Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 2001/05/29PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting `"~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ .` May 29, 2001 ,~~` K~ ~" ~, 9 ~~~~ ~~' ~ ~ ~~ a Mounds View City Hall ~ 4y 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 7:10 P.M. 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Sonterre, Quick, Marty, Stigney, and Thomas. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Monday, May 29, 2001 City Council Agenda. Mayor Sonterre noted that Item SB would be an overall update on Pinewood Elementary MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Approve the May 29, 2001, City Council Agenda as amended. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 4. PUBLIC INPUT David Jahnke of 8428 Eastwood Road questioned if the three-minute time limit included the time it took for Council to answer his questions. Mayor Sonterre indicated that Mr. Jahnke would be given latitude and asked him to proceed with his questions. Mr. Jahnke asked for clarification on the comments concerning TIF monies made at the last Council meeting. He then stated he was very concerned about how much the City has spent in attorney's fees on the billboard issue. He stated he felt that the attorney's bill is so high he is not sure that the City will make enough money on the billboards to cover it. Mr. Jahnke noted that he had brought up many of the issues that are now surfacing and he thanked City Administrator Miller for the way she is handling administration of City business. He further commented that City Administrator Miller seems to want accountability and he thanked her for that. Mounds View City Council May 29, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 2 . Council Member Quick asked Community Development Director Ericson to explain TIF to Mr. Jahnke. Council Member Stigney indicated that all of the tax dollars go into the TIF pool. Finance Director Kessel explained that the City receives 22% to 24% of general property taxes. He noted the base tax is frozen and that the money goes to the County and the School District and anything over that goes into the TIF pool. Council Member Quick noted the City could use the money in the TIF pool however the City deems appropriate under the law. He then stated that the City could not use the funds to buy down taxes. Finance Director Kessel confirmed the comments of Council Member Quick. Dan Coughlin of 8468 Spring Lake Road told the Mayor he was breaking the vow he made to stay away from Council Chambers as much as possible. Mr. Coughlin then explained that during the course of the last two weeks he has received more telephone calls from reporters and citizens concerning the golf course than he did during his last six months in office. He further stated that he would not have come to Council but noted that, soon after being quoted in the Pioneer Press, he began to receive telephone calls he would classify as harassing and they were disturbing enough to come before Council. Mr. Coughlin told Council he is concerned about the numbers coming to light and noted he felt an in depth investigation into the matter was warranted. He expressed concern with the fact that the golf course manager issued a press release on his own without consulting the City Administrator or Council. He told Council he feels such an action is insubordination and in "the real world" an employee would be terminated for such an action. He then requested the City investigate the situation. Mr. Coughlin told Council that Mounds View is the laughing stock of the area and this type of situation does not help matters. He noted that several weeks ago Council passed a resolution to fully support the City Administrator and that he has been hearing rumors that some people crossed their fingers when they voted in favor of that Resolution. He then urged Council to show with its actions that they do and will support the Administrator when it counts wherever the chips may fall. He further noted that, if the City needs to purge certain elements within the City, it should be done. Mr. Coughlin stated that there are good and honest people that work for the City for no reason other than a paycheck. He stated that those people are the ones getting hurt by allowing this craziness to continue as they are painted with the same brush. He then asked Council to deal with the issue to make Mounds View more than the laughing stock that it presently is. Council Member Marty stated that he did not think much had changed in the five months since Mr. Coughlin was in office. He then questioned why Mr. Coughlin was suddenly alleging there Mounds View City Council May 29, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 3 are improprieties. He further stated that, if there were improprieties, Mr. Coughlin was Mayor for two years and he does not understand why Mr. Coughlin is now stepping forward, when he is no longer the Mayor, to chastise City Staff when during his tenure he was a champion for them. Mr. Coughlin stated that, to be honest, these are issues that have just now come to light. He noted he was never made aware of the percentage clause in the golf course manager's contract and noted he prides himself on being open minded enough to take a second look at things. He further stated he was not in favor of building the course but stated that, once the City was a business owner, he made every effort to make sure it was promoted because the City had bond payments to pay. He then stated he has yet to play a round of golf at the course Council Member Marty indicated that Mr. Coughlin had not answered his question. Mr. Coughlin indicated that some of these issues began on his watch and that in as much and in so far that he is responsible for it he takes full responsibility. He then stated that anyone else who had a part in it should take responsibility as well. Mike Szczepanski of 2385 Laporte Drive addressed Council and indicated he had lived in Mounds View for 21 years. He stated that during his 21 years he has been to Council