Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 2001/02/26• PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting ,r,,;,. ~' February 26, 2001 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 7:17 P.M. 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Sonterre, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomas. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Monday, February 26, 2001 City Council Agenda. • Mayor Sonterre asked the Council if anyone would like to add items to the agenda. Council Member Marty requested Resolution 5535 be added as Item 8F. Mayor Sonterre requested aone-hour time limit be set for the discussion of the Springsted Feasibility Study and requested that questioning be limited to the actual study. Council Member Stigney noted he took exception to Mayor Sonterre's request as the questions he intended to ask were not all directly related to the Springsted Study. He also noted information from Springsted was not received in Council packets for review. Council Member Quick stated he would prefer to follow the Mayor's suggestion of handling the discussion in small pieces to make it easier to understand. Council Member Thomas stated she felt she needed to discuss the Springsted Study to gain. a better understanding of the information in it before being able to formulate any other questions. City Administrator Miller informed Council that Springsted was prepared to address the questions raised at the last Council meeting as well as to discuss the Feasibility Study. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Approve the February 26, 2001, City Council Agenda as amended. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. • Mounds View City Council February 26, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 2 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Monday, February 12, 2001 City Council Minutes. Council Member Marty requested the following changes: On Page 7, third paragraph from the bottom Marty seconded the motion to approve Consent Agenda Item 7G. On Page 10, fourth paragraph line 3 insert a comma after "derail the project he would". On Page 15, second to last paragraph after Ulrich change "is" to "if'. On Page 17, paragraph 7 second line change "streets" to "street". Council Member Thomas On Page 2, first paragraph she noted Council had talked about changing the vote but decided no change was necessary. Council Member Stigney requested the following changes: On Page 5 change the vote from 5 to 4 as there was a nay. On Page 17 change "is" to "a". On Page 17 reword the second to last paragraph for clarity. On Page 19 change "is the resident" to "the resident is". On Page 19 fourth paragraph first sentence storm sewer on a street add "the cost goes up" and delete "there". Council Member Quick requested the following change: On Page 17 change "if entire 4% of the franchise fee" to "the entire 4% franchise fee". City Administrator Miller Noted Senator Chaudhary's name was misspelled and asked that it be . corrected. She noted Springsted was misspelled and asked that it be corrected. She requested the references to a 9/10 design be changed to a 9 ton design. She also requested on Page 17 the words "do not" be inserted before the word "inflation". Mayor Sonterre asked on Page 3 that the Certificates of Appreciation be changed to Resolutions of Appreciation. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Approve the Monday, February 12, 2001, City Council Minutes with the requested changes. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: None. 6. REPORTS Council Member Marty reported he received a few telephone calls concerning snow removal over the weekend. He explained what Public Works Director Ulrich had told him concerning snow removal on the weekend. Mounds View City Council February 26, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 3 Public Works Director Ulrich clarified that on weekends, due to the fact it is a lighter traffic time, the City attempts to minimize overtime and maximize productivity so the plow drivers start later in the day. They started at 6:00 a.m. on Saturday and 7:00 a.m. on Sunday. They also plowed during the night for a few hours to keep roads clear. Had the snow fallen on a weekday, the plows would have been out early in order to have the roads clear by the morning commute. Council Member Quick clarified the actions of the plow drivers were in accordance with City policy. Public Works Director Ulrich confirmed Council Member Quick's comments stating there is a bit of a judgment call involved but the policy was followed. Council Member Quick noted the City could do more but it would cost a lot more money and would result in increased taxes to residents. Council Member Quick also pointed out other suburbs in the area had streets that were in worse shape than Mounds View streets and complimented the plowing team on a job well done. Public Works Director Ulrich explained the City will continue to scrape streets to remove ice and deicer buildup in order to get water off the streets and into the catch basins to decrease the damage of the freeze/thaw cycle on the roadway. He noted this does fill up resident driveways but stated it was a necessary step. Mayor Sonterre reported he had attended the town meeting with Senator Chaudhary and Representative Evans, noting there were a lot of people there and good issues were raised. He noted he watched the Cable Committee meeting and welcomed back Barb Haake. He pointed out the Focus News is starting to print an up to date Mounds View cable schedule noting residents should check Channel 16 and the website for programming changes. Mayor Sonterre reported he attended a special meeting of the I35W Corridor Coalition with Mr. Ericson and Mr. Anderson where several issues specific to New Brighton were discussed but noted these issues may have an impact on Mounds View in the future. Mayor Sonterre reported he attended the North Metro Mayor's Association meeting where the governor's budget and the potential impact on cities was discussed. Council Member Marty noted it was brought up at the town hall meeting that a drop in sales tax to 6% would spread to services. That would mean property tax would go down but education is taken out of the figure which creates the possibility that school boards could come back and tax residents. This may mean total taxes could be pretty close to where they were before the proposed "tax cut". He noted this appears to be a numbers game that is not very favorable to the City. Mayor Sonterre noted there were 17 people who came to