Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 2000/05/22PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting ~ ~"~ ~ $ 5 ~, -~ ~ May 22, 2000 " ~ ~# ~~ ~'°~ ~ Mounds View City Hall 7:03 P.M. d. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Marty, Quick, Stigney and Thomason. NOT PRESENT: None. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Monday, May 22, 2000, City Council Agenda Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to add items to the agenda. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Coughlin. To Accept the May 22, 2000, City Council Agenda as Amended. Mayor Coughlin requested the addition of the Consideration of Resolution 5445, Appointing Barbara Thomas to the vacated seat on the Planning Commission. Council Member Quick accepted this friendly amendment. Interim Administrator Ulrich requested Item 10-G, the Consideration of Approval of First Tee Letter of Intent, be removed from the Agenda. The Motioner and Seconder agreed. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Monday, May 8, 2000, City Council Minutes Mayor Coughlin stated several of the Council Members have not had an opportunity to review ' the City Council Minutes of May 8, 2000, therefore, ~e would request the consent of the Council +i to hold over the approval of the~~,,~,~ext meeting. ~' ~. The Council agreed. Mounds View City Council June 12, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 2 Mayor Coughlin explained that these minutes had been provided in the Council packets, however, because they were submitted late, it was requested that the Council have an additional two weeks in which to review them. ~`~ - ~ Nays -,D .. •`1 ~ , ...~_. ~ B. Monday, May 22, 2000 City Council Minutes Council Member Marty requested a correction to Page 17, second sentence to indicate "opposed to this." MOTION/SECOND:. Marty/Quick. To accept the May 22, 2000 City. Council minutes as corrected. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. C. Mouday, June 5, 2000 Special City Council Meeting Minutes MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To accept the June 5, 2000 Special City Council minutes as presented. Council Member Marty commended the recording secretary on the meeting minutes, which appear to consistently improve. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS None. 6. REPORTS Council Member Marty reported the Cable Commission has not held any formal meetings in some time, however, as he had previously reported, a proposal was initiated by this Cable Commission and forwarded on to Cable Television to air the neighboring cities' City Council meetings on Sundays. He advised that this project is still moving forward, and the Cable Commission is currently working with Media One in this regard. He indicated the City Council meetings are scheduled for broadcast on Sunday afternoons, and he would provide further information as it becomes available. Mayor Coughlin stated he has received several telephone calls from interested residents who had inquired regarding the status of these broadcasts. He noted he had mentioned this particular idea to an area Mayor who commented that the City of Mounds View was already far advanced of other cities in terms of the amount of television and Internet coverage that is taking place. • PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA ~ ~ ~ ~" Regular Meeting ~. ~, May 22, 2000 ~ ~ ~ i~ ~,. ~__ ___: _ .._ __.. Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 7:03 P.M. 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Marty, Quick, Stigney and Thomason. NOT PRESENT: None. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Monday, May 22, 2000, City Council Agenda • Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to add items to the agenda. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Coughlin. To Accept the May 22, 2000, City Council Agenda as Amended. Mayor Coughlin requested the addition of the Consideration of Resolution 5445, Appointing Barbara Thomas to the vacated seat on the Planning Commission. Council Member Quick accepted this friendly amendment. Interim Administrator Ulrich requested Item 10-G, the Consideration of Approval of First Tee Letter of Intent, be removed from the Agenda. The Motioner and Seconder agreed. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Monday, May 8, 2000, City Council Minutes Mayor Coughlin stated several of the Council Members have not had an opportunity to review the City Council Minutes of May 8, 2000, therefore, he would request the consent of the Council • to hold over the approval of the minutes to the next meeting. The Council agreed. Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 2 • 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS Mayor Coughlin stated he had written a letter of commendation for the City's own Attorney, Bob Long, and read the letter as follows: "As Mayor of Mounds View, I would like to personally commend you for your efforts above and beyond the call of duty in regard to the City's airport litigation and legislation. Having been alongside you at the Capitol almost two dozen times over the past couple of years has convinced me firsthand that you and your associates have done a great service for our City with those issues. I have been, and continue to be, impressed with your commitment to the City of Mounds View and all of its diverse issues. Again, you have my sincere thanks and appreciation for a job well done. I look forward to working with you and your associates in the future." Mayor Coughlin stated he had signed the letter of commendation, and copies were forwarded to John M. LeFebvre, Jr., President of the Board of Directors of Kennedy and Graven. He indicated copies would also be provided to the members of the City Council and the City Administrator, to be put on permanent file. He explained that this was also done in light of the fact that after what • seemed to have been time out of reach, the airport fight was now over, and the Governor signed the legislation the previous week. He stated he desired to officially thank City Attorney Long and make note to his Board of Directors that he had done a great job, along with John Choi, Jim Strummond, and others. City Attorney Long thanked Mayor Coughlin for his statements. 6. REPORTS Council Member Quick had no report. Council Member Marty reported the City was continuing to experience a graffiti problem, and a Special Investigator has been assigned to this matter. He requested any citizens who witness such vandalism occurring to please report it to the Police. Council Member Thomason reported she attended the previous Planning Commission meeting, and four of the five items discussed were listed on the current Council Agenda for public hearings. Mayor Coughlin reported the Airport Bill passed. He indicated he had spent countless hours on the telephone with City Attorney Long in this regard, and he was glad this battle was over. He • explained that thanks not only goes to Bob Long and all of his efforts behind the scenes, but also to the City's representatives, Senator Steve Novak, and Representative Barbara Haake, who have Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 done a fantastic job for the benefit of the City. He commented that words could not suffice in describing the efforts of those two individuals. Mayor Coughlin indicated that at the Council Work Session, the Council was asked if they would be agreeable to holding a reception for Senator Novak and Representative Haake, along with City Attorney Long and his associates, in order to provide them with public access so that the citizens of the community, as well as the Council, could thank them for their sacrifice and their service to the City. He stated Assistant to the City Administrator Reed had indicated Wednesday, June 9"', from 5:30 to 7:00 p.m., would appear to work for everyone's schedule. He stated the reception would be held in Council Chambers so that the presentation, or