approximately six times and that most of those times it was concerning the golf course. Mr. Szczepanski then stated that he is appalled by the amount of money spent in bonuses to the . golf course manager and to the four or five employees that work at the golf course. He stated that, "in the real world" an employee does not get bonuses of 50% of his annual wages. He then asked Council if any one of them had received a 50% bonus from their jobs. Mr. Szczepanski stated he feels that it is completely ridiculous that the City can spend a quarter of a million dollars over the course of three years on golf course salaries but cannot buy a new park building to replace the one that is rotting away. Mr. Szczepanski stated he did not care who caused the problem but requested that the City look into the issue and asked Council Members to abstain from voting on any issues that may come before Council if they are involved. Mr. Szczepanski stated he is surprised that a St. Paul paper is the only one printing information on the issue and stated that he intends to look into the reason why the local paper is no carrying the story. He stated he hopes there will be an outcry from the residents of the City once they are made aware of the situation. He then stated that if the golf course manager did do what he is alleged to have done then he should be removed. Mr. Szczepanski stated that if he was the golf course manager he would want to expand the course too as he would be able to get double the money. He then told Council he did not feel that the course should be expanded until the first course is completely paid for. • Mounds View City Council May 29, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 4 • Mr. Szczepanski asked Council if the City received any money from the proceeds made by the golf pros. Mayor Sonterre answered "no" and indicated that the City did not receive any portion of the funds made by the golf pros. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Note to the Public: The Council adjourned off camera after the May 14, 2001 Closed Session. B. Pinewood Elementary Follow-Up Discussion. Chief Clark presented to Council copies of the officers' worksheets concerning the traffic enforcement in the area of Pinewood Elementary. He noted his officers have hit the area hard and he has received positive feedback from area residents. Chief Clark noted there were very few speed violations but stated there were parking violations that were handled. He then noted that his officers would continue the extra patrol for a few more weeks. • Council Member Quick asked what streets are receiving the extra patrol. Chief Clark indicated that County Road I and Quincy Street were the two that were being patrolled and noted that, at a residents request, Adams had recently been added. Community Development Director Ericson explained that, at the last meeting, there was significant discussion concerning the trees that were cut down at the Pinewood Elementary site. He noted that Council had asked Staff to work with Pinewood representatives on a landscape plan that would be acceptable to Council and the City Forester. He then noted that, since the last meeting, there have been numerous discussions and stated the final revised landscaping plan was provided to Council. Director Ericson noted that the landscaping plan shows the trees that were removed and the trees that will be transplanted. He noted that after a meeting with the Safety Committee it was recommended that a couple more trees on the south side of the parking lot be relocated to allow for snow storage. He then asked the representatives from Perkins & Will to address Council concerning the landscape plan. Sandie Gay of Perkins & Will apologized to Council for any statements she made that were confusing to Council. She noted she had learned through Director Ericson that there was a misunderstanding about what she had said and indicated that she could answer the questions of Council at this meeting. She then noted that she would like to present the landscaping plan to Council. Mounds View City Council May 29, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 5 Council Member Thomas clarified that she finds it very difficult to use the word misunderstanding. She noted that when she first brought the tree issue up to Ms. Gay she had told Ms. Gay that a resident had talked to her about the trees to be removed. She noted that she was aware of the plans before the Planning Commission and had specifically phrased her question to ask if any trees would be removed. Council Member Thomas then stated that Ms. Gay had said that the north parking lot had been reconfigured and no trees would be lost. Council Member Thomas indicated she did not feel that was a misunderstanding but a misrepresentation on the part of Ms. Gay. She then stated that Council approved the plans that were presented and, as Council did not have the removals plan and Ms. Gay stated there would be no trees removed, Ms. Gay had proceeded with a plan that was not approved by Council. Ms. Gay stated that, in a conversation that she had she was under the understanding that no trees would be removed. She stated that was her mistake. She then noted that, when she said there would be no net loss of trees she assumed that that would cover it and assumed that they could go ahead with the project. Council Member Thomas asked how the developer felt it appropriate to remove eleven (11) adult trees and replace them with baby trees. Council Member Marty clarified that the plan presented to Council indicated that no trees would be removed. Council Member Thomas stated that Ms. Gay should have brought new plans to Council for approval because the plan approved indicated there were no trees to be removed. Ms. Gay indicated she had submitted drawings to the City with the removals shown prior to that meeting. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the plans that were given to Council prior to action on the matter did not include a removals plan. He stated it is very possible the City had received the removals plan by that meeting but stated he is not sure. He stated that Staff bears some of the responsibility as when the initial plans were given to Council he should have gone through page by page and verified that the removals plan was with that set of plans. He then stated that, if that had been done, these matters would have been addressed at that meeting. Council Member Thomas stated that the purpose of her question at that meeting was to clarify what, if any, trees would be removed because she was aware of the removals plan before the Planning Commission. She then noted that, regardless of whether the removals plan was in packets, Council did not approve a plan that allowed for tree removal. Ms. Gay stated that once she realized a mistake had been made she offered to come to Council and explain and was not given any real direction in that regard. She then asked how Council . wished to proceed at this point. Mounds View City Council May 29, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 6 Ms. Gay indicated that the trees removed were in the construction areas. She pointed out that they are replacing all the trees that have been removed but stated that mature trees cannot be replaced with mature trees. She then noted that in order to construct trees have to be removed and that is why they are replaced on the site. Council Member Thomas indicated that the City goes through construction plans in order to save as many trees as possible. Council Member Marty indicated he had received a number of calls that day from residents that he represents who were concerned about the tree removal. He then noted that what took place was not the plan that was presented to and approved by Council. He further noted that Council acted on the plan presented to it by Ms. Gay. Ms. Gay stated that they have not changed the plan at all. Council Member Marty indicated that Council Member Thomas had specifically asked about the trees and that Ms. Gay said they would not be removed which is what the City is taking issue with on behalf of residents. He then noted that possibly a two for one replacement of the trees or something similar should be done to compensate for the error. Ms. Gay asked if Council would have asked for two for one replacement had they been aware of the removals plan at the Council meeting where this was approved. Council Member Marty stated that Council might not have approved the plan. Ms. Gay stated she is not sure whether or not the School District would approve a two for one replacement of the trees. Council Member Thomas indicated that, in her opinion, the plans would not have been approved without significant change. She then asked what the contractor was going to do to make up for the error. Council Member Quick commented concerning the statement requesting two for one replacement of the trees. He noted that the mistake was that Council was told that no trees would be removed. He noted that when a resident decides to cut down a tree they do not ask for a permit or permission from the City, and, since Pinewood is a resident the City has no jurisdiction over the trees. He then advised Council to be prudent in its judgment on this matter. Council Member Quick stated he does not think he would have voted against the plan because trees were being taken down since the City has no ordinance governing that issue. He further noted that it is unfortunate to see the trees go down but stated they are not City trees and if the resident wants to cut them down they may do so. Council Member Thomas asked Mr. Good how the school felt about the loss of the trees. Mounds View City Council May 29, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 7 Mr. Good indicated that the day he heard trees would be removed he parked his car underneath them until he was able to look into the matter to ensure that they could not cut them down. He then indicated he had spoken to Ms. Gay who indicated that the City Planner was aware of the removals plan. Mayor Sonterre asked how Council wanted the situation rectified. Mr. Good indicated that the School District wants to be a good neighbor and make the situation right. Mayor Sonterre asked what Mr. Good thought the neighbors would like to see from the developer and the architects. Mr. Good indicated he was told the developer would put in as big of trees as they can. Mayor Sonterre asked if Council was comfortable allowing the School District to negotiate an arrangement to make up for the error. Council Member Stigney indicated all of the Council Members had received calls but noted he has not brought up a lot of comments as other Council Members have. He then noted that, unfortunately, the trees were cut down and stated he feels what is important is what the neighbors want to see and they had requested some type of screening so they did not have to look at cars and a parking lot. Council Member Stigney then asked that the School District make sure that the plan includes adequate screening for area residents. Council Member Thomas stated she was fine with allowing the School District to work the situation out. She stated that she knows trees with larger growth and/or putting in two trees for every one lost will be expensive. She further stated that she is affronted that she maybe asked, as a taxpayer, to pay for a mistake made by the contractor. She then noted that she did not feel the extra cost should be born by the School District as the School District did not make the error. Jay Palmer addressed Council and indicated that the removals plan had not been changed. Council Member Thomas indicated that she took exception to that statement as the plan was changed and the removals were not approved. Mr. Palmer indicated the City has had the draft of the plans that indicated the trees to be removed and that plan has not changed. He indicated that 21 trees would be transplanted, 19 trees added, and nine large shrubs added. He then indicated that they are doing all they can do to transplant trees and are putting in new ones to supplement those that cannot be transplanted. • Mounds