the town hall meeting and commented there was really no single issue that was personally driven and everyone seemed to be working on a different level with more of a big picture discussion. Mounds View City Council February 26, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 4 Assistant to the Administrator Reed reported the HR Committee met at 6:00 p.m. today and discussed hiring for a planning associate and the job description for the planning associate position. Ms. Reed also reported Ms. Michna's position needs to be filled noting it may not be possible to replace her with just one person. The Committee recommended advertising for the position and in the meantime they suggested asking the three quarter time records technician to go full time and explore the option oftime-sharing with staff in other departments. Mayor Sonterre asked if minimum qualifications for the planning associate position were determined. Assistant to the Administrator Reed stated the minimum requirements would be a Bachelor's Degree instead of a Master's Degree. The job description was also changed and the candidate will not be required to have housing code experience. Community Development Director Ericson explained the position has been changed to an entry- level planner position but noted the City would prefer someone with some experience. Council Member Marty stated the recommendations from the Committee seemed sound and asked if Staff needed formal action from Council. Assistant to the Administrator Reed stated she would like to put a Resolution on the Consent • Agenda for the next meeting. She then requested permission to commence the hiring process. It was the consent of Council to direct Staff to bring a Resolution to Council for the next meeting and to direct Staff to commence advertising for the position. 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Approve the Consent Agenda as Presented. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Resolution 5535, a Resolution Setting Start Date and Salary for Police Lieutenant. Assistant to the Administrator Reed explained Resolution 5535 added as Item 8F replaces Item 8A which originally started out as Resolution 5526 but was missing the salary information and start date when it was presented to Council on February 12, 2001. Resolution 5535 replaces 5526 and 5530 and authorizes the Lieutenant to be started at Step 3 rather than Step 2. Due to the Lieutenant's longevity with the police department, starting at Step 2 is not much of an Mounds View City Council February 26, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 5 increase in pay. The Resolution also makes the salary increase retroactive to February 17, 2001 which was the first day of the new pay period following the last Council meeting. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Replace Item 8A with Item 8F and Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5535, a Resolution Setting Start Date and Salary for Police Lieutenant. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Council Member Stigney noted by starting the Lieutenant at Step 2 the increase would be approximately $800 whereas if the Lieutenant is started at Step 3 after 6 months the increase is closer to $4000. Assistant to the Administrator Reed noted the Resolution was presented to the Police Civil Service Commission and the HR Committee and both groups approved of it. Council Member Marty stated that Lieutenant Brennen has proven himself to the City as was evidenced by the award he received at a Northwest Youth and Family Services Banquet. He stated he feels approval of Resolution 5535 is the right thing to do. Council Member Stigney noted the HR Committee recommended starting at Step 3 but had noted there was a problem with the salary ranges that Council may need to address. • B. Resolution 5531, a Resolution Authorizing the Creation of a School Resource Officer. Assistant to the Administrator Reed explained this item is on the agenda for approval of a resolution to create a new position in the staffing of the Police Department, to provide a school resource officer to Edgewood Middle School. This request was made in August of 1999 by the School District to the City and the Principle of Edgewood came before this Council to answer questions and address issues. It was the general consensus of the City Council at that time to go ahead with the process of creating a school resource officer position. The School District has agreed to pay three fourths of the salary of the new hire for at least three years. This item has been accounted for in the Police Department budget. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5531, a Resolution Authorizing the Creation of a School Resource Officer Position. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. C. Resolution 5534, a Resolution Approving the Certification of Three Police Officers. . Assistant to the Administrator Reed distributed a list of candidates prepared by the Police Civil Service Commission noting the Commission recommended Council certify the list and hire the Mounds View City Council February 26, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 6 candidate at the top of the list. Once the first candidate is hired all candidates will be moved up one on the list creating a new list of three candidates for certification. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5534, a Resolution Approving the Certification of Three Police Officers. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. D. Resolution 5532, a Resolution Authorizing the Hiring of a Police Officer. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5532, a Resolution Authorizing the Hiring of Police Officer Kasey Keckeisen. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Certify the Newly Created List of Candidates Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. E. Resolution 5533, a Resolution Authorizing the Hiring of a Police Officer. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5533, a • Resolution Authorizing the Hiring of Police Officer Jennifer Kuhl. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Assistant to the Administrator Reed pointed out Resolution 5532 and Resolution 5533 were amended to include compensation information and leave a window for start date. Council Member Quick inquired as to whether Council will have. to recertify a list and hire another candidate if one of the chosen candidates does not accept the position. City Attorney Riggs indicated Council Member Quick was correct. 