Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 2001/04/09PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting ~, ~~ .~, ~+ ~^~~^ ~' April 9, 2001 ry "'t ~ `l ~~ ~ Mounds View City Hall ~, ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ '~ 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 7:05 P.M. 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Sonterre, Quick, Marty, Stigney, and Thomas. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Monday, Apri19, 2001 City Council Agenda. City Administrator Miller requested that Resolution 5555, a Resolution reaffirming the relationship between the City Council and the City Clerk Administrator be added as Item 7C. • MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Approve the April 9, 2001, City Council Agenda as amended. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 4. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR David Jahnke of 8428 Eastwood Road addressed Council and stated that Terry Augustine never had anything to do with the comments in the newspaper and the only thing he agreed with was the Bell Rae Ballroom comment. Dan Lamb of 2305 Sherwood Road asked Council if any of them had reviewed the tape of the meeting with the Rice Creek Watershed District and residents. Mayor Sonterre and Council Member Marty indicated they had reviewed the tape. Mr. Lamb then stated that with all the melting snow and rain the flow rates that the study came up with seem significantly different than his flow rates. Mr. Lamb stated that, in his opinion, the modeling for the pond involved a lot of supposition as to how much JDS contributed to the flow assuming 60%. He stated he estimates that the vast majority is coming from the golf course area to the north. • Mounds View City Council April 9, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 2 Mr. Lamb stated that previous Mayor Coughlin, Mayor Sonterre, and Council Member Marty had commented that the reason they had gotten into government is because they did not like things being railroaded into their neighborhoods. He asked that they consider how this ponding project will affect his neighborhood. He then asked if Council Member Marty was turning over on the environment by supporting the billboards. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 6. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims B. Licenses for Approval C. Acceptance of Revised Planning Commission Bylaws MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Thomas. To Approve the Consent Agenda as Presented. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS i A. Continued Review of Golf Course Feasibility Study -Springsted Council Member Thomas asked how it would affect Springsted's recommendations and conclusions if the City is able to readjust the numbers within the spending and budgets to include all expenses. She then asked if that would affect the conclusion to go ahead with the additional nine holes. The Springsted representative stated that scenario would strengthen the argument for the nine holes as it would be positive cash flow for the City. Council Member Stigney commented that there are statements in the study that he questions the validity of. He explained that while watching the masters on television he heard a statement indicating that golf has lost two million players and the industry is not expecting any new replacements for those lost. Council Member Stigney questioned the statement "golf is becoming increasingly more popular every year" as it seems to conflict with what he had heard concerning golf losing players. He then noted the demographic information seemed to be outdated and questioned why Springsted did not use more current data. Council Member Stigney questioned the disclaimer concerning market analysis. He stated he • feels the study is dealing with older information and that he feels the Blaine golf course should have been considered in the study. Mounds View City Council April 9, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 3 Council Member Stigney stated he was concerned that not all of the courses within the eight-mile radius responded to the survey by Springsted and that Springsted did not solicit the information from them but instead used only the information returned to them. The Springsted Representative indicated the disclaimer in the study was correct because Springsted is not a marketing firm. He stated they have used some standard numbers that are used within the industry and, if there is a consensus at the Council level to look at market numbers, then Council should do that. He noted there is a comparison on costs to build and operate golf courses on the market side and, although they have looked at it, they do not submit this as an exhaustive study as it was never intended to be. He stated he would not speculate on the Blaine course because it is targeting a totally different market share and, unless the City is going into a different market share, then they would not consider it. He then explained that the target market for Mounds View's course is substantially different and the difference is income level, beginning golfer and the golfer that wants a quick nine-hole game. The Blaine course is marketing itself as a regional course to the youth market to get them interested in golf. Council Member Stigney stated he is concerned that Springsted knew about the course in Blaine and did not include it in the study. He then stated he is concerned that Springsted did not attempt to get information from those courses that did not return the survey. The Springsted Representative stated he felt they had enough history and data and does not think it would substantially change the information for the study so they did not feel it was necessary. He then stated they have a list and have a very strong feel that the operating cost ranges listed are accurate and they are comfortable with them or they would not have given them. Council Member Marty asked