Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 2001/06/11PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting ~. € June 11, 2001 ~+ ~;~~` ~ ''~ ~ ` `' ~ ~. Mounds View City Hall ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 7:00 P.M. 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Sonterre, Quick, Marty, Stigney, and Thomas. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Monday, June 11, 2001 City Council Agenda. Council Member Thomas indicated that Item SB was not unfinished business and asked that it be moved to Council Business Item 7A. • Mayor Sonterre indicated that Community Development Director Ericson had asked that a Resolution concerning Item 7A be added for consideration. Mayor Sonterre noted that all necessary participants have given or intend to give approval for participation in the Housing Resource Center program. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Thomas. To Approve the June 11, 2001, City Council Agenda as amended. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 4. PUBLIC INPUT David Jahnke of 8428 Eastwood Road told Council he had reviewed work sessions from a few years back and stated that Council Member Stigney had raised concerns for permitting incentives to be paid on gross income instead of profit and that no one had listened to him. Mr. Jahnke asked Council to read the article in the Star Tribune concerning TIF and the Target project. He then stated that TIF was set up for blighted properties or properties in really bad shape that no one would invest in. He further stated that TIF has been turned into corporate rape of citizens and he then asked Council to be very careful with TIF in the City. • Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 2 Mr. Jahnke stated he appreciated the way City Administrator Miller has been handling the affairs of the City and noted that he feels badly that she has been left to deal with the mess made by former City employees. Mike Szczepanski of 2385 Laporte Drive thanked the City Council and the City Administrator for making the difficult decisions in the past week and for trying to make right with what has happened. He then stated that there are people who will not stand up and voice their opinion to Council but have stopped him and said they are happy with how the matter was handled. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Consider Resolution 5567 Approving Plans and Specifications, Advertising and Bid Date for Project 01-06, Edgewood Middle School Regional Pond. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated that Resolution 5567 would approve plans and specifications for the Mermaid/Edgewood Middle School regional pond. He noted the pond would be located on property owned by the Metropolitan Council and deeded to the City as well as property owned by Edgewood Middle School. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated he had gathered the information Council had requested and asked if Council had any questions. He also noted that Dan Hall from the Mermaid was present to discuss additional financial participation by the developer. He further noted that Mr. Hall had indicated that the finances for the project were spread thin and that it was not necessarily possible to pick up any additional costs. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish then reminded Council that the redevelopment grant was acquired in conjunction with the developer. Council Member Marty thanked Economic Development Coordinator Parrish for responding to Council's requests. He then told Mr. Jahnke he had seen the article and some other articles concerning TIF and had been in touch with Economic Development Coordinator Parrish concerning the matter. Council Member Marty stated he is also very concerned about the possible changes in the state legislature which may redirect TIF funds by changing some of the laws and the way businesses are taxed. He then asked Economic Development Coordinator Parrish to address the issue and suggested tabling this matter to the work session for further discussion and possible decision by the state legislature. Council Member Thomas indicated there is very little information as far as answers to what the state legislature might do and noted that as soon as a decision is made she would provide the information to Economic Development Coordinator Parrish. Council Member Marty suggested that Economic Development Coordinator Parrish give a brief • explanation of the possible changes for those citizens who have not been following the action of the legislature. Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 3 Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated that, while nothing is known at this point, the state legislature is considering property tax reform that would affect TIF and the overall financing structure of the City. He indicated that the two major considerations are the compression of the commercial/industrial property tax rate yielding lower taxes and a takeover of general education funding by the state. He then indicated that the school district is the largest component of the property tax bill and taking that away takes away from TIF revenue. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated the City is hitting its big years in terms of TIF general obligation bonds. He noted that in 2001 TIF bonds are at $1.4 million and stay that way out to 2003. He then noted that if, due to legislative changes, revenue does not cover the obligations there are grants that can be applied for. Council Member Thomas indicated she had read the article in the Star Tribune and was not impressed by the author's interpretation of the TIF situation. She then noted that while she would not call the article flat out false there were scare tactics and the article was not really gripping to the actual situation. Council Member Marty stated that in an effort to look out for the City's general obligations and before pledging more or spending more he thinks the City should put a moratorium on TIF expenditures and wait for a decision from the legislature. He then noted that if there was a decision from the legislature by the time of the next work session the matter could be on the work session agenda. Council Member Thomas clarified that the agreement between the House and the Governor has a grant pool to keep all cities at an even balance in all current TIF districts and the ones to be set up would be funded through 2005 or 2007 meaning the City would not lose that as grant money. She then noted that if the changes go through it will be much harder to set up a new TIF district. She further commented that the Senate has not yet made a decision on the matter. It was the consent of Council to wait until there is a decision from the Senate before further expending TIF funds. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated that any changes that are made by the legislature will not have implications on the City's overall structure as any revenue generated on those parcels with go to repay the obligation as it is a pay as you go note. He then noted that, to the extent bond obligations are not repaid, the existing pay as you go obligations have funds that are pledged to repay the debt prior to any disbursements being made on the general obligation debts. He further noted that pay as you go versus general obligation debt is fairly secure and the City has no risk up front. Council Member Stigney commented that he feels if tax compression is approved developers may have a limit as to what can be done on projects and the amount of development that the developers can afford. Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 4 Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated that while TIF funds are not generated the developer would not pay as much property tax so the two should balance out. Council Member Stigney indicated if they are paying less TIF then there would be fewer dollars for the pay as you go plan and therefore, developers can do less. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish explained that since the developer would not be paying as much in the developer would have more money in pocket due to reduced taxes and that money could be used for the project. Dan Hall from the Mermaid commented that if taxes are compressed it means the legislature has given him his own TIF. He then noted it may not be a perfect balance but stated reducing property tax would mean he has more equity left in his company to pay down debt. Council Member Stigney asked if Mr. Hall intended to scale his project back at all in light of potential legislative changes. Mr. Hall indicated he is not planning on scaling back the project. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish noted that, as his staff report had indicated, he had discussions with the Mermaid and was told that project finances are spread fairly thin with soil corrections and other issues. He noted he did not speak with the other benefiting property owners but did speak with Public Works Director Ulrich who indicated that the maximum amount that could be assessed to each property owner is $3,600 which is tied to acreage. He then noted that, based on that scenario, the most the City could generate with assessments would be $11,000. He further noted, however, that the City would need to determine benefit and that in determining benefit the costs could out weigh the potential gain. Council Member Thomas indicated that the amount Council is being asked to approve has gone up to $150,000 which is nearly three times the original amount. She then asked why the amount has increased so much. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated that the estimate initially received was an engineer's estimate and it was received a year and a half ago. He then noted that, in the interim, several issues arose which added to the cost of the project. He then noted that the estimate is an engineer's estimate and that if sent out for bids the amount could be lower. Council Member Thomas inquired as to why the project could not be scaled back to reduce costs. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated he is not sure how much would be saved by scaling back the size of the pond. Council Member Thomas stated she felt there needed to be research done on the amount of increase to explain how costs went up that much. Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 5 Mayor Sonterre stated that he would like to see a breakdown of the costs associated and a better explanation of why the amount increased so much. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated that there were a couple of major issues that came into play. He noted that one is that there are Type 2 wetlands in the area so the project needed additional engineering work and construction around the wetland for buffering to keep the wetland separated. He noted the second issue is traffic concerns. Originally the project indicated the storm sewer would be located to the north side of County H and now it has been switched for ease of getting the water into Rice Creek. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated that there were engineering fees and fees for acquiring the land and noted that there had been many governmental agencies at work to approve the pond. Council Member Marty thanked Economic Development Coordinator Parrish for his efforts to answer the previous questions of Council and then apologized because more questions are being raised. He then noted that he feels that more investigation in to the costs needs to be done in order for Council to be comfortable explaining to residents the costs of the pond. Mayor Sonterre indicated he would like to know if there is a minimum size of pond that would handle the runoff for the proposed area. Council Member Thomas commented that the amount has increased every time Council has heard the matter and then stated she feels the need to re-evaluate and determine what is needed and whether the City can afford it. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish clarified that the price for the City's share had not gone up since the last meeting as it was estimated at $150,000 with all costs included. Council Member Quick asked if the pond could be expanded. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated that the pond would be located on property that was owned by the Metropolitan Council and the School District. He also noted that a trail system will need to be rerouted and that there was no extra room for an expanded pond. Council Member Quick clarified that the City would be adding four (4) more acres of storage to what is already there. He then noted that the only way knowing for certain what the cost of all the services would be is to go out to bids. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated that going out for bids on the project would give market costs. Council Member Quick stated the only way to know for sure is to approve the Resolution to go out for bids and noted that if the City was not happy with the bid then it could deny the project. • Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 6 City Attorney Riggs indicated that it maybe difficult to deny approval of a bid if it came in at the estimated amount. Council Member Thomas stated that if Council does not like the estimate the project itself is shaky enough that it is not appropriate to put the matter out for bids. She then noted that there is money involved in preparing estimates and stated the estimate has some value but said she feels the need to look into it further and get a closer estimate before putting it out for bids. Council Member Quick asked if there were other moneys available for building the pond and suggested perhaps the Metropolitan Council could be asked to contribute. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated that the pond would need to be bigger for the Metropolitan Council to call it a regional pond. Council Member Quick asked where the money to fund the City's $150,000 portion would come from. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated the funds would come from the existing TIF pool dollars as the pond is considered public infrastructure to support redevelopment. Council Member Quick asked if there was money available for the pond. i Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated there should be money in the pool for the pond. Council Member Stigney stated that he personally believes that private developers should share in some of the costs and that is why he asked Staff to talk to the benefiting businesses. He then stated that it is interesting to note that Rice Creek, who has the Type 2 wetlands has backed off from contributing as they do not use their funds for private development. Council Member Stigney noted that Mr. Hall had said he would have more money if the tax rate were compressed but is not willing to contribute further toward the pond. He then stated he is not prepared to commit the residents of Mounds View to picking up the remaining amounts with TIF funds if the developer is unwilling to contribute. Council Member Stigney asked if the excess funds in the TIF funds pool are the funds of different tax districts or if they were pre-existing interest money. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated that the interest earnings prior to July 1, 1997 were determined by the auditor not to be subject to the restrictions of TIF. He then noted, however, that the expenditures for the Community Center were taken out of that account and it is the auditor's interpretation that all the pre-July 1, 1997 funds have been expended. He further noted that the matter is being reviewed at this time. • Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 7 Council Member Stigney indicated he had not heard before that the pre-July 1, 1997 funds had been expended. Council Member Thomas stated she was not against the project but is against the fact that the costs were raised by so much. She then indicated she would like to have the project re-evaluated to determine if the project can be done less expensively as she feels $150,000 is too much to ask the City to pay. Council Member Marty asked how much of a delay the project could handle and still be completed this construction year. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated he would pose the questions to the engineer and see what, if anything, can be done. He then indicated that the only way to cut money on the project as far as he was concerned is to make the project smaller but noted the City would need to reduce the benefiting area and indicated making the pond smaller may not save much money at all. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that reducing the size of the pond may actually increase the costs because there would be a need to go back through the engineering process and a need for new documents. He then indicated he would be willing to bet that making the pond smaller would increase the costs because of the extra engineering fees involved. • Council Member Thomas indicated that her question is not how to make the pond smaller but how to make the pond fit the budget and whether that is possible. Community Development Director Ericson indicated he was not sure if it could fit the budget. Council Member Quick questioned what the funds would be used for if not for the pond. He then stated that he thought the idea behind having TIF monies was to reinvest in the community to enhance the City and make things work better rather than amassing a large sum of money in the TIF fund. He further stated that he feels the TIF funds should be used rather than be left to sit in the account and the City risk losing the funds. Council Member Marty asked if there were any other uses for the land designated for the pond. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated the land needed to be used for a storm water pond as the reason the Metropolitan Council deeded the land to the City was for a pond. He also indicated the same was true for the School District. He further indicated that the clock began running on the grant money in 1999 and the grant will expire on 12/31/01 which means the funds need to be spent by then. He also noted that the City has made certain representations to the School District that the construction of the pond would not have an impact on classes starting this fall. . Council Member Marty indicated the $333,333 in grant monies needed to be spent or they would be lost. He then indicated that if the City does not build the pond now it maybe required to do so Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 8 in the future and there may not be a grant available at that time which would mean the City's expense would be dramatically increased over the proposed $150,000. Council Member Stigney asked what percentage of the City's tax base was in TIF districts. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated the latest estimate is at 20%. He noted that when the districts were first certified the tax base was approximately $280,923 and now the tax base is nearly $2.2 million which indicates to him that TIF has been successful. Council Member Stigney noted that if the City has 20% of its tax base tied up in TIF all property tax payers are contributing funds to that because that much is pulled off the tax roles and they are in essence backing some of the TIF. Council Member Stigney stated that the funds could be used for any TIF approved project and do not need to be used for the proposed pond. He then stated that he questions whether the City should bear the entire increase in costs as he feels the developer should contribute funds to help offset the increase. Council Member Quick indicated that Council Member Stigney is assuming that the development would have happened without TIF funds. He then indicated that the area in question was vacant land and the City could not get anyone to do anything with it. He further indicated that none of that development would have happened without a TIF district. Council Member Stigney indicated that the City still has that much of its tax base tied up m TIF districts. He then indicated that if the City closed out some of those districts it would give some direct benefit to the taxpayers. Council Member Quick commented that if the TIF districts had not been so successful the 20% would not be there meaning the City has done a good job with TIF. Council Member Stigney indicated Council Member Quick was correct but stated he felt it was time to look at the districts to see if any could be closed out. Council Member Quick indicated the City had made deals and needed to let the districts run out. Council Member Stigney stated he felt the private developer should share in the increased costs for the pond project. Council Member Thomas noted that all of the information being discussed was speculative and indicated she would be more comfortable if the project were re-evaluated to determine if the project could be built for less. MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Table Resolution 5567 and Direct Staff to Investigate Whether the Project Could be Changed to Keep on Budget. Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 9 Ayes - 2 Nays - 3 (Sonterre, Marty, Quick). Motion failed. Council Member Marty indicated he was not in total disagreement with the other Council Members but stated he would like some specifics as far as a time table for the tabling. He then indicated the Halls had been working on this matter long before he got on the Council and have jumped through a lot of hoops trying to comply with the wishes of the City. Council Member Marty asked if Staff would have time to gather information for the next Council Meeting. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish explained that the engineers were at the last meeting and he would have thought that if there were items that could be cut they would have said so. He then indicated it maybe possible to obtain information prior to the next Council Meeting. Council Member Quick asked City Attorney Riggs if Council were to pass the Resolution and the bids came in the same as the estimate if Council could reject the bids. City Attorney Riggs indicated he would need to research the matter. City Administrator Miller indicated that, if the bids came in at the estimated amount or less, it would be difficult for Council to reject the bids. i MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Marty. To Table Resolution 5567 Until the First Opportunity Staff Has to Obtain Information from the Engineers Concerning the Project. Ayes 3 Nays - 2(Sonterre/Quick) Motion carried. 6. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims B. Licenses for Approval C. Set a Public Hearing for 7:15 p.m., Monday, June 25, 2001, to Review the Proposed Comprehensive Plan D. Set a Public Hearing for 7:20 p.m., Monday, June 25, 2001, to Consider the Rezoning Request of Earnest Gustafson, 2525 County Road I, to R-2, Single and Two Family Residential E. Set a Public Hearing for 7:25 p.m., Monday, June 25, 2001, to Consider the Rezoning Request of the Mounds View Animal Hospital to Rezone the Property Located at 2625 County Highway 10 from R-3, Medium Density Residential, to B-2, Limited F. Approve Just and Correct Claims Council Member Stigney requested that Item A be removed for discussion. • Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 10 t MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Approve Consent Agenda Items B through F as Presented. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carved. Council Member Stigney indicated there were four items he had questions on. He then indicated the first was the corporate presentations for $8,337.52. The second is PGA of America for $306.00. The third is Springsted Incorporated for $13,309. He noted he did not think the City was done with the Springsted review and noted he is concerned with paying them at this time. The fourth item is Verizon Wireless for the golf course in the amount of $192.97. He noted he was concerned for the time period the bill covers and asked City Administrator Miller to determine whether it was for a one month period. City Administrator Miller indicated that she had spoken to Council Member Stigney late in the day and was able to answer a couple of his questions but did not have information on the four items mentioned. She then noted that she would check into the matters and provide information to Council. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Approve Consent Agenda Item A Without Check Numbers 1OS794, 105828, 105837, and 105844. Ayes - 5 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS Nays - 0 Motion carried. A. Presentation by Marie Malrick, Program Coordinator for the Housing Resource Center. • Community Development Director Ericson introduced representatives from the Housing Resource Center whom were in attendance to answer questions concerning the City's participation with the Housing Resource Center. Carolyn Olson gave a brief overview of the Housing Resource Center and its program and then had Ms. Malrick, the Program Coordinator hand out reports and brochures for Council to review. Council Member Thomas indicated she felt the plan was great. Council Member Quick questioned why some rebates are approximately 10% and others were not. Ms. Olson indicated that the rebate was based on a sliding scale which is based on income. Council Member Thomas asked what the typical turnaround was on a project and for having the Construction Manger come out. Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 11 • Ms. Olson indicated that the Construction Manager typically needs at least aone-day notice and noted he sets his own appointments. She further noted he usually will return calls within 24 hours. Council Member Stigney questioned how the interest rate was determined. Ms. Olson indicated that the program they manage in Roseville created a four percent (4%) revolving loan fund. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5571, a Resolution Authorizing Participation in the I-35 W Corridor Housing Resource Center Program. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. B. Public Hearing to Consider an Intoxicating Liquor License and Sunday Sales License for Topa Corporation at 2400 Highway 10 (the Donatelle's site). • City Administrator Miller indicated that some of the required documentation had not been received and then asked that Council open the public hearing and continue it to the next Council Meeting. Mayor Sonterre opened the public hearing at 8:33 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Continue the Public Hearing to June 25, 2001. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. C. Consideration of Authorization to Solicit for Bids for an Internal Audit. City Administrator Miller indicated this item was on the agenda as a result of the terminations last week. She then asked for Council approval to seek bids for an internal audit on various City funds. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Authorize Staff to Solicit Bids for an Internal Audit. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. D. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 682, an Ordinance Adding Chapter 204 to the Mounds View Municipal Code, Entitled "Local Lodging Tax." • Economic Development Coordinator Parrish noted this was the second reading of Ordinance 682, an Ordinance Adding Chapter 204 to the Mounds View Municipal Code. He then indicated that the City had been approached by the new owners of the Days Inn and asked to establish a Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 12 three (3%) local lodging tax to allow for participation in the Minneapolis North Convention and Visitors Bureau. Council Member Stigney asked if three percent (3%) was the maximum allowed by state. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated that three percent (3%) was the maximum allowed by state. Council Member Stigney asked what the actual projected revenue would be from the rooms that will be available at the Mermaid and Days Inn. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated he did not have good figures but speculated approximately $30,000 for every $1 million in revenue. Council Member Stigney asked how much grant money would be put into the project. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated that no grant money would be used but noted that the Ordinance would establish a tax to be levied by the City. Council Member Stigney indicated he would prefer to know actual dollar amounts rather than percentages. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated that the Ordinance would establish the three percent (3%) tax and noted the other issues would be resolved with the use agreement. Council Member Stigney inquired as to how much the business contributes. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated the business does not contribute anything but acts as a conduit for paying the tax. He then noted that a lodging tax is fairly common. Council Member Stigney asked if the City could implement its own local lodging tax and put the funds in the general fund. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated that the law says that 95% of the funds need to be used for Convention and Visitor's Bureau or local marketing efforts. He then noted that Staff could do it in house but noted the advantage of joining the Convention and Visitor's Bureau would be their expertise in marketing the area to tourists. Council Member Marty indicated that the lodging tax would not generate much revenue for the City but indicated it would be a good tool for marketing the City to tourists which, in turn, benefits the community. Council Member Thomas indicated that the pool dollars are based on revenue and noted that if people are not using the lodging then the City is not paying anything. Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 13 Mayor Sonterre clarified that every other suburb that borders Mounds View is participating in the Convention and Visitor's Bureau with the exception of New Brighton who does not have a hotel to market. Council Member Stigney indicated that the agreement had indicated that the City would receive $2000 per year towards a festival to assist with marketing and it noted that the funds should be used in a forum to attract out of town visitors. He then asked if the City could use the funds for the Festival in the Park. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated the intent is to tie into a local festival to be decided by Council. He then noted that he had assumed it would be used for the Festival in the Park. Council Member Marty made a point of order that the agreement was Item 7G and asked if the questions could focus on the Ordinance. Council Member Stigney indicated he thought the Festival in the Park was for residents not for the purpose of attracting out of town visitors. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated there were some typographical changes made to the Ordinance to clean it up. City Attorney Riggs reviewed the changes that were made to the language of the Ordinance. He then indicated that the changes were typographical in nature and did not change the intent of the Ordinance. MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Marty. To Waive the Reading, Approve the Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance 682, an Ordinance Adding Chapter 204 to the Mounds View Municipal Code, Entitled "Local Lodging Tax." ROLL CALL: Thomas, Quick, Stigney, Marty, Sonterre. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. E. Consider Renewal of Insurance Policies for the Period from July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002. Chuck Clysdale from the Maguire Agency made the annual presentation for renewal of insurance policies to Council. Council Member Thomas asked what the percentage of increase the $4,000.00 amounted to. Mr. Clysdale indicated he did no have a percentage calculation with him. • Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 14 Council Member Stigney noted that Mr. Clysdale had complimented the City on losses of only $5,000 and then asked if the City had a $10,000 deductible per event. Mr. Clysdale indicated that all of the policies with the exception of workers compensation have a $10,000 deductible. He indicated that City Administrator Miller had asked him to run an analysis for premium savings in relation to the amount the City is asked to pay back in deductibles. He then indicated he would compile the information and get it to City Administrator Miller by the end of the week. He further indicated that there maybe instances where the City pays directly rather than involving insurance but noted he would not have information on those matters. Council Member Stigney stated there seems to be a substantial amount of money going out for claims before going to insurance. He then asked if it would make sense to have a $5,000 deductible. City Administrator Miller indicated she had talked with Mr. Clysdale after being drawn into the insurance issue and had asked for an analysis. Mr. Clysdale indicated the underwriter could provide an estimate for the difference between a $5,000 and $10,000 deductible. Mayor Sonterre asked for Staff's recommendation on the matter. City Administrator Miller indicated there is a piece of information missing and recommended tabling the matter until the June 25, 2001 Council Meeting. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Table this Matter Until the June 25, 2001 City Council Meeting. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. F. Consider Authorizing the Substitution of $110,000 Oskaloosa, Iowa G.O. Bond for $110,000 Lake Geneva, Wisconsin G.O. Municipal Bonds as Requested by Western Bank as a Result of the Oskaloosa, Iowa G.O. Bond Being Called. City Administrator Miller indicated this matter had been brought to her attention late last week and stated that Assistant to the Administrator Reed had been told by Western Bank that it is merely a housekeeping matter. City Administrator Miller indicated that Council Member Stigney had contacted her with questions so she had contacted Western Bank for clarification as there is no documentation available for this matter. She then noted that Western Bank had indicated that it was a housekeeping issue. Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 15 MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Authorize the Substitution of the Lake Geneva, Wisconsin G.O. Municipal Bond for the Oskaloosa, Iowa G.O. Bond. Council Member Stigney noted the agenda and the letter from Western Bank were not consistent and asked which bond was being substituted. City Administrator Miller indicated that the correct substitution was listed in the letter from Western Bank. Council Member Stigney stated he felt the City could go to any bank and get $100,000 FDIC insurance. City Attorney Riggs indicated he did not have much information on the matter but stated he would look into it. Council Member Stigney inquired as to whether this was the maximum interest rate and what the term was. City Administrator Miller indicated she was not sure of the interest rate or term. She then noted that the matter needed to be acknowledged as it had already occurred on June 1, 2001. Council Member Stigney asked whether Western Bank had the authorization to invest City funds to another place. City Administrator Miller indicated that the bank does have the authorization to invest City funds to another place. Council Member Stigney indicated the City might want to consider using any bank for FDIC insured deposits. City Administrator Miller noted that this matter is beyond the $100,000 FDIC limit. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated that, at any given time, the City has significant money invested and noted the City could use different banks but stated from a management standpoint working with so many different accounts would be difficult. Council Member Stigney indicated this ties up the money unti12005 and questioned whether the City would have other options. City Administrator Miller indicated she did not have all of the answers but noted she would look into it and provide information at the next Council Meeting. Council Member Marty asked if waiting would put the funds in jeopardy. City Administrator Miller noted it was past the deadline and so should not make a difference. Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 16 Council Member Sti e indicated he had no roblem roceedin but stated that in the future he :~ Y p p g would like to look at other avenues. Council Member Marty stated he believes the matter comes up once per year and Council makes a decision as to what bank is the official bank of the City and then noted that Western Bank has done a good job for a number of years for the City. He further stated he would rely on the Bank's judgment and could find no argument with that judgment. Council Member Stigney stated it was not Western Bank's judgment to tie up City money. Council Member Thomas indicated Council was discussing two separate issues. She then noted the bond had been called and needed to be dealt with. She further noted that what do with City money is a separate discussion from this issue. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. G. Consider Resolution 5569 Authorizing the Execution of an Agreement Between the City of Mounds View and the Minneapolis Metro North Convention and Visitors Bureau. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated this agreement would govern the terms and conditions between the City and the Convention and Visitors Bureau. He then indicated th there were a few changes made to the agreement and listed them for Council. The first is the to will be August 1, 2001 not December 31, 2001 and the second is an added phrase that reads: "nothing in this paragraph shall be deemed to be a waiver by the City of any limitations on or immunities from liability set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466, or otherwise." Council Member Marty noted the City would receive a $4,000 contribution. at rm Economic Development Coordinator Parrish indicated the City would receive $2,000 for the Chamber of Commerce and $2,000 for a City festival. City Attorney Riggs noted that the agreement maybe terminated by providing notice and shall be effective December 31 of the calendar year following that notice. John Connelly noted that the City can terminate the agreement after one year if they are no satisfied with the relationship. He then noted that the reason termination becomes effective on December 31 of the following calendar year after the initial trial year is due to the fact that the Convention and Visitors Bureau makes a significant investment in printed materials that will be out in the market long beyond termination of the agreement. Council Member Stigney noted that if the City wished to terminate the agreement on January 1, • 2002 it would not be effective until December 31, 2003. He then questioned how that would benefit the City. Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 17 John Connelly noted that Council is given the opportunity every September when budgets are prepared to review the plan and determine whether the City likes where things are going. He theta noted that the process protects the City by allowing them input into the marketing plan. Council Member Stigney questioned whether the City had adequate protection. City Attorney Riggs indicated that if Council was not comfortable with the time frame it was a policy decision to be made. Mayor Sonterre noted that because the Convention and Visitors Bureau would be presenting information in September of the previous year Council will be able to determine if it likes the direction they are taking. Council Member Thomas clarified that the City has the right to terminate after the first year and stated that the second time frame is an 18-month period. Council Member Stigney asked if the Convention and Visitors Bureau was using grant money for printing of publications. John Connelly indicated they do not use grant money as grant money is usually for out of state marketing. Council Member Stigney asked if the City's hotels would be going into the Explore Minnesota Guide. John Connelly indicated that the Explore Minnesota Guide is distributed nationally but noted that the Convention and Visitors Bureau did have the ability to be consistent with exposure through the website and with other printed material. Council Member Marty asked when the $4,000 would be first realized by the City. John Connelly indicated it is the practice to allocate the funds in the calendar year following the execution of the agreement. MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Quick. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5569, a Resolution Authorizing the Execution of an Agreement Between the City of Mounds View and the Minneapolis North Convention and Visitors Bureau. Council Member Stigney asked whether the brochures would have the Explore Minnesota logo on the cover. John Connelly indicated that Council would see the logo in printed adds and noted that if there is a match of dollars they would be able to use it. Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 18 Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 8. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS None. 9. REPORTS Council Member Thomas noted she would provide an update from the legislature as soon as the information is available. Council Member Stigney noted that the City's Charter specifically states that directors should be brought before Council on a quarterly basis. He then noted, in light of recent events, that he is asking that Council begin requiring this in an attempt to avoid problems in the future. Council Member Marty noted he was in agreement and felt that all department heads should come before Council on a quarterly basis. Mayor Sonterre stated he would like the Charter Commission to discuss the intent of how the matter was originally intended in the Charter. For example, is one time per quarter required for an update of the department, or does making a presentation once each quarter on any agenda item fulfill the requirement. Council Member Stigney stated he felt the Charter clearly states Council should get a quarterly report. He then noted he would check with the Charter Commission and report back to Council. Council Member Thomas noted that Council had agreed to an internal audit which should get the City back on track. She then noted that now is the time to decide whether or not quarterly updates from the department directors should be required. Council Member Quick noted that the City is facing almost probable litigation in the future and it seems the public is bombarded with numerous written accounts and stories and there seems to be a rather large amount of inaccurate information circulating. He then noted he would like to suggest that the City start doing press releases. He noted that in doing so, he would ask that the Administrator and the Mayor draft those press releases with approval of the City Attorney. He further noted he would like any Council Members' contacts with the press to be run through the City Administrator's office in order to protect the City's position on the matter. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Direct the City Administrator and the Mayor to Begin Issuing Press Releases with the Authorization from the City Attorney Concerning any Litigation Issues and to Direct that Council Members' Contacts with the Press be run through the City Administrator's Office in an Attempt to Protect the City's Position. City Attorney Riggs noted that Council Member Quick's comments were appropriate and noted the Council should speak with one voice especially in light of recent events. He then indicated it Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 19 is not a situation where Council Members are precluded from making comments but stated the City should follow the Charter which states that the Mayor, who can direct the City Administrator to assist him, should be making the official comment. Council Member Stigney questioned whether the motion would cover all communications or just press releases of a written nature. Council Member Quick noted that one other time Council instituted a gag order on itself when there was a very large lawsuit pending which controlled the flow of communication from Council. He then noted that, if a Council Member were to misstate something, it could be used against the City. Council Member Thomas noted she assumed the motion to govern all issues regarding pending Litigation and not necessarily other communications. She then noted it would be very easy to say things that perhaps should not be said concerning litigation issues and stated she felt this would allow Council the opportunity to run everything through the City Attorney. Council Member Marty stated he understood where caution would be advised with pending litigation but noted there is also a consideration of freedom of speech. He then stated that he believes in freedom of speech and stated that, if a Council Member would need to, want to or chose to make a statement or be questioned by the press they should be allowed to get permission from the City Attorney to comment. He then suggested the above comments as a friendly amendment to the motion. Council Member Quick did not accept the friendly amendment. Council Member Thomas noted it was not necessary to add Council Member Marty's comments to the motion as there is already a system in place that requires communication with the City Attorney be run through the City Administrator. She then noted that Council Members do not directly contact the Attorney. She further noted that freedom of speech is for one person and that Council is not one person but the voice of the entire Council and the City and communications from Council need to come from the table as a whole. Council Member Stigney questioned whether the communication would come from the City Administrator with or without Council approval before being sent out. City Administrator Miller indicated it would depend on the nature and severity of the questions. She then noted that some questions could be handled by the City Attorney and that some may need to be run by Council for approval. City Attorney Riggs indicated that the City Administrator could take care of a lot of the issues. He then noted that, if a general statement as to the City's position is being made, the five members speak for the City and those are the issues that Council Member Quick is addressing with the motion. Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 20 Council Member Thomas noted that, due to the nature of lawsuits, the most common answer is that due do pending Litigation Council Members are unable to comment. She noted that without the motion "no comment" would be the answer to all questions. She then noted that it maybe possible to answer some questions with better detail if they are formulated the City Attorney. Council Member Marty stated he understood the motion but stated he believes there have been a number of statements released to the press that he personally questions and those were never brought before Council. He then indicated he received telephone calls on some of the newspaper articles that appeared to have comments as coming from the Council as one body that he was unaware of. He further noted that he feels some of the information was printed simply to inflame residents and try certain people in the press which he takes great issue with. Council Member Thomas noted that the motion would not solve that issue as the City cannot control what other people release to the press. She noted that most or the majority of those articles were not released by Council and stated that the motion would allow for some control of what the City represents as its answer. Council Member Marty stated he agreed that the City could not do anything about articles released by other people but stated the articles were not released by other people they were released by or directly quoted the Mayor. He noted Council Member Stigney and former mayor McCarty were also quoted and he found their comments to be reasoned and factual and had no • exception with them at all. He further noted that he realizes that the City is in the position of possible litigation and recognizes the consequences a Council Member's comments could have but noted he still stands on freedom of speech for anyone and everyone. Council Member Thomas indicated that freedom of speech does not take away the consequences. She further noted the motion would control the responses that go out to the questions that come in. Council Member Quick noted that, when misinformation is printed, the City can respond in a single voice. Council Member Stigney asked for clarification as to the motion. He then stated he wanted to make sure that communications will come back to Council for approval and input before being sent out rather than just being approved by the Mayor. City Attorney Riggs stated that, in all honestly, in a situation of imminent pending litigation the comment of Council will be "no comment" and the matter will be handled either by his office or an attorney with the League of Minnesota Cities. Council Member Marty asked if the City Attorney was aware of any litigation on the matter at this point. City Attorney Riggs indicated that, based on correspondence received a week a go Wednesday, there is a threat of imminent litigation but noted he had not received anything at this point. Mounds View City Council June 11, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 21 MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Quick. To Call the Question. Ayes - 4 Nays - 1(Marty) Motion carried. Ayes - 4 Nays - 1(Marty) Motion carried. City Administrator Miller reported she has been working on filling the finance director vacancy and noted that, on an interim basis, she maybe able to buy up to two days of time from a neighboring city. She then asked for the authority to work out the details noting the salary would be $300 to $600 per day which includes benefits. She further noted the salary would not exceed two fifths of the approved salary for the finance director position. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney. To Authorize Staff to Fill the Vacancy of the Finance Director by Using an Employee from a Neighboring City on an Interim Basis with a Salary Not to Exceed $600.00 per Day. Council Member Stigney questioned why the City would need to pay benefits as the person would have benefits from the other city. City Administrator Miller indicated the City need to pay its share of the employee's benefits to offset the other city losing the employee's services for the two days per week. • Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. City Administrator Miller requested authorization from Council to advertise to fill the vacancy for the finance director. Council Member Stigney asked if it was appropriate to fill the position in light of the possible litigation. City Attorney Riggs indicated the City could advertise but was under no obligation to hire someone at this point. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Thomas. To Authorize Staff to Advertise to Fill the Finance Director Vacancy. Ayes - 4 Nays - 1 (Marty) Motion carried. City Administrator Miller reported that Elegant Times had sent an invitation to Council and Staff to participate in a food tasting on Tuesday, June 19, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. Council Member Quick noted that Council Members should notify City Administrator Miller if they planned to attend so the event could be published if need be. • Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting 10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 11, 2001 Page 22 A. Monday, May 29, 2001 City Council Minutes. ~J ~J Council Member Thomas requested the following changes: On Page 5 change the word "south" to "north". On the same page change the word "error" to "misrepresentation." On Page 7, second to last paragraph add that the plan was not approved because "the removals were not approved." Mayor Sonterre requested the following changes: On Page 5 correct the spelling of "Sapanski" to "Szczepanski". On Page 4 indicate that "Mayor Sonterre answered no" to Mr. Szczepanski's question concerning whether the City received a part of the proceeds from the golf pros. MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Approve the Monday, May 29, 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 9:46 p.m. Transcribed and recorded by: Joan Lenzmeier Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Motion carried. Monday, July 18, 2001 Monday, June 25, 2001