9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR Doris Heilman of 3Q34 Ardmore Avenue told Council she was at the meeting to remind everyone that February 25, 2001 was the one year anniversary of when Brandon was hit on Highway 10. She then stated she has heard a lot of discussion about a lot of projects and would like to share her great disappointment that she has not seen any tangible changes on Highway 10. She also expressed her concern that the children will have lost their awareness of the dangers with crossing the Highway as time passes since Brandon was hit. Mayor Sonterre offered the City's continued condolences for her loss and explained that up until his swearing in he served on the Highway 10 Redevelopment Committee. He told her that what Mounds View City Council February 26, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 7 happened to Brandon was always an issue. Mayor Sonterre outlined the steps the City has been taking to enact changes on Highway 10 noting that, unfortunately, the City's efforts have been hampered by red tape that needs to be waded through. He then assured her that the City will continue to take steps to make changes to Highway 10 to make it safer. Council Member Marty expressed his condolences for her loss and explained he had spoken to the City Administrator concerning this matter earlier in the day and was told the process of redevelopment is ongoing. • • Ms. Heilman questioned why some of the items on the short term improvement list such as increased patrolling have not been put into place. She noted she lives and works in the City and constantly is passed on Highway 10 by cars going over the posted speed limit. Mayor Sonterre stated that by the end of this year ticketing was up 22% on Highway 10. The resident asked for specific ticketing numbers. Mayor Sonterre stated he did not have specific numbers on the ticketing. He then explained there is currently a police power issue as the force is short two officers and has been for some time. The force has also been short a lieutenant and there were two officers out on medical leave. The patrol the City has needed to be spread thinly over the rest of the City so enforcement of the speed on Highway 10 may have been affected during this period. Council Member Marty stated last summer and fall he witnessed significant patrol efforts with radars in an attempt to curb the speeding. He stated he does not usually travel on Highway 10 but crosses it. He then stated the new Police Chief came in and stepped up enforcement but noted this is an ongoing issue and he is glad people keep asking about it. Ms. Heilman stated it is not a matter of if, but when, someone else will be hit out on Highway 10 if something is not done. Council Member Marty stated he spoke to a Ramsey County Commissioner about lowering the speed limit and was told the Commissioner was not sure if the City could lower the speed limit but agreed to look into it. Mayor Sonterre stated it was determined during various meetings and discussions with Ramsey County that the maximum low they would consider is 45 m.p.h. He then stated he anticipates a reduction in the speed limit to 45 m.p.h. teamed with community based policing to enforce that speed limit. Ms. Heilman noted that in the City of Anoka the walk signals count down the seconds remaining to cross the street rather than a flashing hand or flashing person. She then requested the City consider changing the crosswalks to that type of sign as part of the Highway 10 redevelopment. Mounds View City Council February 26, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 8 Mayor Sonterre told her he would bring that type of signal into the discussions when upgrading the signal crossings is discussed. Mary Harstad from South Dakota told Council kids are still crossing the street where they are not supposed to, a child was almost hit again, and the car stopped to honk at the girls. One girl called her mother and the two of them were hysterical because of the realization of what could have happened if the child was hit. Ms. Harstad tried to get the girl who was in the audience to tell the story but the girl declined to comment. Mayor Sonterre stated new mechanisms need to be found to make the crosswalks as safe as possible and to identify the safest points to cross Highway 10. He also noted the City is faced with the challenge of getting people to the safest areas to cross. Ms. Harstad stated she was concerned that the City would not handle the issue and it would be swept under the table. Mayor Sonterre gave his personal guarantee that the City will continue to work with the County and the State to find funding to get the redevelopment of Highway 10 done as quickly as possible. Ms. Harstad asked if there was a way the City could educate parents to educate their kids on how to stay safe when crossing Highway 10. Mayor Sonterre stated it was not possible to go into every home and insist that parents educate their children on the dangers of crossing Highway 10 but the City could contact the school district and work through community education to provide safety information concerning crossing Highway 10. Ms. Harstad suggested having the police pick up the kids and detain them until their parents come to pick them up at which time the parents should be educated on the dangers of having their children darting out across Highway 10. Mayor Sonterre stated the City is not able to detain children for improperly crossing the streets in an effort to educate their parents. Ms. Harstad asked the City to put up pedestrian crosswalk signs alerting vehicles of an upcoming crosswalk. Mayor Sonterre told her pedestrian crosswalks are also on the list of priorities noting there are State mandates for how many signs can be placed along the roadway and in order to install one sign, there would need to be a study of all signs to determine if adding another sign would be in keeping with the State mandate. Ms. Harstad stated she has never driven through a community that allows a speed limit over 45 m.p.h. Mounds View City Council February 26, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 9 Mayor Sonterre stated the City is working with the County to conduct a traffic study and the County has indicated they probably will not allow the speed limit to be lowered below 45 m.p.h. Community Development Director Ericson stated it is sad that is not easier to enact some of the changes to Highway 10 more quickly in the interest of public safety but noted the City is working on the matter and will continue to do so. Council Member Marty told residents he had recently brought the Highway 10 