Mr. Hammerschmidt what the target areas were for the golf course. Mr. Hammerschmidt stated he does not consider Blaine a risk and one reason is Blaine is marketing themselves to the high school player which would take high school play away from Mounds View's course and free it up for adult play. He stated Blaine has been working on the funding for the course for four years and during that time they have allowed him to sit on the advisory board and he has learned the course is to be a championship course with 18 holes where youth will pay their age and adults will pay $40.00. He stated that since Mounds View is a $15.00 course Blaine is nowhere near the same target market. He then explained the target market for Mounds View is the beginning golfer, the inexperienced golfer and people who want a short course. He further stated there is not much competition in the executive course market. He also indicated the growth and interest in golf is increasing at lower priced courses and decreasing at the $50.00 and higher courses. Mayor Sonterre questioned whether the study by the National Golf Foundation specified regionalized numbers that were different in this state than in other states and wondered if Minnesota was losing or gaining at the same rate. Mounds View City Council April 9, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 4 Mr. Hammerschmidt stated he did have a regional breakout that he receives on a yearly basis but noted the numbers were all within a couple of percentage points of each other and that the national averages apply with very small differences. Mr. Hammerschmidt stated Mounds View is competing with seven or eight courses and the rest of the 100 plus courses in the metro area are in a different market. Mayor Sonterre questioned whether Mr. Hammerschmidt felt Mounds View was competing with some of the courses in the study that are quite a distance from the City. Mr. Hammerschmidt indicated he was referring to those courses that are closer to the City. Council Member Stigney noted he was able to get information at the National Golf Federation website on the Internet and he found that the bigger problem is keeping people interested in golf and returning to the course once you have attracted them to it. Mr. Hammerschmidt agreed that the retention factor is an issue. He stated leaders in the industry are trying to warn people that they need to make it comfortable for golfers in order to retain them. He then explained Mounds View has been ahead for a while as the pros in the pro shop are accessible and there is a teaching facility at the course to help make golfers more comfortable. Council Member Thomas questioned how comfortable Springsted was with limiting the study to the eight-mile radius. The Springsted Representative explained the study was kept to the eight-mile radius because the first study used that radius and they wanted to stay as close as possible to the first study for comparison purposes. He then stated they had tried to use the areas that showed the same potential growth in golfers based on demographics that were the same or similar to Mounds View. Council Member Thomas stated she had difficulty with that example due to the cities on the north having much more capability for growth than Mounds View. She then stated she understood the need for the apples to apples comparison but asked if given the opportunity, would Springsted have expanded beyond the eight-mile radius. The Springsted Representative stated that when they did a survey follow up of the golfers it substantiated that most golfers are coming from within the eight-mile radius. Mr. Hammerschmidt explained that the golf course keeps track via telephone numbers of who plays golf in Mounds View. He indicated there were 8,000 separate telephone numbers that called for tee times last year. He then stated if you assign a value of two people per phone call you end up with 16,000 golfers who used the facility to play 42,000 rounds meaning the average person played about four rounds of golf. He then stated the National Golf Foundation feels you need 2,000 to 3,000 golfers to support a public golf course using the national average to make up the 42,000 rounds. He further stated that if you could get each current golfer to play two more Mounds View City Council Apri19, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 5 • rounds each you would have the 30,000 rounds needed for the additional nine holes. He also stated the phone calls break down to the eight-mile area. The Springsted Representative stated that normally the golf course studies that they do would involve a little greater area than the eight miles but he stated he feels comfortable that the eight miles is a wide enough sample of cities. Council Member Stigney referred to the statistics for average weekly pay that indicated an increase of 30.24% over the last six years and asked if that was factored in. The Springsted Representative indicated that if you use 3% over 20 years you would get that number btrt that they did not factor in the 30.24% figure. He then stated they used the national CPI which they confirmed with the state before using. Council Member Stigney noted Tiger Woods is attracting people to golf but indicated that he feels the economy is slowing down and people may not have as much money for golfing. He stated his main concern is the financial projections are based on using the course the City has now and doing another nine holes. He then stated Mr. Hammerschmidt had a list of items that the City would need if it added an additional nine holes and questioned whether those items were figured into the cost factors for the additional nine holes. The Springsted Representative explained the cost list drafted by Mr. Hammerschmidt was not submitted to them and the costs were not used. He stated those improvements would need to be taken into consideration based on the success of the course. He suggested Council and the public should decide if the