administrator,
who reviewed the charges and billings, and determined that there were no charges made by the
Charter Commission, only charges made by the City.
• Council Member Stigney reported at the Planning Commission meeting on November 3, there
was discussion of the MSP Real Estate proposal to construct a senior residential facility, which
would be before the Council that evening. He stated the Commission considered a Special
Planning Case regarding Ordinance 642, which is related to driveway widths and curb cuts, and
this ordinance is still undergoing some revision.
Council Member Stigney reported staff updated the Commission regarding the billboard
ordinance, and discussed with the Commission some legalities regarding the use of billboards on
CRP and PF properties, in that allowing billboards in these areas may result in having to allow
them in other parts of the City. He stated the Commission discussed this item quite extensively,
and unanimously decided that the use of billboards conflicts with the basic land use objective of
the PF Zoning District, therefore, staff is preparing an amendment to reflect this.
Council Member Stigney stated two items were discussed prior to meeting proper of the Charter
Commission on November 11. He stated one item pertained to comments made by the Mayor to
the Charter Commission. He explained that several of the Commission members felt these
comments were out of order, and perhaps an apology was due, as the Charter Commission is a
volunteer organization and the members felt their integrity was being attacked in public, and
took exception to this.
Council Member Stigney stated there was also some confusion and discussion in terms of why a
declaratory judgment was entertained by the Council. He stated the Charter Commission
• members believed they had acted appropriately to staff s request to respond by a certain date,
and responded with questions requiring clarification in order to proceed with making
recommended changes to the Charter.
Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 7
Council Member Stigney stated City Administrator Whiting and City Attorney Long attended the
• Charter Commission meeting, and explained some of the legal ramifications presented, and some
of the background of these legalities, and answered many of the Commission's questions as well.
He stated the Commission members were very thankful for City Administrator Whiting and City
Attorney's Long's attendance, and wished to extend their appreciation to them.
Council Member Stigney stated the City Attorney offered to draft preliminary language to bring
forward at the next Charter Commission meeting, and the Commission would review this
language to determine if it meets their criteria for incorporating the recommended changes into
the Charter.
Mayor Coughlin stated he attended the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting at which a
number of items were discussed. He stated representatives of Walgreen's Development attended
and presented a variety of interesting ideas for use of the land located across the street from City
Hall. He indicated he was very pleased and proud of the Parks and Recreation Commission and
its constituent members for the depth of dialogue that took place. He advised the Commission
approved of the concept of the project, and that approval will likely appear in written form in the
near future.
Mayor Coughlin stated he attended the Pinewood Elementary School Facilities Committee
meeting, which is conducting ongoing research to determine where to best spend their allotment
of the 80 million-dollar bond referendum. He stated he served on this Committee both in his
• capacity as Mayor, representing the City, as well as a contractor with an understanding of
blueprints and the like, and this was an enjoyable meeting to attend. He stated he would be
attending another meeting the following morning.
Mayor Coughlin reported he had the pleasure and honor of teaching a political science class at
his alma mater, Northwestern College in Roseville, on October 29. He stated he had shared the
podium with candidate for mayor, John Kysylyczyn, who is now Mayor-elect of Roseville. He
extended his congratulations to Mr. Kishalishian. Mayor Coughlin commented this was an
enjoyable event, with much dialogue. He added he had forgotten how pointed, at times, college
students questions could be.
Mayor Coughlin reported the New Brighton/Mounds View Chamber of Commerce would meet
in Council Chambers on November 29, at 12:00 p.m. He stated he plans to attend this meeting,
along with County Commissioner Tony Bennett, the Commissioner's assistant, Joe Murphy, and
members of staff. He indicated the purpose of this meeting is to begin the dialogue regarding
what can potentially be done to redevelop Highway 10 to best serve the business community, and
make the roadway a more aesthetically pleasing element.
Mayor Coughlin stated there would be three openings available on the Planning Commission at
the end of the year, five openings on the Parks and Recreation Commission, and one business
representative opening for the Economic Development Commission. He indicated that interested
parties should stop by City Hall or telephone for an application, and advised the deadline for
application submittal is December 6, 1999.
Ma or Cou hlin su ested the Council discuss the status of the December 27 Cit Council
Y g gg Y
Meeting, and whether they wish to schedule or cancel this meeting, in light of the holidays, so
Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 8
they can indicate this on their calendars, and plan accordingly. He stated he would find it
acceptable to cancel this meeting, and request staff to schedule all items requiring consideration
at the next meeting. He stated pursuant to the City Charter and State Statutes, the Council is
required to meet on the first business day of the new year, which is January 3, in order to conduct
a few items of Council Business. He inquired if there was consensus among the Council to
cancel the December 27 City Council Meeting.
Council Member Stigney inquired if canceling this meeting would present a conflict with Charter
provisions.
Mayor Coughlin indicated the City Charter essentially states the meetings are set, however, the
Council has cancelled meetings in the past, and changed meeting dates, and he did not see this
matter as different from those previous actions. He deferred the question to City Attorney Long.
City Attorney Long advised Section 3.01 of the City Charter indicates that the Council shall meet
regularly, at least twice each month. He stated the reason this may have not come forward in the
past is because there have been other meetings, such as the Truth in Taxation meetings, which
are officially called to order during the same month. He explained the Charter is somewhat
vague as to whether or not the regular Monday night meeting is required, or if a meeting on
another night that is not subject to the regular agenda would be sufficient. He advised as long as
there were two meetings in the month of December, although the Truth in Taxation meeting
would not be the regular agenda meeting, the Council could consider other items once they are
called to order, and this would meet the requirement.
i Mayor Coughlin inquired if it was the consensus of the Council to cancel the December 27, 1999
City Council Meeting.
The Council agreed.
Sherry Gunn, Chairperson of YPartners, stated they were conducting a fund raising event with
the YMCA, called YPartners, and this event was one of the advantages of having the YMCA
manage the Parks and Recreation Commission. She stated that due to funding and the City
budget, they have an opportunity to privately raise a scholarship fund for the youth in the City of
Mounds View. She explained this fund is to be utilized for youth who can not afford to
participate in the Park and Recreation programs, however, would like very much to do so. She
indicated this fund was also utilized to obtain quality items for YMCA Teen Nights, which are
attended by an average of 50 to 60 children per night.
Mrs. Gunn stated the funds raised would remain in the community, and would stay in Mounds
View to help the Mounds View children. She advised this is a very worthwhile cause, and a
need that requires to be met. She explained there are many children, who would like to
participate on a softball team, soccer team, or play basketball, who simply can not afford to do
this. She commented it appeared there would be budget constraints in the future, and their
funding would diminish greatly, however, with the YMCA, they now have the opportunity to
raise the necessary funds.
• Mrs. Gunn stated YPartners' goal for 1999, their first year, is $10,000, and to date they have
raised $1,120. She stated call nights were scheduled for November 16, 17, 18, 23, and 30, from
6:00 to 8:00 p.m., in the City Hall, and they were in need of volunteers. She advised that any
Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 9
•
persons interested in assisting with this project would be provided with a list of names, as well as
a script, and this would involve atwo-hour time commitment.
Mrs. Gunn stated the Council Members would receive their punch cards the following day. She
indicated people who have participated in some manner with the Community Center or Parks and
Recreation would be first contacted for call nights. She explained not everyone would be called,
however, anyone desiring to donate to this fund may contact Terry Blattenbauer at the Mounds
View Community Center, in this regard.
Mayor Coughlin commented it was wonderful to have a benevolent fund for the youth. He
stated children especially, should have the opportunity to take swimming lessons, be part of a
"T" Ball league or the like, without having to worry about whether or not mom and dad are poor.
He advised this was a wonderful opportunity to give to those who are needy in the community.
He stated he had already received his pledge card, and that coffer number will go up.
Mayor Coughlin took pause to respond to a previous statement made during the meeting. He
advised that parliamentary procedure dictates you do not name a particular individual, if at all
possible, when discussing items on any board, and this is why during his statements, he never
puts forward individuals' names. He stated he finds continued attacks to be inappropriate.
Mayor Coughlin stated, in regard to the Charter Commission budget, he was prepared to speak to
this matter, after the City Attorney and City Administrator gave their reports. He advised he was
prepared to state he was incorrect in his assessment of the Charter Commission's budget, in that
items were billed to the Charter Commission, not only for their expenditures, but also for
situations caused by the Charter Commission, which required the Council to seek legal advice.
Mayor Coughlin expressed he is still concerned, having reviewed documents that go back most
of a decade, that border battles continue, and slowly but surely the legal bills and staff time
accrue. He explained that if history is a guide, nothing is really accomplished in this regard,
except the exchange of words.
Mayor Coughlin stated in regard to a demand for an apology, he would not speak to a previous
motion, as this according to parliamentary procedure, is not in order. He stated it is his belief
that his oath of office, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and that of the
State of Minnesota, demands of him, regardless of his personal beliefs, that if he sees or
perceives something to be unconstitutional, it is his duty to act. He stated to do otherwise, he
would be remiss in his oath of office, and he takes that oath very seriously.