View City Council May 29, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 8 Mr. Palmer indicated that the developer could not replace the large oaks and maples but stated that in order to maintain safety at the site no more trees should be added. He then noted that the developer has provided a plan that satisfies the City Forester. Council Member Thomas inquired as to what size trees would be used to replace those taken down. Mr. Palmer indicated that the developer would use three inch trees instead of the standard two inch trees but stated that any tree over three inches in diameter would be stunted in growth while concentrating on roots. He then noted that rather than junipers on Quincy a second row of boulevard trees would be added. Mayor Sonterre asked whether Council was comfortable allowing the School District and Perkins & Will to work the matter out. He then noted that, if the parties were unable to work the matter out it should come back before Council. It was the consent of Council to allow the School District and Perkins & Will to work the issue out. Ms. Gay indicated that a representative from the contractor was at the meeting. The Contractor indicated he has talked with the School District and noted the issue is being negotiated. Ms. Gay asked if the City was holding the building permit for approval of the landscape plan. She then asked how she could facilitate release of the permit in order to stay on schedule for opening the school in the fall. Community Development Director Ericson told Council he had held off on issuing the building permit until the issues were resolved. He then asked if Council was comfortable with Staff releasing the building permit at this time. Council Member Marty asked Director Ericson to report back to Council if there are any disputes or if the matter is not resolved. Mr. Palmer noted that one tree was removed accidentally. Council Member Thomas indicated she was willing to allow the developer to move ahead with the project but noted that, if any problems arise, the matter should be brought to Council to be resolved. Mayor Sonterre directed Director Ericson to release the building permit. • Mounds View City Council May 29, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 9 • C. Existing Billboard on Former Midland Videen Property. Community Development Director Ericson noted that, at a previous meeting, Staff had brought up the question of who controls the land where the easement for the billboard is located. He then noted that the City Attorney had reviewed the line of real estate transfers and determined that the easement rights did transfer to the City. Director Ericson then noted he had brought this matter before Council to determine whether Council wished to direct Staff to attempt to negotiate a lease with Ellers Media in an attempt to generate revenue and provide a sunset clause for when the billboard would be removed. He further noted that as it stands now, the billboard could remain on the property indefinitely. Mayor Sonterre indicated the existing billboard has no sunset clause and noted that representatives of Ellers Media had indicated a willingness to discuss entering into a fifteen year lease with the City that would incorporate a welcome to Mounds View theme and would also match the proposed billboards at the golf course. He also noted that Ellers Media would be paying the City for the right to lease the space. Council Member Marty noted that if a drop dead date for all billboards in the City to be removed were inserted into Ordinance 679 the issue would be resolved. Council Member Stigney stated that he was concerned that once a revenue source for the City . was established that the lease would be perpetual and the billboard would never be removed. Mayor Sonterre clarified that, as the matter stands, the billboard is there. There is no sunset clause, and the City is not receiving any revenue from it. Council Member Stigney indicated he did not understand how Ellers Media could leave the billboard up if the City owns the easement. City Attorney Riggs indicated that the billboard is a legal non-conforming use that can stay forever and noted the only way to get rid of the billboard is for the City to negotiate a lease with a sunset provision. Council Member Thomas stated she felt the need to have a date that the billboard would come down. Council Member Marty stated that he felt fourteen years would give Ellers Media a significant amount of time. Council Member Stigney stated that he had not heard a time frame until now and asked for the minimum time frame Ellers Media would be willing to negotiate. He then asked what the purpose behind negotiating a new lease was, to bring in a revenue source or to get rid of the billboard. Mounds View City Council May 29, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 10 Director Ericson stated that Council would need to direct Staff how to negotiate the lease. He then indicated that it was up to Council to determine whether the major focus was to eliminate the billboard or to generate revenue for the City. City Attorney Riggs clarified that right now it is an easement in perpetuity and can continue forever. He then noted that the City is entirely at the mercy of what Ellers Media would agree to as they do not have to negotiate a lease with the City. Mayor Sonterre noted that Ellers Media had provided a lease with a term of fifteen years that included the exterior changes to the sign and incorporated the welcome to Mounds View theme. Council Member Stigney stated he felt that if Ellers Media proposed fifteen years the City should counter with ten years. He then stated he felt there had to be a way around the issue. City Attorney Riggs stated that the City is trying to extinguish the easement and create a lease for the City that would provide revenue and a sunset clause for when the billboard would be taken down. Council Member Quick asked if there was an estimated revenue amount for the City. Mayor Sonterre indicated the billboard would generate $32,000 per year for the fifteen