at minimum, a portion of the dialogue might be televised for citizens who were unable to attend. He inquired if it would be the consent of the Council to hold the reception at this time. The Council concurred. Mayor Coughlin reported he attended a Mounds View business luncheon the previous Monday, which was somewhat of a round table discussion between the members of the New Brighton- Mounds View Chamber of Commerce and himself. He extended a special thanks to Carol Frey, President of the Chamber, for providing the food and coordinating this event. He added that it was hoped they could continue to maintain their contact with the business community on an ongoing basis. • Mayor Coughlin reported the Golf Course Committee met the previous week, however, this meeting was not televised at that time, as it consisted of a field tnp to examine some of the swamps and lowlands in the area that are being considered for potential development by the Rice Creek Watershed District. He explained that this meeting was videotaped and documented, and was currently being edited for future broadcast. City Attorney Long thanked Mayor Coughlin for his kind words with regard to the airport legislation and litigation. He commented he considered this to be a part of his job duty, however, there were a few close calls in the process, and at approximately 5 minutes to 7:00 a.m., he was somewhat concerned that the House might adjourn and the Airport Bill would not be passed. City Attorney Long stated he believes the congratulations really go not only to the two legislators who did a phenomenal job, but also to the entire community. He indicated their success was not due to any one individual, but rather, the strongest message to the Legislature was that this was a very important issue to the community. He advised that these efforts went back over several years, through three different Mayors, three City Councils, and from one Legislator to the next, even of opposite parties, which clarifies the importance of this issue. City Attorney Long indicated that the presence of an elected official, in this case, Mayor Coughlin, had made a significant difference, as the Legislators listened to him and Council Member Thomason, who was present outside the Chambers to discuss this issue as well. He • pointed out that in the end, the process, which appears to be so cumbersome and unpredictable at times, actually worked, and the Legislature listened to the people as represented by their Mayor and Council Member. Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 • City Attorney Long stated he would like the citizens of Mounds View to be aware of the number of hours Mayor Coughlin had spent at the Capitol, and how this really paid off. He stated he had watched the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader E-mail the Mayor of Mounds View at his jobsite to request his presence, and as a result, he was able to meet with these individuals through the Mayor, which he could not have otherwise done. He advised that this had a significant effect on this issue. City Attorney Long added that thanks should be given to the Governor as well, for signing the bill. Mayor Coughlin requested the record reflect that the Council was in agreement in thanking the Governor for signing the bill. He added that the Governor and his staff were certainly welcome to attend the reception, if they so desired. No further reports were considered. 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims. B. Licenses for Approval. C. Motion to Not Waive Monetary Limits on Municipal Tort Liability • Established by State Statues. D. Resolution of Appreciation for Planning Commissioner Ordeen Braathen. E. Approval of Second Amendment to the Ramsey County Housing and Redevelopment Authority Joint Cooperation Agreement. Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to remove Items for discussion. MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Quick. To Approve the Consent Agenda for Items A, B, C, D, and E, as presented. Council Member Marty stated in consideration of Item 7D, he would suggest all City commissioners be recognized by Resolution of Appreciation as they step down or their terms expire. Mayor Coughlin inquired if this was the consensus of the Council. The Council agreed. Mayor Coughlin requested staff note that as a matter of course, all board and commission members would be presented with a Resolution of Appreciation upon their departure. • Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 • Mayor Coughlin stated there was no unfinished business before the Council, other than to note that the Highway 10 Steering Committee would meet on Tuesday, at 7.00 p.m., in Council Chambers. He indicated this meeting would be televised and taped for future rebroadcast. He advised that the Steering Committee would facilitate public hearings at some point in the process, and citizens would have the opportunity to provide their input with regard to this issue in the very near future. 9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road stated the City has hired an individual to examine expanding the golf course. He indicated the City was having difficulty paying for the golf course as it was, and he did not believe they should invest more money into it because there were bonds that must be paid off, and the City had a $200,000 float. He explained that no one was prepared to guarantee that 18 holes would make any money, and although this had been stated with regard to the 9 holes at the golf course, it did not occur. He stated he was very upset about this. Mr. Jahnke stated he had a problem with regard to amending the Charter. He indicated he was not certain why the City would desire to change the Charter. He explained that he had watched the meeting during which some of the Council Members had indicated why they believed it was a good idea, however, he did not personally believe it was a good idea. He advised that the City has a Charter Commission to watch over government, and he had already made the Council aware of what happened in the city of Cambridge. He indicated he has spoken with many residents m this regard, and there might be some who are m favor of this, however, he has found many who are opposed. He stated he would personally fight this proposal, as well as the proposal to expand the golf course. Ron Nelson, 2174 Oakwood Drive requested the Council consider installing a jump in the park for the children who are currently utilizing the speed bumps on the side of the boulevard as a jump for their bicycles, roller blades and skateboards. He stated he takes walks in this area for his health, and has witnessed several incidents where these children have nearly been hit by the speeding vehicles that travel on this roadway. He stated he understood that the road would be widened, and inquired if the Council would consider this. He pointed out that this could assist in preventing damage to private property as well. Mayor Coughlin stated he would pass this recommendation on to the Parks and Recreation Commission, and would personally write a note to the Chair of that Commission in this regard. He indicated Mr. Nelson could contact staff liaison, Terri Blattenbauer, at the Community Center, to learn how the matter is progressing. Brad Jahnke, 8408 Eastwood Drive stated he attended a school picnic, at which the third grade class was given a tour of the Public Works Department. He indicated he had gone into the facility, and noticed that the City had purchased a brand new Caterpillar backhoe. He stated he . had desired to ask a few questions regarding the backhoe, however, it did not appear to be the appropriate time, and he was informed that the City had been down this road before, and when Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 6 • the City purchases equipment of this nature, they purchase the best so that it will last longer. He stated he did not receive all of the information he desired at