course could support those improvements. He further stated that this is not a high end facility but is a low end one that people will want to back up to if they cannot afford $50.00 courses due to slower economic times. Council Member Stigney stated he is concerned that if the City does not look at the up front projected costs to make the course viable and practical then the City is missing a big chunk of the actual costs. He then stated that to go ahead with the project and look at costs later is how the City got into trouble last time. Council ,Member Marty stated Springsted was contracted to .look at the black and white hard figures and those hard figures included the prospective or proposed possibility of another nine holes to determine the cost effectiveness and what the possible outlay against the income would be. He then explained Mr. Hammerschmidt developed a plan in the event the billboards did not go through. He then requested that the discussion be kept to what the City has asked Springsted to do. Mayor Sonterre stated he appreciated Council Member Stigney's concern for the eventuality but stated he feels that Springsted was asked to look at specific numbers that did not involve moving the range, adding a larger parking lot, or a larger clubhouse. He then stated the City does need to . be cognizant of the fact that the second course may not be completely viable if the City does not Mounds View City Council April 9, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 6 expand. He further stated that, if the time comes to move on a Resolution, the Resolution should clearly state what the costs involved are. Council Member Stigney stated that the Mayor's comments were well spoken but he still feels the need to look at the whole picture when spending his money as a taxpayer. He then noted the study mentioned the uncertainty of revenue in the bonds discussion and he stated he feels the City needs to be very cautious the second time around. Mr. Hammerschmidt explained the master plan presented almost two years ago was to come up with revenue producing items and a list of what items would be needed if the changes were made. He stated it was clearly stated there was at least a two year interval between each step and the decision was supposed to be made as to whether it was feasible to proceed with the next step. He then stated he felt the course did not need to compete with bars and restaurants but merely needed to provide minimal service for the golfers. He further stated he felt the key is to put money into the golf course and then worry about the amenities. Council Member Thomas asked if there would be a dedicated revenue stream for the bonds or if there was a need to use general obligation bonds. The Springsted Representative stated that based on the numbers they looked at the City could issue gross revenue bonds for the second course and show positive cash flow. He stated the City does not have the authority for general obligation bonds and would need a public vote to issue . that type of bond. He stated they used gross revenue bonds because it is the most cost effective way to do it. He further stated that to do a pure revenue bond would cost considerably more than a gross revenue bond and due to the nature of the market that would be hard to sell. Council Member Thomas asked what gross percentage the City is plus or minus on the revenue percentage in terms of interest rate. The Springsted Representative stated he believed the City to be +.5% or possibly closer to +.25%. Council Member Thomas questioned whether there is the option to gain a little more interest rate if the City went with a straight general obligation bond. Council Member Stigney stated that one of the options they were looking at doing if the community supports it was to do an annual subsidy of residents and expansion of the course. He noted if the billboards come in that should resolve the debt service issue and the City would not need anything further. He stated that the study mentioned several options but he has seen only two options. The first is to loan the course money and the second is to reach the point to refinance. He then questioned what the other options are. The Springsted Representative stated he was not sure on the language usage but stated they have looked at the option of refinancing the existing debt but it has an attractive interest rate noting it would be something that should be refinanced at the call date but it is not worth struggle right Mounds View City Council April 9, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 7 now. He then stated another revenue source, which is a third option, is to maintain or control operating costs and the additional revenue of the new course could subsidize the existing course. Council Member Stigney questioned why Springsted was using outdated demographic information. The Springsted Representative stated it was the most current data they were able to obtain that they were comfortable with. He stated they would not work with outdated data if there is current available. He further stated there maybe data out there but it is not in the same format. Council Member Marty thanked Springsted for their time, hard work, and research. He also apologized for Springsted having to sit through the entire meeting last time and not be heard. Mr. Hammerschmidt noted the golf course driving range is open and is booked through Friday. He advised that anyone who wanted a tee time for the weekend should call now. Council Member Marty asked if Mounds View was the first course to open. Mr. Hammerschmidt stated Mounds View was the first course to open and that it had nice reviews on WCCO as someone had called in to the station and said The Bridges is open. • B. Greenfield Park Ponding Proposal Mayor Sonterre noted Mr. Ulrich was not able to attend the meeting and City Administrator Miller would present this matter. City Administrator Miller noted representatives from the Rice Creek