years of the lease. • MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Direct City Administrator Miller to Negotiate a Lease with Ellers Media and Bring the Contract to Council for Consideration. Council Member Stigney stated that the motion seemed to be directing Staff to negotiate the contract for the fifteen years and he feels that Staff should be countering with ten years. Council Member Thomas stated she did not feel Ellers Media would go less than ten years on the lease and suggested a friendly amendment to the motion to direct Staff to counter will ten years and negotiate the lease not to exceed fifteen years. Council Members Quick and Marty accepted the friendly amendment. Director Ericson noted that, if a new billboard would be built, then it would fall under the interim use code which includes a sunset clause. City Attorney Riggs stated that from the standpoint of interim use the City is amortizing the use of the easement and noted that should a future Council wish to renegotiate and continue the lease they have the power to do so. Council Member Marty noted that a monument style billboard could enhance the area. Council Member Stigney asked what size the billboard would be. Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting May 29, 2001 Page 11 Mayor Sonterre indicated that the size of the billboard was not specifically outlined in the previous agreement and would need to be worked out. City Attorney Riggs indicated that what Council is attempting to do is end the easement in perpetuity by negotiating with Ellers Media to enter into a lease. He noted that right now, Ellers Media has the right to keep the sign there indefinitely. He then noted that, the City would be creating another non-conforming use but anon-conforming use with a timeframe that a future Council could deal with as it desired. Council Member Marty stated that Council would be dealing with Ordinance 6791ater and approval of that Ordinance would cover maximum sign area and height. City Attorney Riggs explained that the billboard in question is not covered under City Code and noted that the City may have to give Ellers Media something, such as a larger sign, in order to get them to enter into the lease. Council Member Thomas noted that the lease would need to be brought to Council to be approved and the details could be discussed at that point. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. i 6. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims B. Licenses for Approval C. Cancel Public Hearing Scheduled for June 26, 2001 to Establish Sunday Sales Fee, (there is no Council Meeting on this date) D. Cancel Public Hearing Scheduled for June 26, 2001 to Consider Intoxicating Liquor and Sunday Sales Licenses, (there is no Council Meeting on this date) E. Schedule Public Hearing for Monday, June 25, 2001, at 7:05 p.m. to Establish Sunday Sales Fee F. Schedule Public Hearing for Monday, June 25, 2001 at 7:10 p.m. to Consider Intoxicating Liquor and Sunday Sales Licenses MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Approve Consent Agenda Items A through F as Presented. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 679, an Ordinance Amending • Chapter 1008 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Entitled "Signs and Billboards" (Special Planning Case SP-082-00). Mounds View City Council May 29, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 12 • Community Development Director Ericson noted this was the second reading and adoption of Ordinance 679 and noted the Planning Commission had spent a lot of time reviewing the proposed changes. He also noted that there was one change made on Page 25 to allow Staff to issue a permit for more than one grand opening type event per year rather than requiring Council approval. Council Member Marty asked whether adrop-dead date that all billboards in the City would come down should be inserted into the Code or if the only billboard issue is the one previously discussed by Council. Director Ericson indicated that there was another billboard located by the Mounds View Mobile Home Park and noted that the City could not put a sunset clause on a legal non-conforming use. He then noted that the interim use clause in the Code would cover any new billboards. City Attorney Riggs noted that the legislature had done away with the sunset clause provision and noted that the only way to get rid of them is to renegotiate. He then noted that this would apply to the billboards on County Highway 10. Council Member Marty asked if the City had any control over the billboards. City Attorney Riggs indicated that the City does not have any control over the billboards unless • they are renegotiated. Council Member Stigney asked if the Midland Videen billboard would be a new or existing billboard under City Code. City Attorney Riggs indicated that the billboard is not covered under City Code at all. MOTIONISECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Waive the Reading, Approve the Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance 679, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1008 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Entitled "Signs and Billboards". ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Thomas, Quick, Sonterre. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. B. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 680, an Ordinance Vacating an Unused Section of Public Right of Way Associated with the Minor Subdivision of 8360 Pleasant View Drive and 8360 Spring Lake Road. Community Development Director Ericson indicated this was the second reading of Ordinance • 680, an Ordinance vacating excess highway easement. Mounds View City Council May 29, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 13 • MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Waive the Reading, Approve the Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance 680, an Ordinance Vacating an Unused Section of Public Right of Way Associated with the Minor Subdivision of 8360 Pleasant View Drive and 8360 Spring Lake Road. ROLL CALL: Thomas, Quick, Stigney, Marty, Sonterre. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. C. .Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 681, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1002 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, Entitled "Fire Code". Community Development Director Ericson indicated this was the second reading of Ordinance 681 and noted the Fire Marshall had asked that for these changes. MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Waive the Reading, Approve the Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance 681, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1002 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, Entitled "Fire Code". ROLL CALL: Quick, Thomas, Stigney, Marty, Sonterre. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. D. Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 682, an Ordinance Adding Chapter 204 to the Mounds View Municipal Code, Entitled "Local Lodging Tax". Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated that Ordinance 682 establishes a three percent (3%) local lodging tax allowing the City to participate in the Minneapolis North Convention and Visitor Bureau. He then noted that, if the Ordinance is adopted, the City would enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with the Convention and Visitor Bureau. Council Member Marty noted this would seem to be in the best interest of the local lodging establishments to get them into the loop for conventions and tourism attractions. Council Member Thomas noted there have been conversations with the owners of the local hotels and they are the ones who introduced this issue to the City. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Sonterre. To Waive the Reading and Approve Ordinance 682, an Ordinance Adding Chapter 204 to the Mounds View Municipal Code, Entitled "Local Lodging Tax". Ayes - S Nays - 0 Motion carried. • Mounds View City Council May 29, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 14 E. Consider Resolution 5567, a Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications, Advertising, and Bid Date for Project 01-06, Edgewood Middle School Regional Pond. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish noted that, in conjunction with the redevelopment of the Mermaid parcel, a regional storm water management pond had been proposed. He then explained that the pond encompasses approximately 30 acres and would treat water that is currently untreated and flowing into Rice Creek. Economic Development Coordinator Pamsh reminded Council that the pond was discussed at a work session in August and Council had agreed that the City would contribute to the funding for the pond. He then noted there is a grant for $333,000 and Ramsey County has agreed to pay $68,000 toward the pond. Council Member Marty questioned why the contribution from Ramsey County and the grant amount were different in the Resolution than in the Staff report. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated the correct amount for Ramsey County's contribution was $65,415. He also noted that there have been costs incurred that have reduced the grant amount to $315,000. Council Member Thomas asked if Staff had approached Ramsey County to see if they would i contribute more as the costs have gone up. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated he has not asked for more money as Ramsey County is contributing the full price for the amount of water that is draining to the pond. Council Member Stigney noted that Council had agreed, at the work session in August, to pay the estimated $60,000. He then noted that the City's estimated portion is now $150,000 and suggested Staff contact private developers to front the money. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated that the main reason for the increase in costs for the pond is the increased costs of construction. He then noted that if he were to contact the developer and suggest a contribution to the pond he would be told that the City would not have received the grant without them and the grant is their contribution. He further noted that the pond is a regional pond that will serve above and beyond the area of the development. Council Member Stigney reiterated that he felt, in light of the increased cost for the project, the developer should be asked to contribute to the project. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated he could ask the developer for a contribution. Council Member Quick asked if this type of use is a typical use for TIF money. Mounds View City Council May 29, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 15 Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated that the primary use for TIF money is for improvements to City infrastructure and to support development and redevelopment within the City. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Sonterre. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5567, a Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications, Advertising, and Bid Date for Project 01-06, Edgewood Middle School Regional Pond. Council Member Thomas indicated that the Resolution needed to state a maximum amount for costs. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish explained that an EDA resolution could be drafted to dedicate the funds. Council Member Thomas clarified that the wording of the Resolution allows for $94,580 of City dollars. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated the EDA would need to designate the TIF funds. Council Member Quick asked City Attorney Riggs for clarification. • City Attorney Riggs indicated the Resolution does not have all the funding sources identified and suggested adding another line stating the other funding sources or changing the number in the Resolution. Council Member Thomas stated she was leery of approving the Resolution without knowing what other costs will be incurred and how those will be paid for. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated the Resolution would enable Staff to send the matter out for bids. City Attorney Riggs asked if Staff intended to use TIF funds for the other costs. He then asked if Staff could increase the dollar amounts in the Resolution. Council Member Stigney stated he felt the Resolution should more accurately reflect what Council is approving. He then indicated as elected officials he feels Council should be more prudent when spending money. He further indicated that the developer receives a benefit from the pond and should be asked to contribute. Council Member Marty stated he thinks that, since the costs have gone up, the developer and property owners who will benefit from the pond should be approached and asked to contribute. r~ ~~ Mounds View City Council May 29, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 16 • Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated he could approach the developer and property owners but asked Council for direction as to what type of contribution he should be asking for. Council Member Marty stated he felt Staff should be asking for an equal percentage of the increase from the developer and property owners. Council Member Quick asked how the City was participating in the Mermaid project. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish explained that the City had committed to picking up any costs for the pond above the redevelopment grant and Ramsey County's contribution. Council Member Quick clarified that the City had made the commitment to pick up the amount above and beyond what there currently is funding for. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated the City had expressed a willingness to provide TIF financing for the project. MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Table this Matter to the Next Council Meeting for More Information. Ayes - 2 (Thomas/Stigney) Nays 3 (Sonterre/Marty/Quick) Motion failed. Council Member Marty noted the State is talking about decreasing even further the amounts that are taxable to businesses. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated there are two items that have an influence on the amount of TIF money. The first is a substantial property tax rate compression across all classes which limits the amount of revenue that can be generated. The second is moving basic school funding to the State level and that portion of property taxes that are captured in TIF could be reduced by 30 to 40 %. He then explained that the City does have outstanding bond obligations and, if the amount coming in were reduced the City would have less to pay with. He also explained that the bonds go out to 2003 and 2004 and noted the City should be able to cover its obligations as there are provisions in the legislation for that. Council Member Marty questioned how cautious the City needed to be with its TIF funds in light of the proposed change. Economic Development Coordinator Pamsh indicated that any implementation does not take place right away and said the City is looking at one or two years of needing to be cautious. Council Member Thomas stated that, unless a date is specified, the date would be July 1, 2002. • Council Member Stigney stated he would like to make a comment to Council Member Quick's comment concerning the commitment to the developer. He then stated that Council had directed Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting May 29, 2001 Page 17 • Staff to prepare plans based on the City paying $60,000 and now the City is being asked to pay $150,000. Ayes - 2 (Quick/Sonterre) Nays -3 (Thomas/Stigney/Marty) Motion failed. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Reconsider Tabling this Matter. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Council Member Marty asked how the delay would affect construction of the pond. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated there are still some issues to resolve concerning the pond and noted he felt the pond could still be constructed this year with the delay. The Engineering Consultant indicated that the School District wanted to have the construction finished on their side before school starts in the fall. He then noted if things get any tighter in the schedule the City may have to go to the school to discuss the matter. He also noted that the grant funds needed to be spent by the end of the year. 8. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS . None. 9. REPORTS Council Member Marty noted that, after further research, he had determined that the environmental impact study for the Greenfield ponding project would be very costly for taxpayers. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Reconsider the Motion to Approve an Environmental Impact Study for the Greenfield Ponding matter. Ayes - 4 Nays - 1(Stigney) Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Direct that an Environmental Impact Study Not be Done on the Greenfield Ponding Matter. Ayes - 4 Nays - 1(Stigney) Motion carried. Council Member Marty stated that, due to some things that have come up within the City offices, he had talked to City Administrator Miller and asked her to look into getting a card key lock system for the entrances. Council Member Quick asked that the costs for the system be considered. Mounds View City Council May 29, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 18 • Mayor Sonterre indicated that Public Works Director Ulrich should be consulted concerning the keyless entry system. Council Member Marty asked City Administrator Miller to provide information on the matter at the next work session. City Administrator Miller indicated that she would attempt to obtain the information before the next work session. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated he had placed a memo on the dais prior to the meeting asking for Staff direction on the proposed purchase of 5260 Long Lake Road as part of the Housing Replacement Program. He then noted that Staff had investigated the property and in general terms it does meet the criterion as it has a substandard exterior and the lot is large in relationship to the structure which also has no basement. He further noted, however, that the inside was quite nice compared to the outside and it seems the residents are working on refurbishing the house from the inside out. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated the listing price for the house was $119,000, noted the realtor had indicated there was room for flexibility in the price, and asked for Council direction. • Council Member Quick inquired as to whether the lot could be split, the house demolished and sold as two lots. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated that the lot was slightly too small to be split and noted there is a small piece of property that juts out that would need to be acquired with the piece of property which could possibly give enough square footage to split the lot. Mayor Sonterre noted the City did not own any property around the area and indicated he did not feel the City needed to purchase the property. Council Member Thomas stated she thought the cost was a little high and felt a new purchaser could improve the outside as long as the inside is nice. Council Member Stigney inquired as to whether the decision to purchase was a Council decision or an EDA decision. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated he was only seeking direction on the matter. Council Member Quick stated he had brought the matter to Staff's attention because when first looking at the piece of property it seems that it can be split. He then noted that now that Council has all the facts it seems Council should pass on this piece of property. • Mounds View City Council May 29, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 19 It was the consent of Council to direct Staff not to purchase the property at 5260 Long Lake Road as part of the Housing Replacement Program. Patrick Toth reported that he is in the process of putting together summer programming, a program dealing with transportation for seniors, and some gardening programs. He then noted he would also like to put together a promotional piece for the City that could be given to new residents of the City. Mr. Toth noted the Cable Committee had instructed him to look into purchasing and installing monitors out in the hallway that would broadcast the City's cable channel during business hours. He then noted he had purchased two more digital tape decks to accommodate all the meetings the City has. He also noted he had purchased three more table microphones to facilitate larger groups that should be installed soon. Mr. Toth asked Council for permission to string cable down to the TV/VCR combination in the Mayor's office so that it could be used to tape meetings as there has been an increasing demand for copies of meetings and it is easier to tape a meeting while it is live than from tape. Council Member Marty stated he liked the senior citizens transportation idea as the City has been talking about it for sometime and he thinks it would be helpful to seniors. He stated he also like the Mounds View promotional tape and the monitors in the hallway. He then explained that Council had agreed that the TV/VCR combination should be moved to the exercise area at the • Community Center and suggested Mr. Toth purchase a VCR for making copies of meetings. It was the consent of Council that Mr. Toth should work with City Administrator Miller to purchase a VCR or make some other accommodations for the taping of meetings. Council Member Marty questioned whether the quarterly meeting scheduled for Friday was going to be rescheduled. City Administrator Miller stated she had heard that some Council Members were unavailable for the meeting. Council Member Marty indicated Council had picked a date but had not designated a time for the meeting. Mayor Sonterre indicated that he had assumed it would be an evening meeting and noted he was not available during the day Friday. It was the consent of Council to reschedule the quarterly meeting to June 12, 2001 in the evening. Mayor Sonterre asked that City Administrator Miller read the items that were approved on the Consent Agenda. City Administrator Miller read the Consent Agenda items. Mounds View City Council May 29, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 20 • 10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Monday, May 14, 2001 City Council Minutes. Council Member Stigney requested the following changes: On Page 10 indicate that the tax rate would be multiple family Class 4d taxing. On Page 10 change "three" applications to "four" applications. On Page 15 insert the word "more" before qualified. Council Member Marty requested the following change: On Page 9 before the word "it" insert a comma. Mayor Sonterre requested the following change: On Page 2, in the third paragraph, insert after the word "asked" "Chief Clark". MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Approve the Monday, May 14, 2001, City Council Minutes with the Requested Changes. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. B. Monday, Apri116, 2001 Special Council Minutes. • • MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Marty. To Approve the Monday, April 16, 2001, Special Council Minutes as Presented. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. It was the consent of Council to adjourn off camera after the closed session. The Council recessed to the closed session at 9:45 p.m. 11. CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS POTENTIAL LITIGATION The closed session was called to order at 10:00 p.m. 12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, June 4, 2001 Next Council Meeting: Monday, June 11, 2001 Mounds View City Council May 29, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 21 13. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Sonterre adjourned the closed meeting at 11:55 p.m. Transcribed and recorded by: Joan Lenzmeier Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • • MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL MEETING • MAY 29, 2001 Please sign in ,~ ?~~.~~!~l h: :a U D R E S S ~~~ y~ ood ~ ~ ~ . C:Admin.resolution.sign-in sheet