A. Administrator and Attorney Report on November 11, 1999 Charter
Commission Meeting.
City Administrator Whiting stated he and City Attorney Long attended the Charter Commission
meeting on Thursday, to review with the Commission members the questions he had directed to
the Commission in a letter he sent in August, and attempted to address some of the
Commissioners' questions in return. He indicated there was a good discussion, which lasted
almost three hours, and he had come to a clearer understanding of the Commission members'
feelings and understandings of the issues.
Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 10
City Administrator Whiting explained they spent some time discussing the budget issues, and the
actual costs that went into the current year's budget calculations for spending. He stated it was
noted that most of this expense relates to the City's legal costs at this time, and is not necessarily
directly attributable to the Charter Commission itself. However, there was discussion that
perhaps having some better understanding going into the year, in terms of the actual budget, with
some dialogue with the Charter Commission may be beneficial. He explained this type of
discussion has not occurred in the past, recognizing however, the Charter Commission became
more active during the year, and not necessarily in time for the budget discussions.
City Administrator Whiting stated City Attorney Long has drafted the four points the Council
reviewed and forwarded to the Charter Commission. He requested City Attorney Long provide a
review of these points for the Council, and a summary of the discussion at that meeting.
City Attorney Long stated he thought the meeting with the Charter Commission was very good.
He noted this meeting occurred on Veteran's Day, therefore the Commission could not vote or
conduct any business transactions to provide a clear indication of their general consensus He
indicated there appeared to be a sense that the City Attorney's office would return with some
proposed language, however, he explained he is not the Charter Commission's attorney, and
rather the City's attorney, therefore, the Council would have to authorize this.
City Attorney Long commented there was some question as to who would pay for this legal
work, and he had pointed out that if the Council authorizes him to provide the language, the City
could pay for this. He stated on all of these points the assumption was, if the Council agreed, the
• City's legal staff would come back to the Charter Commission with some language.
City Attorney Long stated one of the four points were raised pertains to Section 3.01 of the
Charter which relates to Council Meetings, which indicates that special meetings can be called
with a minimum of 24 hours notice. He explained this provision was entered into the City
Charter before State Statutes were changed to indicate that a special meeting would have to have
at least 3 days notice. He advised the Charter Commission that on occasion, this provision has
been interpreted to indicate only 24 hours notice is required, however, State law now requires a
three-day notice, and there was good clarification of this point. He stated there appeared to be
consensus among the Commissioners in this regard.
City Attorney Long stated the second point raised relates to the issue of initiative and referendum
in the Charter, Chapter 5, which indicates that ordinances and resolutions may be the subject of
referendum, and has always been in the City Charter. He stated it was pointed out to the Charter
Commission that there is a series of State Supreme Court Cases which indicate that only
ordinances are the proper subject of referendum and initiatives, and furthermore, only ordinances
legislative in nature. He commented there was a good discussion regarding the meaning of this.
City Attorney Long stated there have been cases in Mounds View where this has come forward.
He explained there was some question with the Theater Project, in regard to whether or not a
resolution could be the subject of initiative, and the City Attorney's Office took the position that
it was not the proper subject, because of the case law. He stated there appeared to be some
consensus among the Commission to clarify this within the Charter, to provide there is no
misunderstanding by citizenry that although this language is in the Charter, it is in fact,
unreliable. He added this was a legal interpretation, and is not meant to imply the Charter was
Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 11
not properly drafted originally, however, given the cases which have come down, it is his
opinion they should be as conservative as possible, to avoid misinterpretation in the future.
• City Attorney Long stated the third point relates to Section 3.04 of the City Charter which
indicates that an affirmative vote of three or more members of the Council shall be required for
adoption of all ordinances, resolutions and motions, unless otherwise provided in the Charter or
by State Statutes. He explained there are certain State Statutory requirements, for example, an
amendment to the Zoning Code, whereby atwo-thirds vote, and by statutory language afour-
fifths vote of the Council must occur. He explained there are other four-fifths vote requirements
in the ordinances, and on the current agenda there is a proposed resolution to create a street fund,
which is modeled after the Special Projects Fund in the ordinance, and the resolution suggests a
four-fifths vote. He advised the City Attorney's position on this is that afour-fifths vote could
not be imposed, either by ordinance or resolution, unless the Charter permits this.
City Attorney Long stated he provided the Charter Commission another example of this, in
which a conditional use permit came forward in the City, and the conditional use permit
language required afour-fifths vote, however, the City Charter indicates only three votes were
required to pass. He stated in this situation, the conditional use permit appeared to have failed on
a three/two vote, and this resulted in a lengthy argument with the developer and his attorney,
who maintained that the Charter indicates only athree-vote majority is required. He stated the
City Attorney took the position that they could avoid legal action by clarifying the Charter
language to indicate that a more restrictive vote could be imposed by ordinance. He advised this
would provide, if the Council desired afour-fifths vote for Special Projects Funds, Street Funds,
or conditional use permits, they could implement this.
City Attorney Long indicated these three points were relatively simple, and there is language in
place which can be proposed to the Charter Commission. He stated based upon the direction
they received, if the Council so agrees, they would prepare language acting as the City Attorney,
and bring this forward to the Charter Commission at their January meeting, at which time, the
Charter Commission could either accept or modify the language.
City Attorney Long stated the lengthiest discussion at the Charter Commission meeting was in
regard to the term limits issue. He explained they had attempted to come to a general consensus
regarding the meaning of the Supreme Court case, and there were legitimate, genuine questions
and misunderstandings in terms of whether this case applied to Mounds View, or more
specifically, to the city of Minneapolis. He advised that currently the State Supreme Court in
Minnesota has ruled that by State Constitution, no city has the authority to adopt term limits
either by ordinance or by charter. He explained that the question is what to do about the current
Charter provision, which was clearly and properly adopted by a vote of the public, because at the
time it was on the ballot, there was no Supreme Court ruling.
City Attorney Long pointed out that both the City of Mounds View and the city of Minneapolis
were presented with the same question at the same time, in terms of whether or not they should
place the term limits provision on the ballot. He stated Mounds View's position, because there
was no Supreme Court guidance, was to put the provision on the ballot, however, the city of
Minneapolis decided not to place term limits on the ballot, because they did not think they were
. constitutional, which was a somewhat riskier position. He explained, however, the Supreme
Court did rule that it is not proper, under Minnesota Constitutional law, to place a term limits
provision on the ballot, or in a charter.
Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 12
City Attorney Long stated the question at hand is what to do about the provision, now that it has
. been adopted. He explained his concern from a legal standpoint is that what they attempt to
clarify all of these three points, to avoid litigation from arising by virtue of the language in the
Charter. He pointed out there were complications and some question as to if it was fair to
remove something that the public has voted upon. He advised they would not want a situation to
occur, whereby someone files for City office, and the City Clerk is essentially burdened with
having to interpret whether the Charter provision valid or invalid. He advised that either way
there is the potential for litigation over the issue.
City Attorney Long stated option were discussed, which include repealing the provision, which
was his original recommendation to the Council, or indicating by a footnote in the Charter that
the Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled this provision unconstitutional, to provide clear written
guidance that the provision is not being enforced. He stated they also discussed the procedure by
which the Charter can be amended, and there was some lack of clarity in this regard. He
explained to the Charter that the City Council was requesting them to use their authority, under
State law, to amend the Charter by ordinance, whereby the Charter Commission can recommend
ordinances, which by unanimous consent of the Council, can amend the Charter. He noted this is
atypical procedure by which clean up is performed on charter language.
City Attorney Long stated the Charter Commission had questioned whether or not the City
Council has the authority to request the language of the Charter be changed, and he explained
that the Council could request the Charter Commission to utilize its authority to bring forward
those changes. He advised that if the Council unanimously agrees to those changes, they would
become an amendment to the Charter. He indicated the changes could also go directly to a vote,
and under State Statutes, the City Council can also propose Charter amendments. He explained
that the Charter Commission has the right to review the proposed amendments, which would
then go on the ballot.
City Attorney Long stated there was discussion regarding Council's motion, which authorized
action to seek a court order to require the Charter Commission to make these changes, and he
advised that this is another avenue the City Council could pursue. He explained that if
something is found to be unconstitutional, the Council can seek a declaratory judgement through
the courts, rather than placing it back on the ballot for removal, which might be seen as an
inefficient use of the electoral process.
City Attorney Long reiterated this was a very good meeting, with many strongly held beliefs
presented on these issues, and in the end, everyone felt they had received objective information.
He stated if the Council so desires, they could authorize City legal staff to prepare the proper
language to address these four issues, and provide that language to the Charter Commission at
their January meeting. He stated this would provide the Charter Commission would not be
expending monies from their budget, but rather the City would assume the costs of preparing this
language.
Mayor Coughlin inquired if it was the City Attorney's recommendation that the Council
authorize legal staff to prepare a draft of the proposed changes, and present them to the Charter
• Commission for a final reaction one way or the other, and bring this forward to the Council.
Mounds View City Council November 15,1999
Regular Meeting Page 13
City Attorney Long stated in light of the discussion at the Commission meeting, this was his
recommendation. He stated that having specific language to respond to would provide clarity to
the Commission in terms of what is being requested, and they could then utilize their authority to
make those amendments by ordinance to the Council.
MOTION/SECOND: Coughlin/Marty. To Authorize Legal Staff to Recommend Proper
Language to Change the Charter So it is in Keeping Fully with State Statutes and the Minnesota
Supreme Court Rulings, Present this Language to the Charter Commission for a Final Response
from the Charter Commission and for the Charter Commission to Bring this Forward to the City
Council, As Amended to Indicate the Commission Report Back No Later than the February
Meeting of the Charter Commission, and If there are Any Questions, Concerns, or Points of
Order to be Made, They be Made In a Timely Manner, Prior to that Deadline.
City Administrator Whiting stated staff could complete this language within the next three
weeks, and it would be forwarded to the Charter Commission for review at their January
meeting. He stated at their February meeting, the Charter Commission would formalize their
response, if that is sufficient time, and the Council could expect a response in February.
Mayor Coughlin stated he would amend the motion to indicate the Commission report back no
later than the February meeting of the Charter Commission, and if there are any questions,
concerns or points of order to be made, they be made in a timely manner, prior to that deadline.
Council Member Marty stated he would agree to this amendment.
• Council Member Stigney requested clarification. He explained at the Charter Commission
meeting in January, the Commission would review the City Attorney's language, and perhaps
move forward with that as a response. He pointed out all items might not be able to be addressed
at that time, and during the meeting they had discussed that each of the items would be handled
separately. He inquired if the Council was requesting a bundled response, or simply a response.
Mayor Coughlin stated the Council expected a reaction one way or the other.
Council Member Marty stated there would be two meetings for this discussion, and he
understood the motion to indicate that staff would prepare the ordinances, and submit them to the
Charter Commission for review in the January and February meetings.
Julie Olsen, Charter Commission Chair stated the Charter Commission would meet in January to
discuss the issues, and City Attorney Long indicate he would be happy to return for the dialogue.
She explained at the Charter Commission meeting in November, the Commissioners had just
received their packet information, however, nothing had been reviewed other than what had been
discussed, and she was of the understanding that all were in agreement that further discussion
was necessary. She added she also understood that the points would be potentially considered
item by item. She stated it was not possible to review all of the items at the January meeting.
Ms. Olsen explained that the Commission received staff's letter in August, after their August
meeting. She stated the Commission reviewed the information in September, writing down their
questions and concerns, which required research, and the matter had to come back at the next
meeting for approval, as it requires a unanimous vote. She stated the Charter Commission does
not have legal or administrative staff to conduct the research and create the documents, rather the
Commission members do this themselves. She stated she could not draft a document based upon
Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 14
what she believed everyone said or agreed upon, and pass that document on. She pointed out
that the document would have to be brought forward at the next meeting in order to be approved.
• Ms. Olsen stated the Commission was not procrastinating on this matter, and they would attempt
to do their best, however, City staff and the Charter Commission had all agreed they would
review these points on an item by item basis. She reiterated it would not be possible to resolve
all of the issues in one meeting.
Council Member Marty indicated there would be two meetings, one in January, and one in
February.
Mayor Coughlin stated this was correct. He pointed out it was also within the Charter
Commissions' purview to meet more often if necessary, as the Council does when there are items
which require to be addressed outside the regular meetings.
Ms. Olsen stated the Charter Commission already meets more often than they are required, in
order to complete their business. She explained the Commission is required to meet once a year,
and have elected their by-laws to meet twice a year, however, they are currently meeting once a
month.
Mayor Coughlin stated he did not question this, however, the Charter Commission is able to
meet more often. He explained these items have been discussed by three separate mayors, and
three or four City Councils, and have been ongoing since the 1990's. He .stated he was not
• elected to continue to play these games. He advised Ms. Olsen, if the Commission finds they
need more time, just as in the past, it is within her purview, both as the Chair of the Charter
Commission, and as a representative thereof, to request an extension.
Mayor Coughlin stated no extension was requested previously, and he did not wish to extend this
matter out for another quarter year, as these are important issues which will be coming forward,
and may actually face the City in terms of litigation. He stated there was an amended motion
before the Council, and inquired if there was any further discussion at the Council level.
Ms Olsen interjected that the letter addressed to the Charter Commission was not in a form, in
accordance to statute, to request an additional time extension.
Mayor Coughlin advised the Council was presently discussing the motion that was before them.
He stated Ms. Olsen had indicated her opinion in this regard, however, it was necessary the
Council address the action before them.
Ms. Olsen inquired if no one was permitted to rebut his comment.
Mayor Coughlin advised there were four elected Council Members present, representatives of
the people, duly elected by the electorate.
Council Member Marty advised if the Charter Commission could not meet the deadline with two
meetings, it has been pointed out that they can request and extension.
• Ma or Cou hlin stated this was correct with reco nition that the matter be ex edited.
Y g g p
Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 15
City Administrator Whiting stated he did not want his comments to be misinterpreted. He
explained that in his understanding, the soonest a response would be forwarded to the Council
would be February, recognizing the manner in which the Charter Commission conducts its
business, by reviewing items at one meeting, and revisiting them for additional work at the next
meeting. He stated he did not intend to imply that the Commission imparted to him that they
would complete their response by February.
Council Member Stigney stated this was also his understanding, from the discussion at the
meeting. He stated there appeared to be some time pressure on these issues, however, the only
item that perhaps is subject to a time frame, is that item pertaining to votes, which might have
some potential for impact. He suggested the Charter Commission consider this item first, as it
would seem to have the highest priority. He stated, however, the other items are not much of
anything, as State Statutes appear take precedence, and the issue related to term limits is subject
to many different viewpoints, in terms of how to handle it. He stated he has no problem with the
Charter Commission, as discussed at the meeting, reviewing whatever the City Attorney presents
to them in the way of interim language, however, there was no commitment to attempt move
forward with a response on all of the issues by the February meeting. He stated the Charter
Commission would do whatever they could to resolve the issues as expeditiously as possible,
however, he does not want the Commission to be subject to the same time constraints they were
previously. He stated the time constraints were uncalled for, from the Council's perspective of
dealing with the Commission. He stated the Commission had discussed reviewing these issues
on a case by case basis, and hopefully accomplishing as much as possible, however, he did not
want the Commission to be directed by the Council that they provide a response, "or else," which
• was their impression of the previous directive.
Council Member Stigney stated if it was agreeable to the Motioner and the Seconder that the
Charter Commission review these issues and respond in whatever manner the Commission itself
deems necessary, he would agree to the amendment, however, if this is not the case, he does not
agree.
Mayor Coughlin stated this was already incorporated into the motion, and he would leave the
amendment as it stands. He pointed out that if three of these items are rather innocuous, as
Council Member Stigney indicated, it should not take long to resolve them. He reiterated that
additional time can be requested, however, it was within the purview of the Council to set a time
line, so that the operations of the City can move forward, and the issue does not continue
indefinitely.
Council Member Stigney inquired if the City Attorney would submit these sections to the
Commission so they are aware of the time frames they were dealing with. He reiterated in his
understanding, the City Attorney would bring forward interim language for the Charter
Commission to review at their January meeting, and the Commission would proceed from that
basis. He stated he takes exception to the indicated time line.
City Attorney Long stated he had focused primarily upon obtaining the language for the four
sections, Section 3.01, pertaining to special meetings, Section 3.04, pertaining to the majority
vote issue, or allowing a more restrictive vote, Chapter 5, pertaining to initiative and referendum,
and deletion of resolutions, and Chapter 4, Section 4.02, pertaining to the filing for office, in
relation to the term limit language. He stated he was not certain how the Council wished to
proceed with the time line.
Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 16
City Attorney Long stated there was discussion regarding whether or not there was some sense
of urgency to resolving these issues, and this question is difficult to answer, in that as soon as
you indicate there is not, the issues are likely to come forward. He indicated the problem from a
legal standpoint is that if action is not taken, there is a question as to why, and this may present a
problem.
Council Member Marty moved to close off debate and call for the vote.
Ayes - 4 Nays - 1 (Stigney) Motion carried.
Mayor Coughlin called for the vote on the motion.
Ayes - 4 Nays - 1 (Stigney) Motion carried.
No further reports were considered.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approve Just and Correct Claims.
B. Set a Public Hearing for 7:15 p.m., Monday, November 22, 1999 to Consider
a New Tobacco License for Tobacco Empire at 2563 %2 Highway 10.
C. Approve Resolution No. 5383, a Resolution Creating Streets Fund and
Dedication of Portion of Franchise Fee Revenue to Fund.
D. Consideration of Resolution No. 5384, a Resolution Rejecting Sign Bids and
Authorizing Rebid.
E. Approve Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Roseville for Temporary
Utilization of Management Information Systems Personnel.
F. Consideration of Resolution No. 5389, a Resolution Approving Premise
Permits for the Lion's Club to Permit Charitable Gambling at the Mermaid
and Robert's Off Highway 10 in the City of Mounds View.
Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to remove Items for discussion.
Council Member Stigney requested Item C be removed from the Consent Agenda, for further
discussion.
City Administrator Whiting stated Bob Wharton from the Mounds View Lion's Club was present
to address the Council on Item F, Charitable Gambling Permit Request, and had some
information to provide regarding the Lion's Club's charitable donations within the past year.
Bob Wharton, member of the Mounds View Lion's Club, and presently the Lions Club part-
time Gambling Manager, provided the Council with a list of charitable donations made by this
organization within the past year. He stated that every two years, the Lion's Club comes before
the Council to request their premise permits be approved. He explained in addition to the State
permits, the premise permits require the approval of the local Council, therefore, it behooves
. their organization to inform the Council how they spend the funds they raise from these projects.
Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 17
Mr. Wharton stated this year, there were five different categories, which total $84,000, and the
largest amount of this money, approximately 40 percent, is directed to People and Families in
Need, which includes a $1,200 per month donation to the local Food Shel£ He stated this also
includes food certificates, Christmas and Thanksgiving certificates, and toys donated to families
in need within the community. He explained that toys are given out in the Council Chambers by
a Lion's Club member, who goes out to schools and churches and community action committees
in the area, and obtains the names of children who are needy, contacts their parents, and
determines their ages, and brothers and sisters. He stated all of these children receive a
personalized toy from Santa Claus, by appointment.
Mr. Wharton stated in recent years, the Lion's Club has also begun to fund the middle school
Sale and Ask Programs, which are designed for children with no place to go after school, and
they provide study programs, as well as some service projects. He stated additionally, they are
working with the schools to form a Leo's Club, which is essentially a junior Lion's Club, in the
middle school area. He advised that currently, there are four Leo's Clubs in the southern
suburbs, and they have been quite successful. He stated this is a club where children belong,
perform service projects, and learn how to help their community.
Mr. Wharton stated the Lion's Club's annual Easter Party, which is currently held at the
Community Center, provides treats and games for all of the youth in the community. He pointed
out that in the past year, over 400 children attended the Easter Party.
Mr. Wharton stated he would be happy to answer any question regarding any other charitable
donations the Lion's Club has made. He commented they consider themselves to be a
"Hometown Team," and the majority of the funds they raise remain within the Mounds View
community, primarily to help children and families in need.
Mayor Coughlin thanked Mr. Wharton for his report.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Approve the Consent Agenda for Items A, B, D, E, and
F as presented.
Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Abstain - 1 (Thomason) Motion carried.
Council Member Stigney stated Resolution 5383, pertaining to street funds now indicates that for
the year 2000, at least 1.5 percent of the franchise fee will be used toward future street
reconstruction projects. He stated he would move approval of this resolution with an
amendment, which specifies that 2 percent will be used toward future street reconstruction
projects.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/ To Approve Resolution No. 5383, a Resolution
Creating Streets Fund and Dedication of Portion of Franchise Fee Revenue to Fund, as Amended
to Indicate that 2 Percent Will be Used Toward Future Street Reconstruction Projects.
Motion failed.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Approve Consent Agenda Item C as presented.
Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 18
Council Member Marty stated he had brought forward Council Member Stigney's point earlier,
and asked the Finance Director if there was any possible way to dedicate more than 1.5 percent.
• He stated City Administrator Whiting had indicated they might be able to utilize TIF or General
Fund dollars for this purpose. He stated at this time, he had not received a definite response, as
the budget was still under consideration. He stated that if they were able to obtain more than 1.5
percent this would be ideal, however, this determination would come forward during the budget
discussion.
Mayor Coughlin clarified that within the resolution, at two points, it is indicated that at least 1.5
percent, and in his understanding, the spirit of this language is that, as much as they can dedicate,
they will, and this provides a margin to work with.
Council Member Stigney stated his point in making the amendment was to clarify that it would
be 2 percent, whereas presently no one is certain if it will be increased beyond that point. He
pointed out there were additional funds coming in from the Theatre Project and so forth,
therefore, the percentage could be increased to allocate more funds towards the street
reconstruction projects, and he believed they could easily have taken the additional .5 percent out
of the General Fund.
Mayor Coughlin explained that the Theater Project funds would not be fully realized this year,
and furthermore, all were well aware of the levy restrictions of .93 percent in the City. He
pointed out that they are fully aware of the maximum amount of funding coming into the City,
and it is incorrect to indicate there is money "sitting around" that could be utilized.
• Council Member Stigney disagreed.
Council Member Quick moved the question and closed off the debate.
Ayes - 4 Nays - 1 (Stigney) Motion carried.
City Attorney Long noted a technical matter in terms of four votes in relation to the Charter, and
thought it would proper to change that number to three, during the Charter discussion, otherwise
the resolution will indicate another four-vote requirement. He advised the word "four" should be
changed to indicate "three," in order to be consistent with the Charter.
Council Member Quick inquired if the City Attorney's comments were out of order, as the
Council is now required to vote upon the matter at hand.
Mayor Coughlin advised the City Attorney's comment is in order, as it is a point of order. He
explained that procedural questions take precedence over the vote.
Mayor Coughlin with the understanding that the vote would be made with the indication of three
votes, rather than four, as per legal counsel, called for the vote.
Ayes - 4 Nays - 1 (Stigney) Motion carried.
City Administrator Whiting advised that further discussion of this resolution would be
worthwhile, in terms of the policy implications City Attorney Long brought forward, and
whether or not the Council desired to revisit the matter. He stated it appeared the requirement of
Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 19
four votes was to provide a more rigorous test, in order to prevent a change to this matter in the
future. He stated the Council might wish to readdress this, so as not to raise an idea that this
would be an easier thing to do.
Mayor Coughlin stated this was his intention during the Work Session discussions, in that he did
not want this fund to be subjected to raiding by future politicians.
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR
Julie Olsen, Charter Commission Chair stated recently, a new sign that was voted on to be
placed in front of City Hall. She stated it was her understanding when the sign issue had first
come forward, that if billboards were constructed on the golf course, there was some means to
obtain the sign at no cost. She stated she has since learned that if there were billboards placed on
the golf course, the revenues generated would have to remain with the golf course, and therefore,
could not be utilized for the sign. She requested clarification of this matter.
City Administrator Whiting stated there was an offer made, however, the City has had to
consider a Zoning Amendment in order to allow billboards on the golf course, and this precludes
any type of deal with regard to the sign. He stated these are two separate issues. He explained if
. the Council desires at some point in the future, once the Zoning is in place, to make some
connection between the two, it likely could occur, however, there are many questions regarding
what is appropriate or not appropriate in terms of this offer. He clarified that the City had
previously accepted a bid for the sign, that bid was rejected, therefore, this item is currently
being rebid.
Ms. Olsen stated it was her understanding the only reason the new sign was considered was
because it could be acquired without having to pay for it. She stated she did not think the City
should spend any money on the sign, and was surprised to hear they were proposing to spend
almost $50,000 for this purpose. She added that one-half of the funds were to come out of TIF,
and it was also her earlier understanding that nothing further would be done with TIF, until the
"Big Plan" was dealt with, and that the Council had until March to complete that. She inquired
how the Council could approve one-half the cost of the sign to be funded by TIF.
Mayor Coughlin stated this sign was a budget item, included in last year's budget by the
previous Council. He stated the authorized amount was $40,000, which has been set aside. He
stated since that time, it has come to the Council's attention that they would not receive any bids
for signs within the $40,000 range, and the additional monies would not come from TIF, but
rather from a variety of other sources.
Finance Director Kessel stated at one of the previous Council meetings the prior month, the
Council authorized staff to take the additional monies out of Contingency for the General Fund.
Council Member Stigney inquired regarding the monies provided by the Coca Cola Fund.
Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 20
Finance Director Kessel explained the initial $40,000 funding sources included the General
Fund, with $10,000 from Coca Cola, $20,000 from TIF, $10,000 from Special Projects and
$10,000 from General Fund Reserves, which was donated to the City by an organization called
Made to Us, a year and a half prior.
Mayor Coughlin stated it was his understanding the $40,000 was budgeted out of the General
Fund.
Finance Director Kessel clarified there were three funding sources for the sign, with $20,000 to
be from TIF
Mayor Coughlin stated therefore Ms. Olsen was correct in her assertion, however, this money
was budgeted by a previous Council.
Finance Director Kessel stated this was correct. He stated in 1998, the sign was a budget item
for the 1999 Budget.
Planning Commissioner Brian Kaden stated it has come to his attention that in the past couple
of years, several employees have left the City, and morale has been very low. He stated as a
person who at times has been an adversary of City Hall, and now through his involvement as a
Planning Commissioner, and former member of the Streets Policies Committee, staff and
administration work much harder than is realized.
Mr. Kaden stated at a previous City Council meeting, a resident commented that if the City
Administrator did his job, the City would not need to hire an assistant. He stated this resident
has the right to make any .comment he desires, however, he also has the right to state that City
Administrator Whiting puts much effort into his job. He explained that when he was a member
of the Streets Policies Committee, City Administrator Whiting was appointed to act as the
Committee's facilitator, and to assist the group with organizing their ideas into proper format.
He stated City Administrator Whiting often stayed until 9:00 p.m., to assist the Committee. He
added that the City Administrator is a salaried employee, therefore, he was provided no
additional compensation for this effort. He pointed out there are not many people who would do
this.
Mr. Kaden stated Planning Associate, Jim Ericson provides the Planning Commission with their
information packets, sometimes delivering them at 9:00 or 10:00 p.m, at night. He stated these
people are working very hard. He explained that in any organization, there might be some fat
that can be trimmed, however, if you trim too much, you begin to cut away the muscle. He
indicated that a company he had worked for attempted to run a department with temporary
workers, and only two experienced people leading them. He advised that within six months, this
company lost their contract, because the quality was not there. He stated the City could not train
in an entirely new work force every three years, as this would be far too costly. He advised this
would not result in savings on salaries, particularly if you lose your customers, which would not
occur in this case, the residents would just become angry.
Previous Mayor Duane McCarty stated in the far reaches of his memory, a Federal politician
of some national note, upon leaving some office many years ago, was asked if he would stay in
the play. He stated his response, that up until this point, he, himself, endorsed was "No, there is
nothing worse than some old war horse stomping around in the wings." He stated he was going
Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 21
to break with that belief. He extended his personal thanks, gratitude and congratulations to a
staff that goes the extra mile. He stated he has also witnessed this staff working on their days off
to get things done. He stated he has observed many staffs through his 15 years of involvement,
and he holds the staff of Mounds View up as second to none.
Mr. McCarty stated staff is not where the problem lies. He stated when he was County
Commissioner, other County Commissioners from different areas of the State would approach
him, and inquire regarding the latest battle in Mounds View. He explained that this occurred in
Washington D.C. He added that when he was the Mayor, and attended State meetings, people
would also inquire regarding the latest fight in Mounds View.
Mr. McCarty stated he understood why the letters were written to the editor. He stated the
Mayor did the proper thing, however, he did not believe this was the proper forum. He stated he
would wish that this Council and these citizens could keep their laundry at home, and this was
just too important to them.
Mr. McCarty stated Mounds View is the finest City on the face of the earth, and he owes
Mounds View very much. He stated he was privileged and honored with the friendships of many
people. He stated the conversations they have been having lately are "What in the world is going
on with that guy? He makes statements right off the top of his head with no backup, there are no
proposals or alternatives, but just that they have the money somewhere." He indicated he did not
believe anything could be done about this, in that personalities are just as they are. He advised
they just have to do the best they can with what they have, and attempt to make it work, until the
next election.
There were no further requests or comments from the floor.
10. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. Council Review of Letter to Governor Ventura re: Reliever Airports Policies.
Mayor Coughlin stated formal Council action on this matter was not required, and this
consideration was simply to determine if the Council was agreeable to the language presented in
the letter to the Governor.
Council Member Marty stated he thought the letter was very good.
Mayor Coughlin pointed out he has been working with Attorney John Choi on this letter for
some time, and added that Mr. Choi is a very skillful writer.
B. Resolution Approving Fee Increases for 2000.
Community Development Director Jopke stated this item was discussed at the Council's
November 1 Work Session. He provided the Council with a list indicating fee increases for the
permits and items that come through the Community Development Department. He stated this
list was compiled to better cover the review costs, as well as to reflect the project value
suggested by the Uniform Building Code.
Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 22
Community Development Director Jopke stated one area discussed was in regard to plan check
fees. He advised that currently, there are no plan check fees for projects valued under $10,000.
He pointed out that the Council's original direction was to charge plan check fees on all projects.
He stated, however, after further review and discussion with the Building Official, staff has
concluded that projects which do not require staff review, such as roofing, siding, window
replacements, and the like, should not be charged a plan check fee. He advised, however,
projects such as garages, house additions, decks, large sheds, and commercial projects, would
require a staff review, and therefore, plan check fees would be appropriate.
Community Development Director Jopke stated another area in question was the cost of mailing
Planning Commission agendas and meeting minutes. He explained that staff's exhibit does not
make any changes to those charges, however, he has reviewed the actual costs incurred, which
exceed the fees suggested. He advised that with consideration to copy charges, staff time and
postage, it costs approximately $54 to mail agendas, and $144 to mail meeting minutes to people
who pay the annual fee, and those fees are $20 and $40 per year. He stated if the Council so
desires, these fees could be increased to reflect the actual costs incurred. He pointed out that
after the first of the year, these items will be available on the Internet, and individuals will be
able to obtain them through that medium, free of charge.
Community Development Director Jopke stated staff recommends approval of Resolution 5382,
which sets the fees for the year 2000, based upon Exhibit A.
Council Member Marty stated he would move to indicate $5,000 as the starting limit for
charging plan check fees. He added that the actual cost of mailing the Planning Commission
agendas at $54, and the actual costs of mailing the Planning Commission minutes at $144 should
be instituted, which could push people to the mternet, and alleviate staff time. He explained
there is a substantial difference in the actual costs versus the charges for mailing these items,
therefore, the City should attempt to recoup the difference, if people choose not to utilize the
Internet.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomason. To Approve Resolution No. 5382, a Resolution
Approving Amendment to the City of Mounds View's Uniform Schedule of Fees and Charges,
with $5,000 Project Valuation as the Starting Point for Plan Check Fees, and $54 and $144 Fees
for Planning Commission Agenda and Minute Mailings, Respectively.
Community Development Director Jopke requested clarification of the motion, in terms of which
projects should be charged a plan check fee.
Council Member Marty stated staff had indicated there were some projects for which a fee was
not necessary.
Mayor Coughlin stated these were specified in staff's Exhibit A.
Council Member Marty inquired if this was staff's recommendation.
Community Development Director Jopke advised that in reducing the $10,000 threshold to
$5,000, might result in a situation where some of the items that still require a plan review would
not be covered under the $5,000 threshold. He stated staff's approach was to eliminate those
projects that do not require a plan review, and not charge a plan check fee on those, however, in
Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 23
his understanding of the motion, anything over $5,000 would require a plan check fee, however,
nothing under $5,000 would.
Council Member Marty stated he was attempting to follows staff's recommendation with his
motion.
Community Development Director Jopke clarified that staff was proposing that a plan check fee
would be required on any commercial project over $10,000, and specific projects such as
garages, garage additions, house additions, and decks would require a plan check fee, regardless
of their valuation. He explained, staff does not propose there be a threshold for those projects.
Council Member Marty inquired therefore, if commercial projects should remain at $10,000.
Community Development Director Jopke advised that all commercial projects require a plan
check fee.
Council Member Marty inquired what the $5,000, and $10,000 thresholds pertain to.
Community Development Director Jopke suggested that perhaps the threshold should be stricken
in entirety.
Council Member Marty stated it appeared the resolution might require to be re-written.
Community Development Director Jopke stated the exhibit should be re-written.
Mayor Coughlin suggested, rather than attempting to determine the specific details of the
proposal at this time, the matter be continued until the next meeting. He stated a motion has
been made and seconded, therefore, it would be in order to move that the consideration be
postponed until the next meeting.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomason. To Postpone Consideration of Resolution No. 5382
Until the November 22, 1999 City Council Meeting.
Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
C. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 636, an Ordinance
Amending Title 900, Chapter 906, Section 906.01, Relating to the Water Test
Requirements for Households with Well Water.
Mayor Coughlin stated this consideration has previously come before the Council, and there
have been no changes to the ordinance.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Second Reading
and Adoption of Ordinance No. 636, and Ordinance Amending Title 900, Chapter 906,
Municipal Water System, of the Mounds View Municipal Code by Amending Section 906.01,
Subdivision 2(B) Testing Required; Water Quality.
1. Roll Call/Vote: Sti ne Thomason Cou hlin Mar
g Y> g ~ ty
Mounds View City Council
Regular Meeting
November 15, 1999
Page 24
Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
Council Member Quick was not present for this vote.
D. Consideration of Resolution 5385, a Resolution Approving a Development
Review for aTwo-story, 46-Room Senior Assisted Living Facility at 2670
County Road I.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant, MSP Real Estate, has requested approval of a
development review to construct atwo-story senior assisted living complex to be located at 2670
County Road I. He provided the Council with the plans for this project, which indicate the
elevations, the floor plan, and the site plan. He stated the Council approved the conditional use
permit for this development on September 13, and also approved the rezoning of the property
from B-2, Limited Business Commercial, to R-4, High Density Residential Zoning District to
allow for this type of use. He explained that one of the requirements of the conditional use
permit was that the applicant comes before the Council for approval of the development review.
Planning Associate Ericson provided the Council with the applicant's rendition of the proposed
building, which is a two-story facility, with a brick face and maintenance free exterior. He stated
there have been some changes to the site plan, which indicate there will be a sidewalk along
Mounds View Drive. He explained there is an existing sidewalk along County Road I, and the
applicant would supply a sidewalk that would connect the north side of County Road I to
Mounds View Drive, so the residents and their guests would be able to walk the site in an
uninterrupted circular pattern. Be added this sidewalk would allow pedestrian traffic on Mounds
View Drive to access the site as well.