Watershed District Staff were present to ask Council to approve the ponding project reviewed with Council on a number of occasions and to authorize them to proceed with final plans and specifications. City Administrator Miller explained there were two options for the pond. Option 1 is a pond estimated at approximately 5 acres and option two is a pond estimated at approximately 3.7 acres. She then stated Staff recommends approval of the ponding project. Council Member Marty noted he had been told that approving the ponding project could preclude the City of Mounds View from being requested or required to provide water quality ponds in the future. He then asked Mr. Ericson to explain the situation. Community Development Director Ericson explained there has been an indication from Rice Creek Watershed that if the ponding were approved and built on the proposed site it could eliminate the need to create ponding in other locations during street reconstruction. Council Member Stigney questioned if something was done on Highway 10 how the ponding would come into play. Mounds View City Council April 9, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 8 Director Ericson explained it is an issue of the wetland credits and not of actually directing the water to that pond. Mayor Sonterre asked if residents wanted to improve streets with curb and gutter how it would work with the new needs for a place to send the water. The Rice Creek Watershed representative explained it is the standard policy of the district to require ponding if streets are reconstructed. The representative then noted the pond would factor positively into the equation but would not speculate as to whether it would mean absolutely no ponding or a lesser amount. Council Member Thomas asked what moving the pond to the north side of Highway 10 would do to the effectiveness percentage. The Rice Creek Watershed District representative indicated it would be fairly significant because the area to the west does not drain through the golf course. Council Member Marty stated he had a number of comments from residents on the south side of Highway 10 who indicated they would like to preserve their area as much as possible. He then questioned whether a smaller pond in the proposed location in conjunction with some ponding on the north side of Highway 10 would be workable for Rice Creek Watershed. The Rice Creek Watershed District representative stated they needed to make those decisions independently due to the planning and budgeting cycle. The representative then noted that if Council desired to stay with a smaller pond they will move forward this planning and budgeting cycle and look at the possibility of doing something additional on the golf course during another budget cycle. Council Member Thomas stated she had gone to the proposed ponding area to view it. She then asked residents in attendance to explain the difference in the current water level as compared to a normal water level. Mr. Lamb of 2305 Sherwood Road stated that normally after the ground is thawed there is about one foot of water in JD1 and Junction 5 almost never has any water in it. Mike Reed of 2208 Lois Drive stated he believes the water appears to be coming out of Highway 10 rather than Sherwood Road. He then stated he did not believe that 60% of the flow is coming off of Sherwood Road. The Rice Creek Watershed District representative indicated the feasibility study gives a proposal fora 12, 9, 6, and 3 acre pond and gives decreases in flow rates of roughly 30 to 35%. He then noted the two things to keep in mind with flow numbers are there are two branches. One branch from the north and one branch from the west. He then explained the water flows a lot more . slowly out of the north than from the west. He further explained they are concerned with the erosion that takes place with the sudden large flows from heavy rains and snow melts. Mounds View City Council April 9, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 9 Michelle Sanbeck of 2356 Sherwood Road stated she did not understand how Rice Creek could say the water is coming from the west. She stated there is a pond to the west and there is no water in that area. She further stated she is concerned that her neighborhood will have to handle all the water in the area and could possibly be flooded if the pond is not constructed properly. Council Member Stigney asked if there was a flow rate analysis conducted on water coming under Highway 10. The Rice Creek Watershed District representative indicated there was a flow meter placed at County Road J and one at Quincy Street but not at Highway 10 as the culvert sits dry most of the time. He stated they have found that during higher flow events the flows at Quincy are substantially higher than at County Road J. Council Member Marty stated he had some of the same concerns as Ms. Sanbeck about controlling water coming from the north and he would like to have a better understanding of the big picture. Council Member Thomas stated that at the last work session Rice Creek indicated a liability clause could be inserted to cover possible flooding. The Rice Creek Watershed District representative stated she did not mean to indicate Rice Creek Watershed would enter into a contract with a liability clause for any possible flood and apologized for any misunderstanding. She then stated she would check with the District's attorney about the situation. Council Member Marty read Resolution 5542 that would require Rice Creek Watershed to assume liability for flooding based on the design or construction of the pond as determined by a court of law. The Rice Creek Watershed District representative stated the way the Resolution is written and the way it was stated by Council Member Thomas was considerably different and stated she felt Rice Creek Watershed would not have a problem with the language of the Resolution. City Attorney Riggs confirmed the language of the Resolution was significantly different