redevelopment issue up and has done so off and on over the past year to keep residents updated on progress with the project. David Jahnke of 8428 Eastwood Road stated it was his understanding that the City would pay the first $3,500 for attorney's fees and Eller would be paying for the rest of the attorney' fees. He then questioned if Eller was paying for the attorney's fees or if there is another arrangement in place. Mayor Sonterre stated that since he was sworn in as Mayor there hasn't been any action on the case so he is not in a position to answer Mr. Jahnke's question. City Attorney Riggs stated he would be giving an update on the billboard issue later in the meeting. Mr. Jahnke told Council he was concerned for costs to the City if Eller is not paying for the attorney's fees. And, if they are not he would like to know why. He then stated he feels the Council should be very careful about how it proceeds on the golf course expansion issue. He also stated he had heard talk that it was costing 17% more every month which is why he urged to move the process along. He questioned where that figure came from due to the fact the economy is slowing down and costs aren't going up. Mr. Jahnke also commented he was pleased with the City for taking costs into consideration when deciding how to handle snow plowing in the City. 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 5527, a Resolution Approving a Development Review for an Office Building at 7664 Greenfield Avenue, Planning Case DE00-002. Community Development Director Ericson explained the applicant, Tony Mezzenga, is requesting approval of a Development Review to construct a one and a half story office building with a 2,000 square-foot footprint on the property. The site plan is consistent with the setback and parking area variance that was approved by the Planning Commission on September 13, 2000. There remains an issue for screening the property to the south. Mounds View City Council February 26, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 10 Director Ericson apologized to Mr. Zwirn who took offense to comments made by Mr. Ericson at the Planning Commission meeting. He clarified it was never his intention to question Mr. Zwirn's integrity or his intentions and he wanted to make that clear. Director Ericson explained in speaking with Mr. Zwirn and Mr. Mezzenga earlier today Staff has determined that the question remains of where the fence will be located. Mr. Mezzenga has proposed sleeving over Mr. Zwirn's exiting fence posts and Mr. Zwirn has proposed a fence located close to his fence. Staff is not sure Council should require a property owner to change their fence in order to accommodate a new development. Council will need to decide where the fence should be located. Director Ericson noted at the end of the fence there will be lilac shrubbery that would grow up level with Mr. Zwirn's house. He then noted there is an issue of whether to require a six (6) foot fence or an eight (8) foot fence. Mr. Zwirn would like an eight (8) foot fence and Mr. Mezzenga feels a six (6) foot fence is adequate for screening. Director Ericson noted Resolution 5527 is before Council for action and suggested that there be an eighth requirement added to state if construction is not begun within one year this approval shall be null and void. Staff does not believe this would happen but feels the City needs that assurance. Council Member Marty asked for clarification on the fencing. Director Ericson explained it would be a board onboard privacy fence and that there would be two fences close together. There maybe some merit to taking down one of the fences but the City cannot dictate that a resident remove his fence to accommodate development. If the proposed fence is acceptable to everybody it would need to be located three (3) inches off of grade to allow for maintenance with aweed-whipper and there would be landscape fabric with chip or landscape rock to prevent weeds and grass from growing. Council Member Marty expressed his concern for trying to fit aweed-whipper under the fence if there were only three inches of clearance. Council Member Stigney asked Director Ericson if the summary provided to Council included comments from the Planning Commission. Director Ericson explained he had spoken to the Planning Commission at the last meeting and the Commission felt that a six (6) foot fence, from a screening standpoint, provides just as much screening as would an eight (8) foot fence. Council Member Thomas questioned who would be responsible for maintaining the area between the fences and then suggested a six (6) foot fence may make maintenance easier. Director Ericson stated there would need to be an agreement from Mr. Zwirn to allow for maintenance of the fence as Mr. Mezzenga would need to access the area from Mr. Zwirn's property. Mounds View City Council February 26, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 11 Herb Zwirn of 7660 Greenfield Avenue stated he has been before the Planning Commission on this property several times and is here tonight because he took serious offense to comments made by Mr. Ericson at the last meeting. He then stated he accepted the apology of Mr. Ericson. Mr. Zwirn stated he feels there is a lot of misinformation concerning what he is asking for in this matter further stating he is not interested in developing an acrimonious relationship with anybody. Mr. Zwirn stated he is concerned about how the property and the fence will be maintained once the building is built. He stated he did not feel the Planning Commission addressed his concerns and that to him it appeared the Commission wanted to just push this item off to Council. He stated he has always maintained the lighting is an issue as Tom Thumb's lighting lights up his backyard all night long. Although he has been assured the lighting of this property will not be obtrusive he thinks an eight (8) foot fence would give more privacy and screening from the lighting than a six (6) foot fence would. Another major issue for him is the litter. Currently there is a walkway to the north of his property from Greenfield Avenue to the Tom Thumb property and there is a massive amount of litter coming into his yard that he has to deal with. He explained he had tried to convey this issue to the Planning Commission and stated he is asking for a fence to eliminate the pedestrian traffic and prevent debris from blowing or being thrown into his yard. He is also concerned for the loitering that takes place on the Tom Thumb property and is concerned there will be loitering on the property to be developed. He now has an issue with the loitering as they throw litter over the privacy fence at Tom Thumb which ends up in his yard. In his opinion, it would be harder to throw debris into his yard if there was an eight (8) foot fence Mr. Zwirn explained there is cement around the perimeter of his property that his cyclone fence sits on top of. He feels a new fence eight (8) feet high butted up against his fence would help on trajectory privacy issues and prevent people from throwing debris over the top. He then noted Mr. Mezzenga and he were at odds concerning the issue of sleeving over the current posts as Mr. Zwirn does not think it will work with an eight (8) foot fence but it may work with a six (6) foot fence. He stated he is of the position that the City is allowing this building to be built in a place that is looking into his backyard and is not next to him such as another residence would be so he has to deal with certain issues that are not typical to when there is a house next door or parallel to your house. He stated his front windows look into Mr. Mezzenga's parking lot and he is concerned for these issues affecting his enjoyment of his property and for the resale value of his property. Mr. Zwirn stated he is aware that an eight (8) foot fence will not shelter him from the second story of the building but stated he feels the eight (8) foot fence will address more of his concerns such as screening from lighting, the parking lot, and debris being thrown over the fence than a six (6) foot fence would. He stated he is concerned for loitering in the parking lot after hours late at night as he would have to worry about keeping his blinds and drapes closed to keep people from looking into his windows. In his opinion this is an issue because the Planning Commission allowed a variance for the building to be built ten (10) feet off of his property line to accommodate the County Road I setback. • Mounds View City Council February 26, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 12 Mr. Zwirn then stated he and Mr. Mezzenga had a conversation wherein they both agreed it is not an ideal location for the building but Mr. Mezzenga told him he went along with the City's recommendation to expedite matters. He then offered to buy the property from Mr. Mezzenga stating he would go to a bank and get the funds to do so. Mr. Zwirn stated he will not have this development shoved down his throat. Mr. Zwirn clarified he has not attempted to block the development of this piece of property but wants to make sure his issues are heard and properly handled. Mr. Zwirn then stated he did not appreciate how he was characterized by the newspaper. Council Member Marty explained to Mr. Zwirn that the Planning Commission does not have much leeway to make decisions and must go by City Ordinance. He explained Council is the only body that can make a change to an Ordinance. He then explained there have been times where residents feel frustration because they feel the Planning Commission is not hearing them or understanding their point of view but it is simply a matter of the Planning Commission not having the authority to make judgment calls as that is the responsibility of Council. Mr. Zwirn stated he understood and respected the comments of Council Member Marty but if the Council reviewed the tape of the Planning Commission meeting it would be plainly evident, as it is to him, that Commissioner Johnson had no interest in dealing with the issue and simply wanted it to be pushed to Council. Council Member Thomas told Mr. Zwirn she was exercising extreme control in order to address him appropriately as she took extreme offense to his negative comments concerning the Planning Commission. She explained to Mr. Zwirn that she is in the unique position of sitting on Council and was on the Planning Commission when this development was first brought to the City for discussion. She stated she finds the characterization of the Commission to be completely false and thanked Council Member Marty for his comments in support of the Commission. She explained to Mr. Zwirn that the Commission did use its collective intelligence to the best of its ability to try to get two people who are admittedly at odds to reach an agreement. She explained this matter has taken so much time that she was on the Planning Commission and has now been elected to the Council which indicates to her that no one has pushed to get this through. She stated she feels there has been a lot of consideration for him and his neighbors. Council Member Marty suggested continuing the fence to County I so there would not be pedestrian traffic as it would need to go around the building. Mayor Sonterre cautioned that a fence in that area will create an area that may become a congregating area. He stated he understands the concern for litter but based upon the design of the parking lot and the landscaping of the building, the pedestrian traffic litter should be minimized. He expressed concern that litter may blow underneath the fence and be trapped between the two fences. He then asked Mr. Zwirn if he was agreeable with Staff's recommendation for the fence or if he would prefer an eight (8) foot fence all the way to the ground to prevent litter from blowing under. Mounds View City Council February 26, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 13 Mr. Zwirn stated either situation was workable for him. He then noted if Mr. Mezzenga wanted to tear down his fence and put up an eight (8) foot fence on the cement, that would be okay with him. But if there is to be both fences, the new fence would need to be located far enough away from his exiting fence to allow for maintenance. Mayor Sonterre asked Mr. Zwirn if he wanted an eight (8) foot fence like Staff had suggested or an eight (8) foot replacement of his fence. Mr. Zwirn clarified that if Mr. Mezzenga removes his fence and builds an eight (8) foot fence it would then become his fence and maintenance would be his responsibility. Mr. Zwirn stated he did not have a problem with that scenario. Mayor Sonterre stated he understands the concern for the setback and asked Director Ericson if there was a reason that the building could not be shifted 90 degrees. Director Ericson explained he, Mr. Mezzenga, and Mr. Gustafson spent many hours drawing and redrawing the building on the property in an attempt to orient the building in a way that best suited all parties involved. The Planning Commission did not say the building had to go in this spot on the lot but did approve a variance for the 10-foot setback. There is an issue as to parking if the building is not oriented in this fashion but noted if Mr. Mezzenga were able to prepare another plan for the building that worked and met ali City requirements; Staff would be fine with that. Council Member Thomas stated her biggest issue was that she would have preferred another orientation for the building but noted there was an issue concerning parking. She felt it was not acceptable to allow the overflow of parking out into the neighborhood. Director Ericson stated there is no reason why the building and parking lot cannot be switched but that would mean another access that much closer to the Tom Thumb parking lot and code requires a 40-foot separation between driveways. So there would need to be a variance to approve that scenario and the Planning Commission attempted to go with the plan that needed the fewest variances possible. Council Member Marty noted Mr. Zwirn, in a matter of a few years, would be looking at lilacs rather than the concrete building. Mr. Mezzenga clarified he does not feel like the plan for the building was forced on him from the Planning Commission. He stated he did not feel forced but merely felt this was an issue to be dealt with. He also clarified he had told Mr. Zwirn he would have preferred to put the building out on County Road I but stated a person does not always get what they want. He stated he is fine with the plan for the building. Mr. Mezzenga stated he came to the meeting tonight with the impression there would be discussion of the fence and the fence only. He stated he believed all the other issues were heard and addressed. He stated he felt the City and Mr. Zwirn needed to have a bit of faith in his Mounds View City Council February 26, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 14 abilities and assertions that the building and property will be maintained. He then told Council if he is required to install an eight (8) foot fence he may kill the project. Mayor Sonterre asked if it is a cost issue in providing the eight (8) foot fence that would cause him to want to kill the project. Mr. Mezzenga explained it is financial and a concern for wind damage to a fence that high. He then noted he usually makes it his business to be accommodating but in this instance does not feel the eight (8) foot fence is warranted. Mayor Sonterre stated he understood the increased cost to install the fence but noted Mr. Zwirn would take ownership of the fence making any wind damage or other maintenance and repairs the responsibility of Mr. Zwirn. He then asked Mr. Mezzenga to consider this possibility in the interest of remedying the situation. Mayor Sonterre suggested despite the increased cost to install the eight (8) foot fence in the beginning that, in the interest of attempting to reach common ground with Mr. Zwirn, giving ownership of the fence to Mr. Zwirn releases Mr. Mezzenga from maintenance, repair and liability issues. Mr. Mezzenga asked Council to decide if the trash issue is a serious enough concern to raise the fence two feet. Mayor Sonterre stated he was concerned for compromise and thinks, in order to alleviate Mr. Zwirn's concerns and free Mr. Mezzenga from the costs to maintain the fence and liability for the fence, an eight (8) foot fence should be installed and ownership transferred to Mr. Zwirn. Council Member Stigney stated Mr. Zwirn had said he was not concerned for the placement of the fence and then asked if Mr. Mezzenga was concerned for placement of the fence. Mr. Mezzenga stated he did not care where the fence was placed. Council Member Thomas clarified there were two options for the fence being considered. Those two options are either an eight (8) foot fence to replace the current chain link fence or a six (6) foot fence that would be eight (8) inches from the existing fence and three (3) inches off of grade. Mr. Mezzenga stated the ultimate third option for the fence would be a six (6) foot fence in replacement of Mr. Zwirn's fence. Mr. Zwirn stated he has been in the home improvement business himself and does not believe an eight (8) foot fence would be a problem and is what he wants for privacy, light deflection, and garbage reduction. Council Member Quick stated there were eight items in the Resolution as amended and questioned how another item could be added to require a fence built on someone else's property. Mounds View City Council February 26, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 15 Director Ericson stated he would rather the Council not make the requirement that the fence be constructed on Mr. Zwirn's property. He stated he thought Council could simply require that an eight (8) foot fence be constructed and let Mr. Zwirn and Mr. Mezzenga determine the location of the fence. MOTION: Quick. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5527, a Resolution Approving a Development Review for an Office Building at 7664 Greenfield Avenue, with the Stipulation that the Fence Would Run from the Southeast Corner Starting at Four (4) Feet, Increasing to Eight (8) Feet to Screen the Zwirn Property and Gradually Tapering Down to Four (4) Feet at the Northwest Corner Eliminating the Lilac Plantings. The Motion died for lack of a second. Council Member Stigney asked if there was anything Mr. Mezzenga and Mr. Zwirn could work out between them. There was no comment from Mr. Mezzenga or Mr. Zwirn. Council Member Thomas stated she felt cut through pedestrian traffic would be solved by a short fence running north to south. She stated people gathering in that corner is Mr. Mezzenga's problem to deal with and anything else on the other side is an issue to address with Tom Thumb. She then stated she does not see a need to legislate these extremes. If loitering is an issue it can be solved with the property owner. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Sonterre. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5527, a Resolution Approving a Development Review for an Office Building at 7664 Greenfield Avenue with the Stipulation that the Developer Construct an Eight (8) Foot Fence from the Southwest Corner Running East the Entire Length of the Property to the Front of Mr. Zwirn's Residence where the Fence would Taper down to Four (4 Feet) to Greenfield Avenue. Mr. Mezzenga asked if Council was requiring an eight (8) foot fence on the north south line also. Council stated it was not. Mr. Mezzenga stated he had already planned on a six (6) foot section of fence running north south noting there would be a gate to access the area between the two fences. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. B. Continued Discussion and Review of Golf Course Feasibility Study. Mayor Sonterre asked if Council would still like to speak for one hour on this matter in light of the late hour. Consent was reached to allow the meeting to go until 10:00 p.m. at which time it would be decided if the discussions should be continued. Mounds View City Council February 26, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 16 The Springsted Representative provided a handout and statement on the pro forma to Council. Council Member Stigney stated he was curious as to why Council did not receive the information in the packet in order to allow time for review. The Springsted Representative stated he was under the impression they were to provide the information at this meeting. He then explained one of the circumstances they have found themselves with is that the person that helped prepare the content of the document is on vacation in Florida and they have had to do some communication over the telephone noting they just wrapped up the final product this afternoon. He apologized that the information did not make it into the packets. Council Member Marty stated the information was not originally requested and thanked Springsted for providing the information. Council Member Stigney stated that Council has made it a policy that information will be provided in the packet prior to discussion at the Council meeting. He then requested that any future information get to Council prior to actual discussion. The Springsted Representative explained they were asked to do an analysis on the feasibility of the proposed golf course and during the course of the discussions a question was asked as to the original pro forma from 1993. Since the last discussion they have taken the 1993 Market and Economic Feasibility Analysis prepared by EGCS, who was the marketing and golf course consultant at the time, and prepared information that he thinks should demonstrate to Council the errors have been corrected as it pertains to the current feasibility study. The Springsted Representative then went through the eleven factors taken out of the EGOS study and explained them to Council. He explained the original pro forma called fora 50 station driving range and when actually constructed it was a 40 station driving range. The bonds were estimated at a net interest income cost of 6.175. When the bonds were sold the bonds came in at a little better rate than forecasted at the time resulting in an estimated net interest cost of 5.005%. The Springsted Representative noted Council would have the benefit of having a manager to oversee and ensure there would not be additional costs involved that were not anticipated by the feasibility study this time. The net income estimated actual is based on historical performance and comparables and that is the gist of the report. Springsted feels relatively comfortable in regard to the question posed concerning the pro forma in terms of the new study noting he believed the problems inherent in that first study have been corrected. Council Member Stigney asked what the projected original personnel costs were noting the 1999 costs were projected around $180,000 and actually were around $332,000. Council Member Stigney explained that when the course was originally built it appears by looking at the chart that the salary was projected to start at slightly over $150,000 in 1995 and went up to the $180,000 or $190,000 range in 2000. Mounds View City Council February 26, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 17 Mayor Sonterre asked if the figures were the estimated salary or projected out. The Springsted Representative stated the chart reflected total estimated salary projected out five years. Mayor Sonterre noted EGCS was the company that prepared the numbers for the original pro forma and then asked if that organization was contracted by Springsted or if that organization was a separate entity contracted by the City. The Springsted Representative stated EGCS was contracted by the City not Springsted. Mayor Sonterre pointed out for clarification that the errors were as a result of unforeseen changes and are not attributed to Springsted. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Extend the Meeting Fifteen Minutes. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Council Member Stigney asked if Springsted was the original bonding agent for the City and inquired as to how bonding is determined. The Springsted Representative explained the actual issuance of bond for the debt for the golf course would primarily be based on the projections of revenues for the golf course. The City's credit rating is utilized only in terms of having it reviewed by credit rating agencies indicating they would have relied on the study prepared by EGCS. The Springsted Representative explained that in many cases on golf course bond issues there is a study done of the type prepared for the City for discussion at this meeting. In the case of EGCS the City hired a consultant to work with them on developing the golf course and part of the consultant's job was preparing the pro forma. He noted Springsted was not asked or told to do anything other than use the pro forma as provided to them stating the City had indicated it was comfortable with the information provided in the study by EGCS. Council Member Stigney questioned whether reviewing the study was part of Springsted's responsibility. The Springsted Representative stated his company would not have reviewed the study as the City had contracted with another company to provide the information. He stated they did review the study in terms of working to bond for the golf course but noted the information from EGCS was relied upon for financing. He then explained the study made certain assumptions that never took place. For example revenues were figured on $8.00 a round and somewhere along the line the decision to take the sales tax out of the $8.00 was made, thereby shorting revenues by 6.5%. • Council Member Stigney asked if the sales tax issue was researched. Mounds View City Council February 26, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 18 ~J ~J • The Springsted Representative stated they were given $8.00 and that is what was used noting he would have assumed that if it took $8.00 per round to meet the projected revenue one could only assume that sales tax would be added to the $8.00 not subtracted from it. Mayor Sonterre asked if the City had to secure the bonds with an amount of money as a down payment from the City. Finance Director Kessel indicated bonds typically require aone-year debt service that amounted to approximately $309,000. Mayor Sonterre asked if the down payment was considered in the pro forma. The Springsted Representative indicated that it was. Mayor Sonterre noted there were much higher expenses than estimated and asked if those expenses were solely for the cost of developing the course or if they were all operational costs. The Springsted Representative explained that question is why Springsted was not able to get the materials to Council earlier. He then explained they did not have a chance to look at the efficiency or effectiveness of the golf course and break down the costs. There were some costs that were not anticipated that would put them into the extraordinary costs from the beginning. Mayor Sonterre stated from the time the first shovel hit the ground until the first person walked on the course, not including legal fees, estimated costs were exceeded. Mr. Hammerschmidt explained actual construction costs came in under budget and there was money left over but decisions were made to save money that ended up costing money in the long run. Council Member Thomas stated the actual debt service numbers are less than was estimated by several thousand dollars every year. The Springsted Representative confirmed that they were and indicated it was due to interest rates. Council Member Thomas questioned if the debt service estimates were prepared by Springsted. The Springsted Representative indicated that they were. The Springsted Representative explained it is his role to act as City Staff to structure the finances for the golf course to City advantage, take the information to the market, and get bids on the debt. Council Member Thomas asked if consideration was given to refinancing. Mounds View City Council February 26, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 19 The Springsted Representative stated the City would have paid a higher interest rate in order to be allowed the option of refinancing in a shorter term. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Sonterre. To Extend the Meeting Fifteen Minutes. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. The Springsted Representative stated his company was asked if the City can cut costs and still make money at the golf course. He stated he cannot answer that question right now noting the City may not be able to sell the course if it makes changes that make it not as valuable to customers. Council Member Stigney questioned whether, using the original projections for the original golf course and the escalating debt payments, if it were ever practical that it would be paid off. The Springsted Representative stated it absolutely was or the bond would not have been approved. He explained the one issue he had to work with is that the City did not want a substantial up front contribution in the first couple of years so the principal was pushed out and for the first couple of years only interest was paid. Council Member Stigney asked what the risk factor was for the City. The Springsted Representative stated at that time there were three different ways to finance the golf course a referendum, a gross revenue bond, or a straight revenue bond. When the City decided to use a gross revenue bond, the risk factor for the analysis went away because the risk shifted from the bond-holder to the City. He stated the City assumed the risk noting had the City done a straight revenue bond then the bond-holder would have demanded a sensitivity figure but it was not required when the City did a gross revenue bond. Council Member Stigney questioned whether the City was aware of the information concerning the different types of bonding. The Springsted Representative stated the City had all the information. Council Member Thomas questioned what the depreciation figure was for. Finance Director Kessel explained it was for leasehold equipment and buildings. Council Member Thomas asked if depreciation was figured in the original pro forma. The Springsted Representative indicated it was not. Finance Director Kessel explained there are different ways to define things and the projections done by City Staff for profit would show depreciation but no principal on debt. One of the main • Mounds View City Council February 26, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 20 concerns is the impact on cash flow so it is adjusted for cash flow as needed for capital improvements. Council Member Stigney noted the construction costs were $1.1 million and the total bond was for $3.090 million. He then questioned where the rest of the money went. Mr. Hammerschmidt explained there were significant land costs involved. Finance Director Kessel explained if Council looked at the bond book there is a breakdown of costs as to property, debt reserve, start up costs, and equipment. He then explained there was an issue as the City incurred the debt and the course was not up and running for a year so interest was accumulating before the course was even open. He then told Council he could get all the numbers to them if they wished. The Springsted Representative explained the numbers were in the study. Mayor Sonterre thanked Springsted for coming to the meeting. Mayor Sonterre asked that a cover to cover discussion of the feasibility study be scheduled for the next Council Work Session. Council Member Marty told Springsted he is feeling more comfortable with them all the time and • thanked them for the information provided and the questions they were able to answer and explain to Council. The Springsted Representatives noted one of them would not be available for the March 5, 2001 work session. Consent was reached by Council to discuss the feasibility study at the March 12, 2001 Council meeting. C. Golf Course Internet Proposal. MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Table Item lOC to the Next Council Meeting. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 11, Next Council Work Session: Monday, March 5, 2001 Next Council Meeting: Monday, March 12, 2001 • f • Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Sonterre adjourned the meeting at 10:34 p.m. Transcribed and recorded by: Joan Lenzmeier Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. February 26, 2001 Page 21 MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 26, 2001 Please sign in NAME ~DDRF.SS ....J C.~ ~ .. ~ ~j ~~\'C~ C \ ~Y1'1 Ca._1('~ ~ ~ ~ \ ' ` ` -C~~ Y'~!\.. lU fie.... ,. 1-'~ *!O ~ ! ~F' CP v ~ Z' - Al ~' ~C~ ~ J ~ A ~~ ' ~ ~© ~/ ` n _ /' W ~.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /~ f C:Admin.resolution.sign-in sheet