that time. Mr. Jahnke stated in his understanding, the City traded in a backhoe for the new backhoe. He inquired regarding the trade in amount on the old backhoe, and why the "Cadillac" of backhoes was purchased for a City that does have a great need for it. He inquired if the Council voted on this matter prior to the purchase of the backhoe. Mayor Coughlin advised that all major expenditures were subject to Council approval. Mr. Jahnke stated many people believe there is a "Cadillac" mentality at the City in terms of buying the best. He indicated that when he had inquired, he was told that when you buy the best, you get better equipment that last longer, however, to his knowledge, there was not a contractor in the State of Minnesota that purchases Caterpillar rubber tire backhoes because they are so expensive. He explained that they probably come close in cost to other backhoes, however, the maintenance and parts are extremely expensive. He stated most contractors purchase Kumatsu equipment at half the price. Mayor Coughlin stated that as a contractor himself, he would not agree with the broad statement that no contractors in the State are buying Caterpillar backhoes or other equipment, because if they were not, Caterpillar and its subsidiaries certainly would not be located in Minnesota. He explained that if there were no business in the State, they would not be located here. Mayor Coughlin indicated that as a contractor, he was also fully aware that sometimes, especially with its purchase power through the State and other governmental agencies, the City is able to purchase items at a substantially reduced cost than a private contractor. He advised that Mounds View also has a very good repair agreement with Caterpillar, whereby the City pays a specific set rate for any downtime, and Caterpillar pays for the remainder. He explained this backhoe might be referred to as the "Cadillac" version, however, when you purchase discount equipment, you would have discount warranty work on it as well, and in his recollection, the City has already saved a substantial amount of money through the repair contract they have with Caterpillar. Mayor Coughlin stated that as a contractor, he has purchased both discount equipment, and higher end equipment. He indicated the labor saved in the long run, with a quality product and a quality company with a name they wish to stand by, may be an intangible at some level, however, is certainly a benefit to the City. He stated he did not see this as an excessive expenditure of taxpayer dollars by the City. Mr. Jahnke inquired if the City pays for the maintenance agreement. Interim Administrator Ulrich stated that if he was in anyway offensive to Mr. Jahnke earlier that date, he apologized, however, he had many things to do at that time, and did not see that this as an appropriate time or place to discuss this issue. He indicated the backhoe in question was • purchased on a competitive bid in a joint cooperation with the city of Maplewood. He stated the city of Maplewood and the City of Mounds View both had a trade in, and he did not remember the exact dollar amount of the trade in, however, part of the package was the guaranteed Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 7 • maintenance, breakdown, and buyback of the backhoe. He explained that at the end of five years, Zeigler Corporation, which handles the Caterpillar dealership in the area, would guarantee the City $45,000 for the repurchase of the machine. He noted that this price was the low end, and Ziegler would obviously have to come up with the competitive market price for the machine, with the hours of usage it has accumulated. Interim Administrator Ulrich advised that the City also had a guaranteed breakdown of $2,000. He explained that for any major component of the machine that requires replacement because it has broken down as a result of a manufacturer defect, or any combination of any parts of the machine, the City would only be liable for $2,000 worth of the cost of that repair in that five-year period, and the remainder would be paid by Zeigler. Interim Administrator Ulrich stated the guaranteed maintenance includes the costs for changing oil, greasing the machine, and preventative maintenance. He indicated the requirements for greasing the machine are based upon a specific number of hours of usage, and through the competitive purchasing agreement and the written specifications, the Caterpillar backhoe was less expensive than other machines. He stated these factors were considered in the interest of protecting the City from the costs of major breakdowns and major maintenance. He added that if the City desired to sell the machine back to Zeigler, they were aware of exactly how much the machine would be worth. He advised that other competitors did not quote as competitively as Zeigler, and that is why the City chose to purchase the Caterpillar backhoe. Mr. Jahnke inquired if the maintenance program was similar to an extended warranty agreement, which must be purchased. Interim Administrator Ulrich indicated the maintenance of the backhoe is set up by Caterpillar, which specifies that the machine must undergo certain maintenance procedures within a specific number of hours of usage. He stated the costs for the anticipated labor and materials over the course of five years would be the guaranteed maintenance. He advised that the guaranteed breakdown represents the primary benefit to the City, in that this provides that the City would only be liable for $2,000 of the expense of any breakdowns related to the hydraulic system, electrical system or any of the major components of the machine over the course of five years. Mayor Coughlin inquired if the City has utilized this guarantee. Interim Administrator Ulrich stated yes. He indicated the backhoe that is currently in the shop belongs to Zeigler Corporation. He stated there has been an ongoing problem with the hydraulic system on that machine, and Zeigler has corrected it a number of times for a relatively small amount of hours of usage during any given period. He explained that the hydraulic problem has been somewhat difficult to isolate, and Ziegler has spent a significant amount of their money attempting to repair the backhoe. He advised that Ziegler is still in the process of repairing the machine, and staff has indicated that they desire the machine to be repaired to the City's specifications and properly functioning, or replaced. He stated an enormous amount of money • has been saved on this repair, which otherwise, after one year or a specific number of hours, would have to be paid by the City. Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 8 • Mayor Coughlin stated it was his understanding that the City has already saved $10,000 to $20,000 on this repair. Interim Administrator Ulrich stated this was correct. Mr. Jahnke pointed out that these problems are not supposed to occur with the best equipment. Mayor Coughlin advised that anything created by man would be destroyed by nature at some point. He indicated he did not desire to spend an inordinate amount of time debating the merits of the backhoe at the Council Meeting, because as he had stated, and Interim Administrator Ulrich has attested to, this backhoe was less expensive than the others, and it had already saved the City money. He explained that if Mr. Jahnke desired further specifics on this matter, staff could provide this information. There were no further requests or comments from the floor. 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Public Hearing to Discuss and Consider a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Shed at 7474 Groveland Road. Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m. Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant, Phil Johnson, was requesting a conditional use permit fora 400 square-foot shed on his property located at 7474 Groveland Road, to replace a smaller shed which has grown too small for his needs. He indicated the Planning Commission reviewed this case at their meeting on May 17"', and in terms of the adverse affects criteria and the dimensional and zoning requirements for this type of use, felt that this request was in keeping with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has inspected the subject property, which is a very nice, well-maintained lot. He explained that the proposed 400 square-foot shed would be located behind the house and buffered by a number of mature trees, and a privacy fence. He indicated staff has drafted a resolution for Council action, which would approve the conditional use permit with four stipulations. He advised that the resolution was required to be recorded with Ramsey County, the shed could not be used for living space or other uses not allowed in the Zoning District, the shed would be a permanent structure and designed and maintained to be aesthetically pleasing and complementary to the house, and no other sheds or accessory buildings would be allowed on the property. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was a public hearing, and notices were mailed out to properties within 350 feet of the subject property. He indicated staff and the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the conditional use permit. There was no public input. • Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 7:32 p.m. Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 9 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Approve Resolution No. 5440, a Resolution • Approving a Conditional Use Permit fora 400 Square-foot Oversized Shed at 7474 Groveland Road; Mounds View Planning Case No. CU00-005. Mayor Coughlin stated at the previous City Council meeting, it was the consensus of the Council to direct staff and the Planning Commission to examine amending the City Code to accommodate a more realistic view of accessory structures on properties, and that process is ongoing. He noted that two of the applications on the current Council Agenda were submitted in April, and he was somewhat sickened that the residents have been required to go through so much red tape simply to construct a small storage shed in back of their property. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. B. Public Hearing to Discuss and Consider a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage at 2251 Oakwood Drive. Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 7:35 p.m. Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant, Kenneth Waste, was requesting a conditional use permit for an oversized garage at his property located at 2251 Oakwood Drive. He stated the garage would be 1,150 square feet, and would replace asingle-stall garage, which is so small the applicant is unable to park his vehicle in it. • th Planning Associate Ericson stated the Planning Commission reviewed this case at their May 17 meeting, and after some discussion, recommended approval of this request. He indicated a resident appeared before the Planning Commission at that time, and indicated his concern that the oversized garage would lead to some type of commercial activity, business, or auto repair shop. The applicant indicated he is not a mechanic, and does not intend to utilize the garage for any commercial purposes, but rather, for parking his vehicles, boat, snowmobiles, and items of this nature. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has drafted a resolution of approval for Council action at this time, with stipulations similar to those discussed with the previous case. He indicated the applicant would be required to record the resolution of approval with Ramsey County, and the garage could not be utilized for living space or other uses not allowed in the Zoning District. He stated the proposed garage would be attached to the house, and for this reason, the garage is required to have a seamless exterior, and match the exterior of the existing house. He indicated the resolution further stipulates that the existing sheds shall be removed in conjunction with the garage construction. He explained that there is one shed, which is attached to the existing garage, and another shed further back on the property, which encroaches into the setback. He advised that the applicant has indicated these structures would be removed. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of • this conditional use permit. There was no public input. Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 10 Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 7:36 p.m. MOTIONlSECOND: Marty/Quick. To Approve Resolution No. 5442, a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit fora 1,150 Square-foot Oversized Garage at 2251 Oakwood Drive; Mounds View Planning Case No. CU00-007. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. C. Public Hearing to Discuss and Consider a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage at 2832 Woodale Drive. Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 7:37 p.m. Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant, Thomas Stampfle, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit fora 1,248 square-foot garage at his property located at 2832 Woodale Drive. The proposed garage would replace a smaller garage on the property, that is 50 years old, dilapidated, and in need of repair. The subject property is nearly an acre in size, and there are a number of mature trees on this large, well-maintained lot. Planning Associate Ericson stated the Planning Commission reviewed this case at their May 17`" meeting, and examined the adverse affects, the general conditional use requirements, and the • dimensional and zoning requirements, all of which are met with this proposal. He indicated the Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit. He advised that staff has drafted a resolution for Council action at this time, which would approve the conditional use permit, with stipulations which indicate that the applicant shall record the resolution with Ramsey County, the garage shall not be used for living spaces or other uses not allowed in the Zoning District, and the garage shall be designed and maintained to be aesthetically pleasing and complementary to the existing dwelling. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was a public hearing, and properties within 350 feet of the subject property have been notified. He indicated the applicant was present. There was no public input. Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 7:40 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Approve Resolution No. 5441, a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit fora 1,248 Square-foot Oversized Garage at 2832 Woodale Drive; Mounds View Planning Case No. CU00-004. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. s • D. Public Hearing to Discuss and Consider a Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage of Materials at 4749 Old Highway 8, Ace Supply Company. Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 11 • Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 7:41 p.m. Planning Associate Ericson stated Bruce Hasselbring, representing ASC Properties, is requesting a conditional use permit for outdoor storage at their facility located at 4749 Old Highway 8. The property is zoned I-1, Industrial, and any outdoor storage in an Industrial District requires a conditional use permit. The applicant is requesting 1,920 square feet of outdoor storage, which would be 8 feet in height, and enclosed with chain link fencing and slatting that would be diagonally woven through the chain link. The 60 by 32-foot enclosure would be secured, and connected to the building. Planning Associate Ericson stated the Planning Commission reviewed this case at their May 17`h meeting, and recommended approval of the conditional use. permit. He indicated there was some concern regarding the materials that would be stored outside, therefore, in their resolution recommending approval, the Planning Commission stipulated that no chemicals or hazardous materials, no flammable substances, or materials of this nature would be permitted to be stored outside, and the enclosure would be securely latched and lockable. He advised that the Planning Commission also desired it be on record that the Chief of Police be notified regarding this proposal for safety purposes. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has drafted Resolution 5453 for Council action, which approves this request with 8 stipulations, one of which indicates that the applicant shall be responsible for recording the resolution of approval with Ramsey County. He advised that other stipulations pertain to the specifications of the enclosure, the requirement that there would be no storage of hazardous materials, and that the applicant allow for periodic onsite inspection of the enclosure by appropriate City or county inspectors, to verify compliance with the conditional use permit. Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant was present. He advised this was a public hearing, and notification has been sent to properties within 350 feet of the subject property. Ron Nelson, 2174 Oakwood Drive inquired if there was a potential for hazardous materials to leak into the ground. Planning Associate Ericson stated to his knowledge, there are no hazardous materials on the subject property. He indicated the applicant was not in the business of producing or processing hazardous materials, and this was a heating and plumbing company, which was proposing to store PVC piping outside. He stated the concern was not that they would be protecting from the future spillage and environmental aspects of hazardous materials, but simply to provide a means to ensure that this would not occur. Council Member Quick stated the storage of hazardous materials is allowed by permitted use only, and there has been no request for such a use. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. i There was no further public input. Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 12 . Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 7:44 p.m. MOTIONlSECOND: ThomasonlStigney. To Approve Resolution No. 5443, a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for a Fenced, Outdoor Storage Enclosure at 4749 Old Highway 8; Mounds view Planning Case No. CU00-006. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. E. 1. Discussion and First Reading of Ordinance No. 661, Charter Amendments to Provide for a City Manager form of Government. 2. Discussion and First Reading of Ordinance No. 662, Proposing an Amendment to the Mounds View Charter by Amending Chapter 2, Section 2.03 of the Charter of the City of Mounds View as to Council Composition and Election in the City. City Attorney Long stated Ordinance 661 was presented to the Council in draft form at an earlier meeting. He advised that Section 1 of the ordinance would delete the current Chapter 6 of the Charter, which refers to the current City Administrator form of government, and insert an entire new Chapter 6, which is based upon the City Manager powers and duties. He indicated there were a couple of places in Section 2 of the ordinance, where they would need to refer to the City Manager form of government, rather than the Mayor and Council plan, and the balance of the • ordinance replaces the term City Clerk Administrator with City Manager, wherever it appears in the Sections of the Charter. City Attorney Long advised that the only other substantive changes were set forth in Section 2.09, which designates that the City Manager is in charge of administration, which provides that Council Members would direct their policy directives through the City Manager, who in turn, would be responsible for the management of staff. He indicated Section 3 amends Section 7 by adding new Sections 7.13 and 7.14, which was required in order to provide the City Manager with official authority over the disbursement of funds and the accounting role. He explained the City would still have a Finance Officer who would operate under the City Manager, however, this would clarify that the City Manager has the ultimate responsibility for these duties. City Attorney Long stated Ordinance 662 proposes a change from the two-year Mayoral term to a four-year term of office. He indicated the Council requested he research this matter to determine the term lengths utilized by other cities. He advised that in 1996, the League of Minnesota Cities conducted a survey of Charter cities, and the survey results indicate that the majority of the charter cities have established afour-year term of office for Council members, which the City currently has, and of the 106 charter cities surveyed, 55 have four-year Mayoral terms, 10 have three-year terms, and 41 have two-year terms. He stated the majority of charter cities in the State of Minnesota have four-year terms for Mayor, and this provision proposes to make that change. • City Attorney Long advised that procedurally, if the Council approves the First Reading of these two ordinances at this time, and a Second Reading at their next meeting, under State Statute they Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 13 would not be adopting the ordinances to go into the Charter, as was the case with the previous • corrective changes, but rather, the ordinances would go to the Charter Commission for their review. He indicated the Charter Commission would have a 60-day penod m which to examine the ordinances, and could request additional time for review, if necessary. He explained that if the Charter Commission were to agree with these ordinances, the Council could, by unanimous vote, adopt them without going to the ballot, however, if the Charter Commission does not agree, or suggests changes to the ordinances, the Council would have the option to accept or reject those changes, and ultimately place the ordinances on the ballot for the next election. City Attorney Long stated a question had been raised regarding whether or not the Council could initiate this Charter change by ordinance, and the answer is that they would not be initiating a Charter change by ordinance in this case, as State Statute requires that if the Council utilizes this method, they must propose the change to the voters. He advised that they must prepare this proposal in ordinance form, provide the Charter Commission the opportunity for review, and then place it on the ballot. Mayor Coughlin inquired if the Council would hold the first and second readings of these ordinances, prior to forwarding them to the Charter Commission for their review. City Attorney Long advised that State Statue indicates the procedure for proposing Charter amendments must be done by ordinance, and the Charter states that in order to adopt an ordinance, there must be two readings, fourteen days apart, and therefore, the procedure was • somewhat unclear. He stated staff believes the best procedure would be to take the matter up at this time as the first reading, hold the second reading and adoption, and then forward the ordinances to the Charter Commission for review. He explained that this would not be an adoption in the true sense of the word, as they would be adopting the ordinances for consideration by the Charter Commission. City Attorney Long advised that at that point, if the Charter Commission took no action, did not agree with the proposal, or suggest revisions, the matter would come back to the Council, which could, without any further readings or changes, send this language on to the ballot. He stated staff believes they should treat this process as if they were adopting an ordinance, because the Statute specifies that Charter amendments must be proposed by ordinance, even though the ordinance would not go into effect until after the voters approve it. Mayor Coughlin inquired if the Charter Commission required the full 150 day review period, would this mater still be within the time