than the statement by Council Member Thomas as Rice Creek would be assuming liability for design flaws. Council Member Quick asked if the exit point of the pond would be staying the same as it is. The Rice Creek Watershed District representative indicated the exit point of the pond would be staying the same and the bottom would be lowered. He then explained storm sewers are designed to handle aten-year event which is defined as more than 4.2 inches of rain. Council Member Stigney noted that at the last meeting with residents one of the residents had asked if an environmental impact study was conducted and the answer was no. Council Member Mounds View City Council April 9, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 10 Stigney questioned whether Rice Creek Watershed would be conducting an environmental impact study. The Rice Creek Watershed District representative stated they have not performed one and could still do so but stated that decision is left up to the discretion of the board. She then stated that all of the elements that would be analyzed in an impact statement will be looked at as part of the design process. Council Member Stigney asked if the City would receive an acre per acre wetland credit. The Rice Creek Watershed District representative stated wetland credits are based on how much wetland is created and there is no discretion. Council Member Stigney stated that the pond seemed quite large to him and questioned whether something smaller could be done. The Rice Creek Watershed District representative explained that at 3.7 acres they would begin losing the cost effectiveness for the project. Council Member Quick asked what it would take to remove the pond once it is in place. The Rice Creek Watershed District representative indicated the pond is filled in with dirt. Council Member Quick asked if the City wanted to fill in the pond to develop the property if it was expensive to do so. The Rice Creek Watershed District representative stated if the District does grant wetland credits to the City it would be virtually impossible to develop the property as there are restrictions and covenants that go along with the granting of wetland credits. Council Member Quick questioned if approving the pond would prevent future development in that area. The Rice Creek Watershed District representative stated the. wetland area and upland buffer would not be able to be developed. Council Member Thomas stated she felt there were so many advantages and disadvantages that this matter was hard to prioritize. She then stated she felt that a smaller pond may be worth building but stated she did not feel she could support a large pond. Mayor Sonterre stated it was his understanding the Resolution is in favor of the proposal based on Council preference for size of the pond. He then explained there was a beneficial meeting with MNDOT where it was discovered that there may have been an inappropriate decision made • when it came to determining Mounds View was not eligible for the sound wall. He further stated that a representative from MNDOT had indicated that if the City were to put in an earthen berm Mounds View City Council Apri19, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 11 in the area it maybe of a cost benefit to MNDOT that would make this a more desirable project for MNDOT and possibly move it up in priority. Council Member Quick noted that the Silverview pond has functioned very well and there are expensive homes on one side. He stated the pond is a nice amenity for the City and would say that the pond rivals and surpasses the proposed pond for Greenfield. He further stated that before 1970 the proposed ponding area was farmed and the trees in that area are cottonwood which basically grow an inch or two a year in diameter. Jane Lamb of 2305 Sherwood Road showed an aerial photograph of the area showing it was designated as a wetland area. Council Member Quick stated the area had been farmed in the past. Ms. Lamb stated she would appreciate it if Council could look at other locations for the pond. Tom Kosel of 8120 Jackson Drive stated he had sent an e-mail to Council prior to the meeting. He stated he finds himself in a dilemma as it is difficult to make a decision on the pond as he has found it difficult to get factual information. He stated he is not against the pond or the need for the pond but is against the location. He stated that Rice Creek has said if Council says no to the pond they would drop the idea. He then questioned why the pond is so important to Rice Creek if they will so easily drop the pond if it is not approved by Council. Mayor Sonterre thanked Mr. Kosel for his objectivity and the e-mails on this matter. Council Member Marty stated he did not get an e-mail from Mr. Kosel. Council Member Stigney stated he had seen an article in the paper that stated Roseville had a separate maintenance contract for ponding. He then questioned whether Rice Creek has considered doing that in Mounds View. The Rice Creek Watershed District representative stated the Joint Powers Agreement would address maintenance for the pond but said the District is assuming it would be doing the maintenance for the pond. Council Member Stigney asked Rice Creek Watershed if they were willing to do nothing if the ponding is not approved by Council. The Rice Creek Watershed District representative stated they would do nothing at this time if the pond is not approved. The representative stated the matter would not be completely abandoned but would be lowered on the priority list. Council Member Stigney stated he objected to the ponding size due to the negative impact on future development. He further stated he did not support either plan. Mounds View City Council Apri19, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 12 Council Member Marty agreed with Council Member Quick that the pond at Silverview is a nice amenity now that the trail is completed. Council Member Marty stated he can see a possible