Planning Associate Ericson stated all dimensional requirements are met with this proposal. He
indicated the drainage plans have been reviewed by the City Engineer, as well as the Director of
Public Works, and there is significant green space on the site, which will accommodate some
storm water runoff. He stated there are storm sewers located in both Mounds View Drive and
County Road I, which will accommodate any runoff from the driveways.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant's landscape plan has been reviewed and
approved by City Forester, Rick Riske. He advised there are no plans to provide for signage at
this time, however, the applicant proposes to utilize signage at some point in the near future, and
the conditional use permit approved by the Council allows for 32 square feet of signage.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the lighting for the parking lot would be provided by 4 light
standards, approximately 21 feet in height, hooded, with 350 watt bulbs. He stated these lights
will shine onto the parking lot, and will not impact any of the neighboring residential properties.
He pointed out there will be some light spillage onto the SuperAmerica site, however, this will
be minor, and is allowed for within the City Code. He added that the proposed lighting at the
adjoining property lines in the residential district, and onto the City streets is all within the City
Code. Planning Associate Ericson provided the Council with plans which indicate how the
garbage dumpster will be enclosed. He advised this plan also meets City Code requirements.
. Planning Associate Ericson stated at their meeting on November 3, 1999, the Planning
Commission recommended approval of the development review. He indicated in light of this,
and the fact that the dimensional requirements are met, there are no outstanding issues, and the
Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 25
amount of time the Planning Commission spent on this item, both in terms of the development
review and the conditional use permit, staff recommends approval of this proposal. He stated
staff has drafted Resolution 5385, which approves the development review for MSP Real Estate
to construct their project as indicated in the plans, if Council so desires.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the resolution contains a stipulation that the applicant install
signage along County Road I, to indicate "right in, right out" access at this point. He explained it
was hoped this would eliminate any vehicles from attempting to cross lanes of westbound traffic,
to access the property at this location. He pointed out that if in the future, it appears there are
some issues with the access the matter will be revisited. He explained that the other stipulation is
that the building signage will be in compliance with the City Code and the approved conditional
use permit.
The applicant was present.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Approve Resolution 5385, a Resolution Approving
a Development Review for aTwo-story, 46-Room Senior Assisted Residential Facility Located
at 2670 County Road I; Planning Case No. 573-99.
Council Member Marty inquired if the light standards were subject to a 20-foot limit, which
issue had come forward during consideration of the Theater Project lighting.
Planning Associate Ericson advised there is no limit on the height of a light standard. He
explained that the Theater Project was subject to this requirement, because it was stipulated in
the Planned Unit Development document.
Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
E. Consideration of Resolution 5386, a Resolution Approving a Wetland Buffer
Permit for Spencer Mistelske, 2442 Laport Drive.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant was before the Council to request a Wetland
Buffer Permit. He stated at the October 25 City Council meeting, the Council agreed to
authorize a Limited Use Agreement for the applicant to construct a driveway over the
unimproved right-of--way on Laport Drive. He explained at that time, the delineation indicated
the house and the proposed driveway would be a significant distance from the wetland and there
would be no encroachment into the 100-foot buffer setback. He stated however, when the
applicant and the contractor went out the site to conduct further research, they realized there
were a number of significant trees in the proposed path of the driveway. He explained that the
applicant would prefer not to remove the trees, which is likely the City's preference as well.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant has drafted a plan that would allow for
construction of the driveway, and avoid the removal of any of the large and significant trees,
however, this plan would involve an encroachment into the 100-foot setback by approximately
10 feet. He provided the Council with the Certificate of Survey, which indicates the proposed
placement of the driveway. He pointed out that the driveway could still be installed without
encroaching upon the buffer, however, staff believes, in terms of saving the trees, it might be
appropriate to allow for the 10-foot encroachment.
Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 26
Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has drafted Resolution 5386, which would allow for the
Wetland Buffer Permit to construct the driveway according to the plans, with a 10-foot
• encroachment into the buffer area.
The applicant was present.
Council Member Marty stated it appeared the applicant might be able to construct the driveway
along the southern edge of Laport Drive, however, this would still result in the loss of a tree.
Planning Associate Ericson explained that in addition to this, the residents located on the corner
of Edgewood and Laport Drives are mowing into that area. He pointed out that if the driveway
runs along the property line, it would also run along somebody's sideyard, and the applicant was
attempting to remain at a distance from the neighbors.
MOTION/SECOND: QuickJCoughlin. To Approve Resolution 5386, a Resolution Approving a
Wetland Buffer Permit for Spencer Mistelske, 2442 Laport Drive, Planning Case 575-99.
Pam DeGross, 8133 Woodlawn Drive, stated her property backs up to the proposed site. She
stated they were not notified of this proposal until the previous week, when the survey was being
conducted on the land, and there is a 30-foot encroachment of the survey onto their land. She
stated the City plat indicates their land would not be affected at all if the applicant is permitted to
build on this site, because Favor Street is half the size of a regular street.
• Mrs: DeGross stated she was opposed to the applicant constructing a driveway upon the
wetlands, as they are very important to her family. She commented she was unaware what the
Environmental Protection Agency would have to say m regard to this proposal, particularly m
light of the proposed building location. She inquired regarding fire truck access, in the event of a
fire in this area. She stated if the driveway is as small as proposed, with many large of trees,
how would the fire trucks get through. She requested the Council consider this matter carefully,
adding that she was very concerned with the entire situation.
Mrs. DeGross stated the matter most upsetting to her is that the City has been conducting tests all
summer long in the woods, and she has inquired what is occurring, however, no one informed
them. She stated the City would be giving up great wetland for a new house, and there are
already so many houses in the City. She stated there were many other lots that are buildable, that
would not take wetlands. She explained there were many deer in this area, and a large variety of
birds. She stated if the City desired to do something with this land, they should construct a
walking path through it, so that everyone can enjoy it, however, they should not ruin it for one
house.
Mrs. DeGross stated the applicant would be constructing the driveway on an area that should be
a road, and if it is going to be a road, curbs and gutters should be installed, not just a driveway.
She stated this did not make sense to her. She requested the survey be redone, prior to any
construction on the site.
Council Member Stigney requested clarification of the location of Mrs. DeGross's property, in
relation to the proposed site.
Mrs. DeGross stated her home was located directly to the west.
Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 27
Mayor Coughlin requested staff clarify this was the consideration of a small encroachment onto
the buffer of the wetland, and the proposal would not be touching the wetlands, whatsoever.
Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. He explained that a delineation has been
performed on the wetlands, which indicates the wetlands are approximately 120 feet from the
subject property, and between 190 to 200 feet away from the proposed house. He stated the
proposed encroachment would be into the 100-foot buffer of the wetland, and there would be no
impact or encroachment into the wetland itself. He explained that the protection of wetlands is a
perpetual concern for the City.
Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has apologized they had not provided better notification
to Mrs. DeGross and her family regarding what was occurring. He explained staff was of the
opinion that it was common knowledge these lots were being actively marketed, as there are "For
Sale" signs posted, and colored advertisements in the newspaper each weekend, which run for a
month at a time. He stated staff had simply assumed the DeGross' had the opportunity to offer
on these lots, and staff has apologized for at least not keeping them informed in that regard. He
stated he understood and shared with their frustration.
Planning Associate Ericson stated with regard to Favor Street, there would be no construction,
without a verification of the location and the survey, and staff will insure that any construction
that does occur, it will occur on the platted lot. He pointed out that possibly the 30-foot Hague
lot could have been marking Favor Street, and not actually what the applicant felt was their lot.
He reiterated that prior to any digging on the site, staff would insure the survey is verified.
Council Member Quick inquired if the property directly to the north of the proposed site was
privately owned.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the City controls the property to the north of the proposed site.
He explained there are a number of lots in this location that went tax-forfeit. He pointed out that
some of this property may have been picked up with the Highway 118 construction that the City
has use deeds over. He explained there are some lots that are privately owned, that could
conceivably be developed in the near future, when the City receives the adjusted wetland reports.
Council Member Quick inquired therefore, if the proposed site and the property to the east were
both privately owned.
Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct.
Council Member Stigney inquired if there was enough access for a fire truck to get through the
driveway, as well as garbage trucks and the like to service both residences.
Planning Associate Ericson stated he would verify this with the City Fire Marshall, to insure that
the 15-foot width is adequate. He advised many properties within the City utilize long
driveways, therefore, it would not be uncommon to negotiate a large fire truck through a 100-
foot driveway. He advised however, this would be reviewed by the Fire Marshall to insure it is
• not an issue. He explained if there is an issue in this regard, staff will review the matter again,
and the applicant might possibly have to remove a tree.
Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 28
Council Member Marty stated it appears that if the driveway is constructed more than 15 feet
wide, the applicant will lose a number of trees.
• Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct.
Council Member Thomason requested staff clarify that, in terms of encroachment onto the
DeGross' property, staff would verify the survey with the County Plat Map and surveys prior to
any construction commencing on the proposed site.
Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. He pointed out that verification of this was
fairly simple in that there are three lots, and from the easternmost lot on Edgewood Drive, if they
were to measure back 90 feet, an additional 83 feet, and another 91 feet, they will arrive at the
edge of the property. He advised that within a few inches, staff would be very certain of the
location of the property lines. He explained if the construction appears to be occurring beyond
those property lines, staff will definitely be aware of this, and there should be no concerns about
the applicant encroaching 30 feet beyond his property.
Mayor Coughlin requested staff clarify that the motion, as it stands, is simply to approve a
Wetland Buffer Permit to allow for the driveway to skirt the edge of the buffer, in order to save
the large trees. He stated there would be continued development analysis by staff, prior to the
issuance of any permits or any construction.
Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct.
• Mayor Coughlin advised that the question before the Council was whether or not to approve the
Wetland Buffer Permit.
Council Member Marty inquired if this matter would come back to the Council prior to any
construction on the proposed site.
Mayor Coughlin stated the matter would proceed to the Building Inspector and Community
Development Department and professional staff to conduct all the plan reviews, prior to the
issuance of building permits, as is standard procedure.
City Administrator Whiting explained for the benefit of the residents in the area, the Council has
discussed this area because of the many requests the City has received regarding the potential for
development. He stated there was some discussion regarding this matter o provide the City
would have a coordinated response or position in terms of land use in the area. He stated he
thought it would be worthwhile, at some point in the future, to bring the residents into the
discussion, through a series of meetings that can be incorporated into the discussion. He pointed
out the discussion has at this point been very preliminary, with some markings and survey stakes,
and some of the wetland delineation which has come forward, and this has also been taking place
on the north side of Highway 118. He indicated, however, he was not aware of a specific plan
for this area at this point. He inquired if there were any substantive changes in the
Comprehensive Plan in terms of this area.
. Community Development Director Jopke stated there is some language in the Comprehensive
Plan that pertains to potential development in the area.
Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 29
Mrs. DeGross stated their property is located on the west side of the woods, and they have no
reason to be on the east side, and were not aware that the land was for sale. She stated they were
only recently informed that the owner of the subject property had gone to the neighbors and
offered the land to them, and had they known this, they would have purchased the property.
•
Mrs. DeGross stated the buffer area was essentially the wetland, and with the current
development in Mounds View, they have already taken so many wetlands from Mounds View.
She requested the Council carefully consider their vote upon this matter. She reiterated she was
not aware of the Environmental Protection Agency's involvement in this matter, and she was
very concerned.
Mayor Coughlin stated the Council is not dealing with wetlands. He clarified this consideration
pertains to the buffer, and it is within the City's purview to set the amount of buffer area. He
explained that Mounds View's wetland buffer, at 100-feet, is actually quite large compared to
most cities in the Metropolitan area, and this is simply a buffer zone to highlight the fact that
there is a wetland in the area. He reiterated that the land in question is not a wetland, and the
Council Members, as they have indicated on many occasions, are very sympathetic to the
wetland issue.
Council Member Quick advised the buffer is primarily an area which provides another layer of
scrutiny over the property, and its primary function is to provide the City further opportunity to
scrutinize any development in the area. He stated he was not aware of any loss of wetlands in
the City within the last 15 years. He added that with the Rice Creek Watershed District
regulations, and other laws that have come down, if anything, the wetlands have increased. He
noted since he has been on the Council, the City either controls, or has purchased through
different means, a large portion of the wetlands, therefore, they are in public hands.
Council Member Marty inquired if this property was not also discussed in the spring of the year,
and another applicant had wanted to construct a driveway, however, that request was denied
because through the paving of the driveway it would become a City street.
Mayor Coughlin explained that the land was not as well delineated at that time, and there was
some question as to where the buffer zone was located.
Council Member Marty inquired if the delineation was current, and being performed by John
Hammerschmidt.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the delineation before the Council was current as of
September or October. He pointed out this was not Mr. Hammerschmidt's project, which would
be a reflection of the entire watershed area, which will look at the boundaries and the buffer for
north and south of new Highway 10.
Ayes - 4 Nays - 1 (Marty) Motion carried.
~J
F. Approval of Amendment to City Attorney Retainer and Non-Retainer
Agreement.
City Administrator Whiting stated staff spent some time with City Attorneys Bob Long and Scott
Riggs during the last several weeks attempting to address some issues related to retainer and
Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 30
non-retainer questions. He stated they have compiled clerical policies that would be instituted
pending approval of the Council, pertaining to the overall retainer of the City Attorney's Office.
i City Administrator Whiting provided the Council with an e-mail from Attorney Riggs to himself,
as an example of this policy. He stated the second page of the e-mail correspondence indicates
the Purchasing Authority Policy staff has drafted and included in the consideration of the entire
Personnel Policies Manual. He explained that these policies were intended to provide some
direction, in terms of the use of the City Attorney.
City Administrator Whiting stated the general conditions of the retainer do not greatly differ
from the previous conditions, and basically, they indicate a $3,000 per month retainer for general
City work. He pointed out however, some of the questions that have come forward have
probably arisen out of what is considered to be non-retainer work. He stated the proposed
system, which is currently being practiced, provides that if a certain type of work the City
Attorney performs is outside of the retainer, the appropriate member of staff or Council,
depending upon the issue, would have to grant approval, prior to taking any action.
City Administrator Whiting stated staff indicated by notation that the information provided the
Council in their packet was somewhat different from what they have worked on in the interim,
however, this information is somewhat substantive, and staff is recommending approval of this
amendment.
City Attorney Long stated the changes were indicated in two sentences added to the Council's
information, which were both good suggestions made after the meeting with staff. He explained
that a sentence would be added under the first paragraph in Item B of the Agreement, to indicate
"The non-retainer matters will receive prior approval from the City, on the agreed upon e-mail
approval form, before work begins on the matter." He advised that this provided a good example
of situations in which they were not necessarily focused upon communication. He explained that
an issue might come forward regarding the review of an easement, or the review of a survey for a
private development, and they would open this up in an a-mail, non-retainer file because of the
agreement, and were just doing this automatically. He stated staff raised a good point in that
they were uncertain as to when the non-retainer clock started running, and now they have a good
system in place, which indicates this.
City Attorney Long pointed out the other change, which is also to the City's benefit is the
addition of a sentence to Page 3, Item 6, which indicates "If the City has to pay any portion of
this cost, the City's portion will be billed at the lower rate." He stated Finance Director Kessel
pointed out that if there is a dispute, and they are unable to collect the money from a third party,
this policy would promote they collect the money from the private developer, who is causing the
legal bills to be incurred. He explained this would be billed at the standard third-party rate. He
stated the premise is that all of the costs would be paid for by the third party, however, in an
instance where work is performed, and the City for some reason has to pay for that, it would be
billed at the lower rate.
City Attorney Long stated they have enjoyed working for the City, and there has been much
work in the last several years, in terms of the Community Center, the budget, and other such
matters, which generate legal bills. He stated they do not like to see the bills be higher than what
they have been in the past. He stated it was always enjoyable to be involved with some of the
issues such as the golf course and the Airport litigation, and he was personally very happy with
Mounds View City Council November ]5, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 31
this, because it serves to keep the retainer at the same level. He explained that if the non-retainer
items are handled properly, they would be able to collect the majority of those fees from the third
parties, unless the City decides to take on a project of their own.
Council Member Marty stated this document clarifies a number of issues. He stated the
Purchasing Authority Policy is good, and the rates are very fair.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Approve Amendment to City Attorney Retainer and
Non-Retainer Agreement.
Council Member Stigney stated he was not certain why some of the items listed under non-
retainer work, were not covered by the retainer, for example, the review of Charter Commission
questions, research of matters pending meetings, facilitation of City Council and Charter
Commission issues, and so forth. He indicated he was concerned why these items would not be
considered the normal retainer type work in representing the City.
City Attorney Long stated since 1995, when he became City Attorney, the six non-retainer items
listed have always been non-retainer. He stated that none of the categories are new in the
agreement. He explained the first six items are considered retainer because whether he works on
them for one hour or six hours with staff everyday, they are all included within the monthly
retainer. He stated this is provided because they want staff to have some certainty in the budget,
and don't want to discourage staff from calling and obtaining legal advice. He explained the
other six items are non-retainer, and are all, in their opinion, special project related, such as real
estate transactions and TIF documents. He added that the EDA is outside of the City, and tends
to generate more legal review because of statutory issues. He explained that labor and
employment matters, such as a personnel questions would not fall under the non-retainer,
however, if there is a termination proceeding, this would open up anon-retainer file, because it
becomes something they can not measure during the course of their time in civil litigation. He
stated the revision of the personnel policies is designated to the special projects, because it
becomes somewhat of a moving target, and is not simply the drafting of ordinances or
resolutions. He explained that all of the non-retainer items are deemed to be special project
related, some of which will be paid by third parties, some of which would be a special non-
retainer project. He reiterated these were not new non-retainer categories, however, they desired
to identify for staff the items that would fall into that category.
Council Member Stigney inquired if there was one contact person within the firm, which would
allow the City to avoid having two people research the same issue, and provide there is no
duplication of effort and duplication of costs.
City Attorney Long stated they were fairly confident there were no duplications of services. He
explained that the initial contacts of City staff are filed through City Attorney Riggs at this point.
He explained he has begun to do more legislative practice in the previous year, and does not wish
to leave calls unanswered on his voice mail for an extended period of time. He stated he has
directed the majority of these calls to City Attorney Riggs, who is performing much of the day to
day contact with staff, and he will leave a voice mail or e-mail if there is an issue, which requires
further review.
Cit Attorne Lon ex lained that Cit Attorne Ri s is handlin all matters u to the oint
Y Y g p Y Y gg g P p
where an issue might be regarding something for which he has some special knowledge, or there
Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 32
is a need for senior attorney oversight. He indicated if the matter is an ordinance draft, City
Attorney Riggs reviews the first draft, and he reviews the final draft. He stated he did not
believe they were double billing for these items, and the non-retainer items would have only one
attorney working on it, unless it is a litigation matter, where you might have a senior attorney
and associates conducting research.
Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
At this time, Mayor Coughlin stated the meeting deadline was approaching, and in
acknowledgment of Council Members who were fighting illness, requested the Council keep the
meeting to the 10:00 deadline.
Council Member Marty suggested consideration of Item H at this time.
Mayor Coughlin inquired if it was the consensus of the Council to consider Item H at this time.
The Council agreed.
G. Review Y2000 Budget.
Mayor Coughlin inquired if staff would be of the opinion, to the extent that the Council has not
reviewed the entire budget at this point, that the Council required additional time to spend on this
item. He stated if more time was needed, the Council could schedule a Special Budget Work
Session, prior to the Public Hearing the following Monday, at 4:30 p.m.
Council Member Thomason stated she had a third opportunity to review the budget, and the
majority of her questions have been more than adequately answered by staff, therefore, she did
not reasonably assume there would be anything further to address at that point.
Council Member Stigney stated as he was not aware of the nature of Council Member
Thomason's questions, or the responses to these, therefore, he would like copies of this
information.
Council Member Marty suggested if the Council Members were available, he believed a 4:30
meeting would allow some time to discuss the budget, rather than attempting to push the
discussion through at that late hour.
City Administrator Whiting stated one of the items that should be reviewed during the budget
discussion is the Community Center. He explained the Community Center has had a connection
to the General Fund in the past two or three years, and this is proposed again for next year. He
stated the implications of that should be well understood, particularly by the three new Members
of the Council, who have not dealt directly with that in the past.
City Administrator Whiting stated the Council could indicate a pay plan for the upcoming year,
and would be considering two union contracts, and the third collective bargaining agreement,
which is actually in its second year. He noted staff is presently conducting legal work in this
.regard, and they will not be aware of the results of the union negotiations, however, there will be
athree-percent budgeted increase in overall wages. He pointed out they may be receiving some
Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 33
difficult news in the future regarding health insurance, and although the City has a cap, this does
tend to affect the employees.
• City Administrator Whiting stated there should be some discussion in regard to the franchise fee,
and what can be done beyond 1.5 percent, and particularly as it relates to the contingency amount
at the end of the budget. He stated they have been discussing some options in terms of the Street
Light Utility Fund, which could be examined more closely, because they have not had the same
number of requests for new street lights, and perhaps some type of a rate credit could be
considered. He added that to some extent, this discussion could also include the golf course
interfund loan, which they would like to process, and within the next few meetings, attempt to
hold another Work Session in that regard, and a noticed Council meeting for citizens who are
interested in that.
Finance Director Kessel stated he had distributed an overview of the information that will be
presented at the November 22, 1999 meeting, which will be presented on a computer overhead
projector. He stated there would be a summary of the budget in the Mounds View Matters. He
indicated if the Council Members had any questions regarding the budget, they should submit
them within the next few days, to provide staff can conduct the necessary research and provide
the answers, and hopefully present a budget that everyone will be comfortable with.
Council Member Stigney requested Finance Director Kessel provide information regarding how
current tax revenues at the Theater Project, and prof ected revenues in the year 2000.
Finance Director Kessel stated the total tax revenue at the Theater Project will remain the same,
however, the tax capacity will increase. He inquired if Council Member Stigney was requesting
information regarding the tax capacity.
Council Member Stigney stated he would like to know the effect of the change.
Finance Director Kessel stated the total dollars that come in to the City will be the same, and
there will be no impact, other than possibly lowering the rate. He stated the County has provided
information, which indicates residential properties would see an approximate 2 percent decrease,
and commercial and industrial properties would see an approximate 10 percent decrease in what
they are paying in taxes, in pay 2000, versus pay 1999. He advised however, there will be no
additional dollars coming into the City as a result of this.
City Administrator Whiting suggested staff could indicate what the Theater Project is likely to
pay in taxes.
Finance Director Kessel stated staff could provide the amount of tax the Theater Project
generates. He reiterated, however, there will be no additional dollars coming into the City. He
pointed out that there was a Building Permit fee increase that did come to the City, but that
occurred quite some time ago.
Council Member Marty stated the tax at the Theater Project would probably be less this year.
• Finance Director Kessel stated last year, it was undeveloped properties, and there would not have
been significant taxes collected, and this is the first year the project itself will come into play.
Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 34
Council Member Stigney stated he was somewhat unclear on this issue, in that there is 20
percent of that tax money which comes to the City in one form or another, and he is asking what
the dollar value of that is.
Finance Director Kessel stated if Council Member Stigney wanted to know what taxes that
parcel has generated this year versus last year, that information can be provided.
Council Member Stigney stated this was what he was requesting. He explained he would like
this information as compared to that of an average $115,000 home.
City Administrator Whiting advised staff could research the value of the property, relative to the
tax base, and provide some numbers on the overall tax base of the City. He stated they can then
provide information regarding the current tax base, and the projected tax base of 2000, and
compare the rates, and provide a specific write down of the Theater Project, in terms of what
they actually pay in taxes.
Mayor Coughlin stated it was the consensus of the Council to direct staff to post a special
meeting for 4:30, the following Monday, as per open meeting law.
H. Resolution Appointing City Voting Delegate and Alternate for Congress of
Cities Policy Adoption Voting at NCC Conference.
Mayor Coughlin stated this consideration was in regard to the National Congress of Cities
Conference that Council Member Thomason and City Administrator Whiting will be attending.
He explained the resolution grants voting rights to Council Member Thomason for the remainder
of her stay at that convention, and for City Administrator Whiting to act as alternate, if Council
Member Thomason is not available.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Approve Resolution No. 5388, a Resolution
Appointing City of Mounds View Voting Delegates for policy Adoption Voting at the Congress
of Cities Conference, Los Angeles, California, December 4, 1999.
Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
I. Airport Commission Appointment.
Mayor Coughlin presented the Council with his memorandum, which indicated he was seeking
Council approval of the appointments of James Harrelson, Woodlawn Drive, and Sharon Croon,
Eastwood Road, to the newly created Airport Commission. The memorandum further indicated
these appointments would each be for two-year terms, ending on December 31, 2001.
Mayor Coughlin stated Mr. Harrelson was present, and was welcome to address the Council, if
so desired.
Mr. Harrelson stated he was available to answer any questions the Council may have regarding
his qualifications for this position. He stated he was a former pilot, and a resident of Mounds
View, for the last two and a half years. He indicated he is the manager of the Woodlawn Terrace
Apartments, and previously was the manager of an apartment complex located directly north of
Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 35
•
the airport, therefore, if there is any question regarding whether or not he is in favor of airport
noise, his response would be a resounding "no."
Mayor Coughlin stated he had spoken with Mr. Harrelson regarding many different topics, and
found him to be very reasonable and knowledgeable, both as a pilot, and also as someone who
has experienced the negative side of the airplanes, which is the noise. He stated he
enthusiastically supports Mr. Harrelson as one of his appointees.
Council Member Stigney stated from what he had just heard, Mr. Harrelson appeared to be a
very good individual to have on the Airport Commission. He indicated that Sharon Croon would
also be a very good advocate, as she resides on the north end of his block, which is the closest
street to the airport, and the noise she hears is approximately 10 blocks closer to the airport than
what he hears. He stated he also fully supported Sharon Croon, and believes she will do a great
job.
Mayor Coughlin stated he had also spoken to Mrs. Croon on several occasions, regarding various
issues, and found her to be a delightful person to speak with, as well. He indicated Mrs. Croon
was very knowledgeable in many areas, including airport noise.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Stigney. To Approve the Appointment of James Harrelson and
Sharon Croon to the Newly Created Airport Commission.
Ayes - 5 Nays - 4 Motion carried.
J. Cable Broadcast Policies of Meetings.
Mayor Coughlin inquired if, in light of the time, the Council would consent to continue this Item
for consideration at the next meeting of the City Council.
The Council agreed.
11. Next Council Work Session:
Next Council Meeting:
Next Public Hearing:
12. ADJOURNMENT
.Monday, December 6, 1999 - 6:00 P.M.
Monday, November 22, 1999 - 7:00 P.M.
Monday, November 22, 1999 - 6:00 P.M.
Mayor Coughlin adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
Transcribed and recorded by:
Trish Pearson
Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.