frame to be placed for consideration on the general election ballot. He indicated he would not desire to spend $5,000 to $7,000 of the taxpayers' money to hold a special election, if this could be done during the national and general election. City Attorney Long stated there would be no problem in this regard, if the Charter Commission takes the initial 60-day period only. He advised that the Charter indicates the last day for filing for office is September 12, at which time the Charter Commission would have competed their work, and the ballot could be prepared for print in that time frame. He explained that if the • Charter Commission requested the additional 90-day review period, the question would be whether or not that review period could be ongoing on the date the ballot must be printed, and this would have to be resolved. He advised that there is no Attorney General opinion or case law Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 14 • in Minnesota to draw upon in this regard, and this is currently under examination. He stated the theory was that if the Charter Commission was to agree with the Council that the language was acceptable, there would not be the need for a ballot question, and the question would be whether or not they could still pull it off of the ballot at that point, to avoid a vote on it. He indicated that if the Charter Commission were to disagree with the Council, the question could still go to the ballot as proposed. Mayor Coughlin inquired if there would be sufficient time between the second reading and the potential 150-day review period to place the matter on the ballot for the general election. City Attorney Long advised that if the matter involves the 150-day review period, they would be dealing with the question of whether or not they could overlap in that time frame. He reiterated there was no clear-cut case law, and having examined the Attorney General's opinion, there was nothing to answer this question, and therefore, further examination would be necessary. He explained that if the Charter Commission completed their work in the 60-day review period, there would be no issue, however, if the Commission required the additiona190 days, staff would have to examine this. He pointed out that although the Council did not desire the cost, they could hold a special election to consider a Charter amendment question, should that become the only alternative. He stated staff would like to give the Council the option to place the question on the ballot in November. Mayor Coughlin stated in an attempt to save money on a special election, the Council might wish to consider this matter at the next Council Work Session. He stated the timing consideration was his only concern, and therefore, he would offer for Council consideration that if the timing was indeed an issue, they consider calling to order at the Work Session for the second reading of the ordinances, in order to save taxpayer dollars. City Attorney Long stated the first Council Work Session in June would be held in fourteen days, and this would meet the requirement. Mayor Coughlin advised that in keeping with Council rules, a motion and second would be required prior to discussion. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Waive the Reading and Approve the First Reading of Ordinance No. 661, an Ordinance Proposing Amendments to the Mounds View Charter by Amending Various Chapters of the Charter of the City of Mounds View as to the Administration of City Affairs by City Manager in the City. Council Member Marty inquired if the language of this ordinance was in keeping with State Statutes. City Attorney Long stated yes. He indicated State Statutes set up several different means to make Charter amendments. He advised that one method, which was previously utilized, is that • the Charter Commission initiates the amendment, and the Council, by unanimous vote, approves those changes to the Charter by ordinance. He explained that in this instance, State Statutes provide for the City Council to make a proposal directly to the voters by ballot, however, this Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 15 • must be proposed by ordinance. He stated a third means to amend the Charter is by Citizen Petition. Council Member Marty stated he understood this, however, his question was specific to the language that was amended in Section 2.09. City Attorney stated there was some discretion with regard to this language. He indicated this particular Section was standard in charters that have adopted a City Manager form of government, and this language was similar to that utilized by the city of Albert Lea and other charter cities that staff is familiar with, however, the verbiage is subject to the Council's policy discussion. Council Member Marty stated he was somewhat concerned that the Council appeared to be relinquishing much of its authority. Council Member Quick stated this was correct. Council Member Marty stated the Mayor and the Council Members would not have the ability to question anything. Mayor Coughlin advised that the Council could question, however, they could not dictate. He pointed out that this was somewhat of a standing rule of the Council, which does not dictate to the City Administrator regarding purchases and items of this nature, but rather, these matters would go through the process. City Attorney Long stated this language clarifies what is expected of the City Manager, for • example, the City Manager would conduct the hiring and firing, and the Council would not be directly involved in that process. He advised that once the City hires a City Manager, the responsibility for the hiring and firing of City staff would fall upon that individual, and in turn, the Council would provide direction to the City Manager. He explained that if a problem were to occur in a specific department, the Council would contact the City Manager to have this addressed, rather than contacting the Department heads directly. He indicated the language of this Section creates the official role of the City Manager to conduct the day-to-day management, however, it does not represent that the Council would be unable to provide direction to the City Manager with regard to a specific concern. He stated that depending upon the individual's perspective, this could be viewed as a loss of power or clarification of the lines of responsibility. Council Member Quick advised that this form of government was similar to operating a business. He explained that in a business, there is a Chief Executive Officer who runs the day-to-day affairs, and a Board of Directors, which provides him with direction. Council Member Stigney stated the City Attorney had brought forward statistics from 106 charter cities pertaining to Mayoral terms, and he would like to see similar statistics to determine how many of the charter cities have the City Manager form of government versus the Clerk Administrator and other forms of government. City Attorney Long indicated Assistant to the City Administrator Reed had contacted the League of Minnesota Cities and performed this research, in order to save legal staff time. He stated staff could gather further information, if the Council so desired. Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 16 Mayor Coughlin inquired if it was the consent of the Council to direct staff to obtain further • statistics. The Council concurred. Council Member Stigney stated his primary concern with regard to this ordinance was that they have the cart well ahead of the horse. He explained that the Council was asking to propose this amendment on the ballot to the voters, however, there still has been no significant discussion or statistical reason for changing the City's form of government. He noted some statements have been made pertaining to streamlining, giving the hiring and firing process more directly to the City Manager, and that concerns could be addressed through the City Manager rather than directly through the Department Heads, however, this is basically the way the City currently works. He advised that before this is proposed to the voters, they should be informed regarding what the Council intends to accomplish that would benefit the residents of the City, however, he seen no firm rationale for this, at this point. Council Member Stigney stated it was very important to determine what they are attempting to accomplish, and what problems exist with the current Clerk Administrator form of government. He added that if there are specific problems, they should determine how to address those problems, rather than completely changing the form of government that they currently operate under as the constitution of the City. • Council Member Stigney stated this amendment was proposed to go to the voters under State Statute, however, he believed that the Council should have the Charter Commission review this proposal to determine their opinions regarding this form of government, in that they are the overseers of the City Charter. He indicated the Charter Commission was comprised of 15 individuals who would undertake some discussion and examine the merits and benefits of this proposal, as opposed to what he has seen at the Council level. He stated that rather than submit this proposal under Section 410.12 Subd. 5, the State Statute method for placing it on the ballot, he would suggest the Council submit it to the Charter Commission for their review and recommendation, and have the Commission report back to the Council with their findings. He advised that the question could always be placed on the ballot pursuant to Chapter 410.12, however, to do so at this time would be premature. Council Member Stigney stated another concern that has not been discussed pertains to the potential cost to the residents of the City. He explained that each job duty has a bearing upon how much the City pays an individual, and it has been noted that many of the duties of the current Clerk Administrator would be passed on to the Assistant City Administrator. He advised that once those duties are passed on, that pay level would increase, because the City operates under the system that employees are paid per duties, job description, and so forth. He stated this would not benefit the voters and the residents, and he believed it be more costly, which could be considered one detriment. • Council Member Stigney stated there was another issue that could present the significant potential for detriment to the residents. He explained that currently, the citizens have an opportunity to review and discuss all of the items that come before the Council, however, with Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 17 the proposed form of government, this probably would not occur, as these items would go • through the City Manager, who would be authorized to handle them. He stated he was opposed to this, as it could create the potential for more "backroom dealings," because the City Manager would essentially control the City, and whomever was directing that individual might have similar leanings. He stated he believed that through the process of bringing the information to the Council and requiring Council action, the issues before the Council are brought forward to the residents. He advised that one of the things they should be doing is communicating to the residents. Council Member Stigney stated he personally believed they were going about this completely backwards, and therefore, would suggest that the Council postpone action on this item, until such time as it has been submitted to the Charter Commission for its review and recommendation. u MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/ To Postpone Action on this Item, Until Such Time as it has been Submitted to the Charter Commission for Its Review and Recommendation. Motion failed. Mayor Coughlin advised that inherent in this process was up to 150 days for the Charter Commission to examine this entire issue, and beyond this, the Charter Commission has the opportunity to come back to the Council with their recommendations at the end of the review period. He explained that everything Council Member Stigney has requested has already been spelled out in State Statutes. Mayor Coughlin advised that the City Council sets the budget for the City, and whether there is a Clerk Administrator a City Manager, they can only spend within the set budget, and therefore, the Council maintains control over the purse strings. He indicated the statement that there has been no discussion and no examples given, was unfair, as examples have been provided, and discussion has been presented in one form or another. He explained that this was the first reading of the ordinance, and therefore, he would not go into details at this time, however, he believed this was a mischaracterization of the debate. Council Member Thomason moved the question. Ayes - 4 Nays - 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. Mayor Coughlin stated at this time, the Council would move directly to consideration of the approval of the first reading of the Ordinance 661. Ayes - 3 Nays - 2 (Stigney, Marty) Motion carried. Mayor Coughlin stated City Attorney Long has briefly touched upon Ordinance 662, which was before the Council for consideration at this time. • Council Member Stigney stated he would move to postpone action on this item for the reasons previously stated. Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 18 • Mayor Coughlin advised that it was not in order to call for postponement of an item, prior to a motion on that item. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve the First Reading of Ordinance 662, an Ordinance Proposing an Amendment to the Mounds View Charter By Amending Chapter 2, Section 2.03 of the Charter of the City of Mounds View as to Council Composition and Election in the City. Mayor Coughlin requested a friendly amendment to waive the reading. The Motioner and Seconder agreed. Council Member Quick moved the question. Mayor Coughlin indicated there was an individual on the Floor who wished to speak. Council Member Quick advised that this motion was in order at any time. Council Member Stigney stated he has not had the opportunity to speak to this issue. Mayor Coughlin stated he did not have his copy of Robert's Rules of Order, however, he did not believe it was in order to move the question when an individual has the Floor. City Attorney Long advised that recognition of the order of speakers would be the proper call. He advised that it was in order to move the question at any time, however, he believed the Council must acknowledge the speaker, and therefore, the Chair must determine who had the Floor first. Mayor Coughlin advised that the Motioner has first right to the Floor. Council Member Quick stated he would yield the Floor. Council Member Stigney stated he would like to clarify a point that the Mayor had made regarding the previously proposed ordinance which was similar to this ordinance in that it was being submitted under State Statute Chapter 410.12, Subd. 5, and is not required to be. He explained that this only forces the matter on the Council's direction of a simple majority vote, to place something on the ballot without any rationale behind it or any strong analysis of the facts. Council Member Stigney advised that although the reading was waived, this ordinance proposes to change the Mayor's term of office from two to four years. He stated one of the checks and balances set forth in the City Charter is to specifically restrict the Mayor's term to two years, and the reason for this is that it is very difficult to remove someone from office when they are not doing a good job. He explained that although there was a recall process, it was extremely difficult to recall an individual in a Mayoral position. He advised that the founders of the Charter set forth afour-year term for Council Members and atwo-year term for Mayor