need for this pond but stated it appears to him that the steady water flow is from the north. He then asked that Rice Creek put management of the water flow to the north on its list of priorities to be addressed in the near future. MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Sonterre. To Amend Resolution 5542 to Specify that the City of Mounds View approves Option 2 as specified. Council Member Marty stated this may move forward but stated he would like Rice Creek to work with residents and their concerns as much as possible on the project and make any adaptations as necessary to accommodate residents without deviating from the 3.7 acres. Council Member Stigney questioned whether supporting the amendment to the Resolution would be supporting the Resolution. Mayor Sonterre indicated it would not. Council Member Quick made a point of order that the Resolution before Council had a place for Council to insert the size of the pond. Council Member Thomas stated the purpose of her motion is to indicate what size pond Council is approving before the Resolution is approved. Council Member Quick questioned whether a five acre pond could fit if the pond was elongated to the east to stay away from the trees. The Rice Creek Watershed District representative indicated it was possible. Council Member Quick stated that if the City wanted to put a baseball field in that location there would be a need to remove one of the fourplexes. Mayor Sonterre indicated that Park and Recreation wanted to reserve the property for future park purposes and had thought possibly a soccer field but the school has said they need a baseball field. Council Member Quick stated the property did not seem big enough for a soccer field and stated he did not think Council wanted to use eminent domain for residential property so why not use the property for the pond. Ayes - 4 Nays - 1 (Quick) Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5542 as Amended. Mounds View City Council April 9, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 13 Ayes - 4 Nays - 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. The Rice Creek Watershed District representatives thanked Council and pledged to work with the City and the community on the pond. C. Resolution 5555, a Resolution Reaffirming the Relationship Between the City Council and the City Clerk Administrator MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5555, a Resolution Reaffirming the Relationship Between the City Council and the City Clerk Administrator. Mayor Sonterre noted the Resolution outlined and set forth the role and scope of duties of the City Clerk Administrator as directed by the Mounds View City Council. Ayes - 5 Nays 0 Motion carried. 8. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS None. 9. REPORTS Mayor Sonterre reported that he, Mr. Ericson, and Ms. Miller had attended a meeting with representatives from the Department of Transportation to discuss the circumstances relating to the redevelopment of County Highway 10. He stated the City had been led to believe this was a turn back situation and has since found out it is not. It was determined that the County is the decision maker to determine how the program dollars are spent. He explained he made the case that the City would prefer that the County use as little as possible of the $1.28 million dollars for bituminous and use most of it for public safety issues. The indication was that the funds are available for Ramsey County to use as long as they are used for construction and not engineering. He stated the only reservation expressed by Ramsey County is that there is no firm plan and no firm funding mechanism in place for the redevelopment. He further stated the City is committed to working with the County to expedite the schedule and get financing options more defined as well as an actual formal plan prior to January 1, 2002. If this is done, it should be possible to save a significant portion of the program funds for the redevelopment. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Reaffirm Resolution 5555. Council Member Quick asked that Mayor Sonterre read Resolution 5555. Mayor Sonterre read Resolution 5555 outlining the duties and responsibilities of the City Clerk Administrator. ~J Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting Ayes - 5 10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Nays - 0 Apri19, 2001 Page 14 Motion carried. A. Park & Recreation Commission Minutes February 27, 2001. MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Accept the February 27, 2001, Park & Recreation Commission Minutes as presented. Marty questioned the position description and stated he thought it needed to be clarified. Mayor Sonterre stated that the definition is due to Council asking for a review of the scope and duties and the request for a position description for the commission members. Council Member Thomas stated she did not think the description in question was referring to a member position but to the commission itself. Ayes - 4 Nays 1 (Marty) Motion carried. B. Monday, March 26, 2001 City Council Minutes. • ~J Council Member Stigney requested the following changes: On Page 4 change the reference to "convention center" to "banquet center". On Page 4 change "Miler" to "Miller". MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Thomas. To Approve the Monday, March 26, 2001, City Council Minutes with the Requested Changes. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 11. Next Council Work Session: Next Council Meeting: 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Sonterre adjourned the meeting at 9:43 p.m. Transcribed and recorded by: Joan Lenzmeier Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Monday, May 7, 2001 Motion carried. Monday, Apri123, 2001 MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 9, 2001 Please sign in N_~~I~ ADDR~.SS ~ ` ~~ j - ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~a~~~~ C:Admin.resolution.sign-in sheet