to specifically to Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 19 limit the Mayor's term. He explained that this is because the Mayor has the potential to do more • things for the City, good or bad, and this provision provides the residents the opportunity to approve the individual for another term after two years, rather than having to wait afour-year span before a correction can be made. Council Member Stigney stated this item should be submitted to the Charter Commission to obtain their opinion and recommendation, and the Charter Commission should submit it back to the Council. He advised that it should not be submitted to the ballot under State Statute 410.12, Subd. 5, as the matter could always go to the ballot after the Charter Commission's review. He recommended the Council postpone action on this item until the Charter Commission has had the opportunity to review it, and that the matter not be presented under State Statute 410.12, but rather submitted to the Charter Commission as a body appointed to oversee the Charter, so that they may examine it and bring their recommendation back to the Council. He stated there has been very limited discussion of this matter, and no analysis on either of these issues. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/ To Postpone Action on this Item Until the Charter Commission has had the Opportunity to Review this Matter, and that It Not be Presented Under State Statute 410.12, but rather, Submitted to the Charter Commission as a Body Appointed to Oversee the Charter, so that they may Examine It and Bring Their Recommendation Back to the Council. Motion failed. Mayor Coughlin advised that all of the concerns with regard to the Charter Commission review have been addressed in this Section of the Statute, which requires that the matter be forwarded to the Charter Commission for consideration, and that the Charter Commission is required to provide its comments. Council Member Stigney advised that this proposal does not have to be submitted to the Charter Commission under State Statutes Section 410.12, Subd. 5, and he believed the City Attorney could verify this. Mayor Coughlin stated he would verify this. He indicated the proposal has been submitted in this manner in order to follow State Statute, and the Motioner and Seconder were in agreement with that. He stated this item pertains to the position of Mayor, and therefore, he would request the consent of the Council to abstain. Council Member Quick requested the Motion be restated. Mayor Coughlin stated the Motion was to waive the reading and approve the first reading of Ordinance 662. Mayor Coughlin asked City Attorney Long if an abstaining vote would be counted with the vote • of the majority. City Attorney Long stated unless there is a direct conflict, the abstention would count as a vote in favor. Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 20 Council Member Quick indicated he did not believe it was necessary for Mayor Coughlin to • abstain, as he would be required to stand election, regardless of the outcome. Mayor Coughlin stated he would request the Council's indulgence in allowing him to abstain. Council Member Stigney inquired if a vote of abstention would be counted with the vote of the majority. City Attorney Long stated this was correct. Council Member Stigney advised that the majority vote would not necessarily be an affirmative vote. City Attorney Long advised that if there were a direct conflict in Minnesota State Statutes that would allow for a true abstention, the abstaining vote would not be counted, however, if there were no such conflict, the abstention would count as an affirmative vote, for the purpose of counting the vote. Council Member Stigney stated it was his understanding that the abstaining vote would count with the majority vote, as opposed to an affirmative vote. He explained that if the majority voted in opposition to the measure, the abstention would count as an opposing vote. City Attorney Long stated he did not believe this was correct. He stated the abstention would count as an affirmative vote. Mayor Coughlin stated in his recollection this was correct, however, he desired to bring this forward for clarification. Ayes - 3 Nays -1 (Stigney) Abstain - 1 (Coughlin) Motion carried. F. Consideration of Hiring Public Works Utility Position. Interim Administrator Ulrich stated the Council has been provided a staff report prepared by Assistant to the City Administrator Reed, which indicates that six applications were submitted for the Public Works Maintenance position. He stated interviews were conducted by Public Works Foreman, Tim Pittman, Parks Maintenance Supervisor, Steve Dazenski, and Assistant to the City Administrator Reed, and all three identified the top candidate was identified as Pete Szurek, and recommended his hiring at Level A, which is $11.05 per hour. He indicated the position would commence at 85 percent of the maximum level for that position, with quarterly adjustments based upon performance. Interim Administrator Ulrich stated two other conditions of employment require that the applicant pass a physical examination and drug screen, and obtain both a Water and Wastewater certificate within two years of employment. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Approve Staffs Recommendation to Hire Pete Szurek for the Public Works Utility Position, Based upon the Terms and Conditions listed in the Staff Report. • Council Member Marty inquired if this individual would be released from employment if he has not obtained the Water and Wastewater certificates within this two-year period. Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 21 Interim Administrator Ulrich stated this was correct, as this was a condition of his employment. • He indicated the applicant should have no difficulty acquiring the certificates. He pointed out that Mr. Szurek has a college education, and has proven to be experienced and knowledgeable during the past three years of his seasonal employment. Council Member Stigney inquired if this position was being hired for the Community Center. Interim Administrator Ulrich stated it was not. He indicated this was the Public Works Utility position. Council Member Stigney stated he was not aware of this position. Interim Administrator Ulrich explained that this was the position the Council had authorized for the replacement of former Wastewater Operator Mortenson. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. G. Consideration of Resolution 5445, Appointment of Barbara Thomas to Serve out Remaining Term on Planning Commission. Mayor Coughlin requested the Council consider the appointment of Barbara Thomas to the vacated position on the Planning Commission. He presented the Council with Resolution 5445, which approves the appointment of Ms. Thomas to serve out the remainder of the term, which expires on December 31, 2001, as stipulated in the resolution. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Approve Resolution 5445, Appointment of Barbara Thomas to Serve Out Remaining Term on Planning Commission. Mayor Coughlin stated copies of Ms. Thomas' application would be made available to the Council Members. He indicated Ms. Thomas has lived in the City for more than 30 years, and has expressed an interest in serving her City in a more active capacity. He stated he would encourage any individuals who were interested in serving their community to apply for such positions. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. • Mayor Coughlin extended his congratulations to Ms. Thomas, and commended her for her willingness to serve in this capacity. 11. Next Council Special Work Session: Next Council Work Session: Next Council Meeting: Monday, May 22, 2000 - 6:00 P.M. Monday, June 5, 2000 - 6:00 P.M. Monday, June 12, 2000 - 7:00 P.M. 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Coughlin adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Transcribed and recorded by: