Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 2002/02/25PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting February 25, 2002 Mounds View City Hall ~` r~\V3-- 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 >l 7:02 P.M. 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Mayor Sonterre, Quick, Marty, Stigney, and Thomas. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Monday, February 25, 2002 City Council Agenda. City Administrator Miller requested Item 6D be removed from the agenda to be discussed at a future time. Mayor Sonterre asked when the item would be back on the agenda. City Administrator Miller indicated she did not know the exact date that the item would be back on the agenda but said she would place it on the agenda as soon as possible. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Approve the February 25, 2002, City Council Agenda as amended. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 4. PUBLIC INPUT Jerry Serfling, Assistant Director of AFCSME 14, representing City Hall and Golf Course Employees addressed Council and thanked Members for removing Item 6D from the agenda. He then indicated that he and Ms. Norquist are concerned about wages and collective bargaining and then asked permission to speak on Ms. Norquist's behalf when the item is heard. Mayor Sonterre indicated Mr. Serfling would be permitted to speak to the matter at that point in the agenda. Mari Scotch of 7806 Gloria Circle indicated she has been working for two years on issues concerning the water level in Spring Lake as well as increased aquatic plants and winter fish kill. Mounds View City Council February 25, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 2 She then indicated there was a petition signed by residents on Spring Lake that was given to the City and residents have not yet received a response. Ms. Scotch indicated representatives from Spring Lake Park and Fridley have been working on the issues along with Mounds View residents and those representatives have been able to have the matter heard before Rice Creek Watershed District. She then indicated that Rice Creek Watershed District has given permission to purchase water from the St. Paul Water Utility but noted, in order to do that, the three cities would need to enter into a Joint Force Task Agreement. Ms. Scotch explained the water would come by way of the Mississippi through a pipeline and can be purchased in one foot increments in April and August. She then indicated that the residents who live along the lake are working to put together a Lake Management Association to go to Rice Creek to ask them to monitor the water in the lake. She further noted that the DNR uses the lake as a rearing pond for fingerlings. She also said that Mississippi water has been used in the past. Mayor Sonterre thanked Ms. Scotch for her comments and noted the three cities had entered into an agreement to work together on the matter but Mounds View's lack of a public works director had hindered the process. Ms. Scotch asked for help from Council going forward to assist residents in getting the water level back in Spring Lake. David Jahnke of 8428 Eastwood Road indicated he had the opportunity to watch the tape from the work session and said he is concerned with some of the things that go on at the Community Center. He commented he knew there was trouble but did not know what it was all about so he went down and talked to a 12 year old who told him that bad kids go to the Community Center. He stated that more than half of the kids are bad and noted he was told that you can buy marijuana in the bathroom and can purchase stolen property. He further commented that the 12 year old had told him that these bad kids also destroy property at the Community Center and his mother will not allow him to go there. Mr. Jahnke asked if the police reports from the Community Center are available for viewing. Acting Chief Brennan indicated if it was not an open investigation and the report does not identify any juveniles Mr. Jahnke could review the report. Mr. Jahnke commented that 75% of the kids at the Community Center are not from Mounds View and those kids can go there without any charge and that concerns him. He noted one of the reasons the kids go there is because they are not allowed at the other facilities. He further noted he feels it is very sad that the City's mothers are scared to send their children to the Community Center. • Mounds View City Council February 25, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 3 • Mr. Jahnke said he feels the City should hold the YMCA accountable and make them commit to the promises made because they are not doing what they said they could do. He also commented he did not think it would help to put a different person over there. Mayor Sonterre noted Mr. Jahnke echoed the concerns of Council and the City's desire to gain control back at the Community Center. Michelle Sandback of 2356 Sherwood Road indicated she has a concern regarding commission applications and procedures and would like to request two things. The first is public disclosure of the application procedure for commissions, and the second would be to ask Council to consider an amendment to the Code to describe the procedure as a matter of public record. Mayor Sonterre said he thought the procedure was covered in the Code and noted he could make public the applications made available to Council Members. He clarified that the procedure has been for the Mayor to review the applications and make a recommendation to Council for appointment. He further stated that, like any document held at City Hall, the applications are public documents. Ms. Sandback said she feels it is important that people who apply for commissions should be able to know the procedure and, in order to know, she thinks there needs to be something in writing in the Code. She then stated that she did not see where in the Code the procedure was stated. Mayor Sonterre asked Staff to review the matter to determine whether there is room for clarification. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 6. CONSENT AGENDA A. Just and Correct Claims B. Licenses for Approval C. Resolution No. 5704 Approving Seasonal Public Works Positions D. Resolution No. 5713 Approving Seasonal Golf Course Positions E. Resolution No. 5716 Approving the Purchase of Replacement Gates for the Public Works Facility F. Resolution No. 5717 Approving the Purchase of a Replacement Mower for the Golf Course G. Resolution No. 5718 Approving the Purchase of two Replacement Bobcat Skidsteer Loaders H. Resolution No. 5719 Approving the Purchase of Windows Based Computer • Software to Operate the HVAC System at the Community Center Mounds View City Council February 25, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 4 I. Resolution No. 5714 Approving Attendance at Out of State Training for Use of Night Vision Equipment -Training and Equipment Grant Funded J. Set a Public Hearing for 7:05 p.m., Monday, March 11, 2002, to Consider the First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 693, an Ordinance Amending Section 1106.03 of the Zoning Code Pertaining to Accessory Structures Item D was removed from the agenda. City Administrator Miller requested that Item A be removed for a brief comment. Public Works Director Lee requested that Item 6H be removed for discussion of a revision of the funding source. Council Member Stigney requested that Item I be removed for discussion. Council Member Marty requested that Item G be removed for discussion. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Approve Consent Agenda Item I as Presented. Council Member Stigney asked whether travel expenses and salary were covered under the grant. Acting Chief Brennan indicated that travel expenses were covered but the City has to pay the employee's wages for the two days. Council Member Stigney asked whether the employee would be paid for traveling to and returning from the training. Acting Chief Brennan indicated that the employee would be paid during normal business hours. Mayor Sonterre asked whether the officer receiving the training would be qualified to train other officers on the use of the equipment after this training. Acting Chief Brennan indicated he would be. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Quick. To Approve Consent Agenda Item A as presented. City Administrator Miller indicated that two checks would be voided and noted that Check Number 107629 to Elegant Thymes in the amount of $4,181.00 would be changed to $1,790.95 and the check to Kath Auto Parts should be in the amount of $38.32 not $104.68. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. • Mounds View City Council February 25, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 5 • MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney. To Approve Consent Agenda Item H as presented. Public Works Director Lee handed out a revised copy of the staff report and noted the funding source for the computer software had been changed to be funded through the Community Center's budget as that is a more appropriate expenditure. Council Member Marty said, in reading over the staff report and the Resolution, it seems that the City would be foolish not to go with the new windows program. He then thanked staff for finding it. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Approve Consent Agenda Item G as Presented. Council Member Marty noted he feels this would be another item the City would be foolish to pass on based on the fact that the difference between the trade in price and the purchase price for a new model is only $1,600. He then noted to rent a skidsteer is very expensive and thanked Staff for finding this deal. Council Member Stigney commented that this program has been going on for three years and has never been brought to Council and he feels it should have. He then thanked Staff for bringing it . to Council at this time. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Approve Consent Agenda Items B, C, E, F, and J as Presented. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 5703 Regarding the Longview Estates Preliminary Plat, Mounds View Planning Case MA01-001. Mayor Sonterre opened the public hearing at 7:26 p.m. Community Development Director Ericson indicated Mr. Harstad had submitted a revised preliminary plat for Longview Estates. He then explained that the original subdivision proposal was for 11 lots and noted since the variance request for reduced lot widths was denied Mr. Harstad has submitted a plan for 261ots. He further explained that none of the lots meet the Code requirements and noted that there would need to be mitigation done for the wetland filled and that mitigation may not be in Mounds View. • Mounds View City Council February 25, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 6 • Director Ericson indicated the Planning Commission had recommended denial of the request because it does not meet the subdivision requirements for the wetland zoning district. He then noted Staff had prepared Resolution 5703, a Resolution denying the preliminary plat. William Werner of 2765 Sherwood Road asked what mitigation meant. Director Ericson explained that any wetland area that is filled has to be replaced at a ratio of two to one. Mr. Werner asked if the replacement could be done somewhere else. Director Ericson indicated that the mitigation could be done at another location. Mr. Werner said nature put the water on that property for a good reason and filling the wetland would mean you lose retention capability and that usually ends up costing the taxpayers in storm sewers and other things and he thinks mitigation is a terrible concept. Council Member Quick asked whether Mr. Harstad could buy wetland credits. Director Ericson indicated it was possible but said he was not sure because he is not aware of all the regulations concerning wetlands. . Council Member Thomas clarified that the City is not dealing with Rice Creek Watershed District rules but state mitigation statutes and standards. Michelle Sandback of 2356 Sherwood Road indicated her neighbor has looked into wetlands in Mounds View and had told her that between 1990 and 1997 Mounds View has lost about 30% of its wetlands and that is after the wetland standards came into play. Council Member Quick indicated he was not aware of any loss of wetlands at all in the City and said he would like to see a detailed list of the wetlands that Mr. Lamb has said were lost. David Jahnke of 8428 Eastwood Road commented that he was concerned Council Member Quick had commented there were no laws concerning wetland regulations because there are. Council Member Quick indicated he was not aware of any loss of wetland. He then commented that he is aware that the City now owns over 200 acres that were not previously under City control. Mr. Jahnke indicated that he had heard that one of these issues went to Court and cost the City money. He then asked if that was true. Council Member Quick indicated he was not aware of that. • Mounds View City Council February 25, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 7 • Mr. Jahnke commented there was a contractor who wanted to develop the area off of Hillview and the City was sued over a wetland issue and the City lost. Herb Zwirn of 7660 Greenfield Avenue addressed Council and indicated he had come to speak out of true concern for the Harstad development. He then indicated the Planning Commission had turned the request down two times because neither request met City Code requirements. He noted that with the second proposal Mr. Harstad has dropped the facade of being an environmental champion and has taken up a hard-core attitude. He further commented that the second proposal is more damaging than the second and clearly shows disregard for the neighbors. Mr. Zwirn indicated Mr. Harstad's family had purchased the property 30 years ago and has not developed it because of the problems involved with the wetland. He noted that using decades of study and statistics the federal government has adopted rules for development but Mr. Harstad claims he is being victimized by arbitrary and capricious rules specific only to him. Mr. Harstad indicated there was a similar situation in Coon Rapids 12 years ago where homes were built with wetland fill and foundations cracked, homes became weak and unsafe, and residents had water problems. The insurance companies did not pay and the builders and developers disappeared. He then asked Council not to yield to pushy, whiny, manipulative contractors that have no concern for neighbors. He further stated that both plans have problems for the neighbors and possible serious environmental impact. He further asked Council to stand up for the community and show the residents that they listen to their voices. Council Member Marty asked Mr. Zwirn why he has come back with a plan for 26 lots on the same property that the City turned down 11 lots. He further commented he feels this is a waste of Planning Commission, City Council and Staff time. Mr. Harstad indicated he was not before Council to whine or do anything else that he was just accused of doing but said he is a property owner in the City of Mounds View and, had it not been for the regulations put in place by the City, he would be allowed 261ots on the property. He then noted he had challenged City Staff to show him another property owner in the City that is as affected by these regulations as he is and Staff has been unable to do so. He further stated that, had this plat not had the wetlands, everything else would qualify for a subdivision within the City of Mounds View. Mr. Harstad asked Council to approve his plat. He then commented he brought to Council what he felt was a good plat that took into consideration the health, safety, welfare, and environmental issues. He also noted the plat had all the necessary governmental approvals by the Army Corp of Engineers, Rice Creek Watershed District, and the DNR but was denied based on an ordinance created by the City of Mounds View that has absolutely no adverse affect on another property owner other than him. He further stated he wanted to bring this to the attention of Council and get a vote on it. • Mounds View City Council February 25, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 8 • Mayor Sonterre commented that the ordinance was put into place to protect other property owners and may adversely affect Mr. Harstad's property but with regard to the catastrophic loss of wetland and water filtration areas there would be significant cause and effect to the surrounding properties including roadways and other residential and commercial properties nearby. He further clarified he felt the need to differentiate that the ordinance is not adverse to Mr. Harstad but a protection for other property owners. Mr. Harstad commented that the wetland acts as a storm sewer for Longview Drive and Silver Lake Road and is not the high quality wetland that people think it is because it takes storm water from streets with salts and, untreated, is discharged into the wetland. Mr. Harstad pointed out that one of the things the first plan would have provided was a NURP pond to treat drainage prior to discharge into the wetland. He further commented that, as it exists today, open pipes are coming in from two directions and he would question the City as to whether or not it would be a wetland today had it not been a dumping ground for the streets in the area. Mr. Harstad indicated that when he bought the property 30 years ago it was zoned for duplexes, commercial, and high density residential and has since been down zoned by the City. He then commented he had come in with an 11 lot subdivision and that was turned down so he is now asking for the 261ots. Mr. Werner said he was speechless at the things that are going on. Mayor Sonterre closed the public hearing at 7:48 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5703, a Resolution Denying a Preliminary Plat for the Proposed Longview Estates Major Subdivision Located Within a Wetland Zoning District; Planning Case No. MA01-001. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. B. Consideration of Resolution 5706, a Resolution Revoking the Business License for Gas `n Splash, Located at 2525 County Highway 10. Community Development Director Ericson indicated this was a request for the Council to consider revoking the business license for Gas `n Splash for failure to pay SAC fees which started in 1999 when the car wash was added. He then explained that SAC fees, which is a unit service availability charge, are applicable when development occurs if there is additional discharge into the storm sewer system and that fee is determined by the Metropolitan Council. Director Ericson indicated the Metropolitan Council reviewed the matter and determined that 41 units should be assessed to this project and from that time on the City has been trying to collect the amounts due. He then commented that, typically, the City collects the fee prior to the issuance of the permit but, in this case, the Metropolitan Council had not provided information as to the amounts at the time of the issuance of the permit. Mounds View City Council February 25, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 9 • Director Ericson explained that Mr. Mack had contacted Staff and indicated he is out of town and unable to be at this meeting to discuss the matter and respectfully requests that the matter be tabled to the next Council meeting. Council Member Marty indicated that there seems to be a disparity of opinions in this matter and he feels, even though the matter has been outstanding for quite some time, it would be fair to table the matter to the next Council meeting to allow the business owner to be in attendance to discuss the matter. He also commented he felt interest should be accumulating on the amounts owed to the City. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Table This Matter to the March 11, 2002, City Council Meeting. Council Member Stigney asked for a friendly amendment to table the matter to a time certain of March 11, 2002. Council Member Marty accepted the friendly amendment. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. C. Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 694, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 607 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Relating to Nuisances. Housing Inspector Anderson indicated Ordinance 694 amends Chapter 607 of the Code relating to nuisances and said all discussed changes have been incorporated into the Ordinance. Mayor Sonterre commented that Council and Staff had been looking at this document for quite awhile and said he is happy to have it finalized. Council Member Marty said if the document were tweaked anymore Council would know it by heart. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Waive the Reading, Introduce the First Reading, and Approve Ordinance 694, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 607 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Relating to Nuisances. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. D. Discussion of Resolution 5715 Authorizing the Purchase of Three Police Vehicles. Acting Chief Brennan indicated he had amended the request to ask for approval of the purchase • of two police vehicles instead of three, with a third vehicle to be budgeted for in 2003. He also Mounds View City Council February 25, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 10 • handed out information on last year's sales as requested by Council. He further commented that the Resolution had been amended to include a sentence requiring that the proceeds from the sales of the vehicles would be put back into the City's vehicle account for budgeting. Acting Chief Brennan reviewed last year's sales information with Council and indicated he feels a reasonable price to expect is between $2,500 and $3,000 for the vehicles. Mayor Sonterre asked whether the trade in value was considered dealer trade in value. Acting Chief Brennan indicated the figures represented dealer trade in value. Mayor Sonterre asked if the City should consider trying to sell the vehicles through the League of Minnesota Cities because a list is sent out to member cities with all items for sale. Acting Chief Brennan indicated he had seen the list of items for sale and it did not appear that vehicles were moving very quickly as the list was the same month after month. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5715, a Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of Two Police Vehicles. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. • E. Petition for the City Council to Hear the Grievance Filed by Marge Norquist Jerry Serfling, Assistant Director for AFCSME 14, addressed Council and indicated that the word grievance becomes adversarial and that is not the way the union looks at it, the union looks at it as identifying the problem and establishing a procedure for resolving the problem. He then indicated that the union objects to the removal or stoppage of payment for Ms. Norquist's retiree Medicare healthcare supplement. He commented that Ms. Norquist is 72 years old and, as a result of budget decisions her salary was cut in half as of January 1, 2002. He then commented that during the collective bargaining the union discussed with the City the need, in the new contract, to make sure that supplemental insurance payments were continued and, as a result of that discussion, the City Administrator stopped payment and notified Ms. Norquist on January 25, 2002. Mr. Serfling indicated that during negotiations there are certain things under the Minnesota Collective Bargaining Law that are mandatory and should continue and, without any negotiation, the City stopped the payment. He then indicated there is solution that is cheaper for the City and would do no harm to Ms. Norquist. He further indicated that what the City is paying for is cheaper than having Ms. Norquist enroll in the City provided insurance plan and having the City pay the pro rated amount of the premium. Mr. Serfling indicated, rather than see unions and employees as adversaries, this is an • opportunity for the City to say it will not hurt people unnecessarily. He then commented that he Mounds View City Council February 25, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 11 did not think there was another City employee like Ms. Norquist who is enrolled in a supplemental insurance plan. He further stated this is a mandatory discussion item and payments should have continued. Mr. Serfling indicated following the City's advice would place an unjust hardship on Ms. Norquist because she would have to pay for the supplemental plan or drop it and join the City's plan that provides less benefit. He then asked that the City find a way to work with the union to find a way to solve this and not hurt people. He also asked the City to continue the health insurance payments as they were being made and allow negotiations to continue. Mayor Sonterre indicated Council and the City are not treating employees as adversaries and absolutely do not treat employees, union or not, as adversaries because they are assets. He further commented that there is no adversarial mentality from his perspective. Council Member Thomas indicated she found it disingenuous to talk about negotiations when this situation has nothing to do with union negotiations. She commented Council is looking at all details and found out things were being done incorrectly and against the personnel manual since the day this was begun. She commented Council is addressing correcting the problem in accordance with the personnel manual. She then commented that a significant issue has been raised with the City's current health insurance because the very fact that the City has supplemental health insurance jeopardizes the City's current health insurance contract. • Council Member Thomas commented that it would not be cheaper for the City to continue to offer this supplemental insurance because, if Council were to decide to continue with the supplemental insurance, the City would have to provide the benefit to all employees because the benefit is currently only being offered to one employee and treats the other City employees unfairly. She further commented that this is not an issue of primary health insurance but supplemental insurance and, as set up, it goes against the personnel manual and the City's insurance policy contract. Mr. Serfling indicated he felt the matter could have been resolved in negotiations and said the City was in negotiations and the Minnesota Public Employees Labor Relation Act makes health insurance a negotiated item and the City is acting in deference to its own policy. City Administrator Miller indicated that the grievance filed today she interpreted to be a difference of opinion as to how the union and Ms. Norquist interpret the personnel policy versus how the City interprets the personnel policy. She then cautioned against any discussions of the contract because it is currently under negotiation. City Administrator Miller indicated that any employee who works 20 or more hours can participate in the City's health care and there is no provision for any alternative for that. She then indicated she had spoken with the City Attorney, representatives from the League of Minnesota Cities, and Mr. Burn who administers the City's health care program. She further indicated that the City's health care contract precludes the City from utilizing another health care Mounds View City Council February 25, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 12 • provider and that is in order to keep costs down for the City. The program is dependent on a City Administrator Miller indicated the City is correcting a decision made by the Finance Director to give one employee of the City a benefit not provided to any other. She then commented that if the City does make an amendment in the personnel policy she has been told the City would have to provide the benefit to all but, there is a cost to do so. certain number of people participating in the program. She also commented that Mr. Burn did say that the City could decide to amend the personnel policy to state that employees do have an option to elect to take a cash payment in lieu of participating if they have health care elsewhere but the way the personnel manual currently reads it does not give that option. Mayor Sonterre indicated Council has tried to keep its sites on how the personnel policy reads presently and make decisions based on following the procedure as it exists today and focus on being consistent. He then indicated there has been a debate as to whether change is necessary but Council has agreed to base its decision on the facts before Council at this time. Mr. Serfling indicated the letter of the word of the Collective Bargaining Law states that the employer cannot unilaterally change benefits. He then suggested the City negotiate a memorandum of agreement that would apply until negotiations are finalized. City Attorney Riggs clarified that Council has before it a situation that was not authorized by Council and could not be authorized by Council because it is in violation of the master contract with HealthPartners. He then stated that, with due respect, it is a situation that the City cannot do and that is why Staff took steps to rectify the indiscretion of a previous staff member. Mr. Serfling indicated there is still a way to resolve this if Council would direct Staff to sit down with the union and HealthPartners to discuss it. Mayor Sonterre explained that, even with a memorandum of agreement, if the City made a provision for one staff member to be compensated for supplemental insurance it would then afford that right for other staff to request supplemental insurance. Mr. Serfling said he did not believe continuing Ms. Norquist's supplemental insurance by way of a memorandum of agreement would afford other City employees the same rights if the document were drafted properly. City Administrator Miller indicated she has information that the City cannot discriminate against employees whether in favor of age or by providing a benefit to one employee that is not provided to other employees. She then indicated the actions were taken to correct a situation that should not have been. She further indicated that, if Council wishes to direct her to do so, she could amend the personnel policy. Council Member Thomas stated this is not a matter for negotiation and is not part of the union • negotiations. She then stated it is nice to say "let's sit down and work something out" but, for Mounds View City Council February 25, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 13 • right now, this is an action to correct something that should not have been allowed to occur. She further commented that Staff and Council have been dealing with corrections in several other areas and it has not been pretty but corrections have to occur. She also indicated the matter of the City providing supplemental health insurance could be discussed at a later time but, based on information and policies in place right now, this is how Council is required by law to act. Mr. Serfling said "what about state law?" Council Member Thomas indicated that state law actually has binding agreements on the City with regard to the health care contract. Mr. Serfling indicated the City changed a benefit without discussing it. Council Member Thomas indicated that the City did not change the benefit as supplemental insurance is not a benefit provided to employees. Council Member Quick indicated he had no interest in continuing the illegal action by a former staff member and stated he feels Council Members would be putting themselves on the line by doing so. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Deny the Grievance Filed by Marge Norquist. • Council Member Marty read the wording in the personnel policy under policy insurance benefits and commented that he did not see where the policy said employees have to use the City's plan. City Attorney Riggs indicated the HealthPartners agreement says so and the personnel policy needs to be read in conjunction with the HealthPartners master contract. He then commented that this issue was discussed at the last meeting. City Administrator Miller pointed out that reading one paragraph further down in the policy it states "according to the established guidelines for the City's plans." Council Member Marty stated that the paragraph was addressing supplemental life insurance. Council Member Stigney indicated, as explained to him by the City Attorney, the way things are written it does not allow for the possibility of an outside supplemental health care policy to be paid for by the City. He then commented that he does not feel the door for insurance should be shut on someone as soon as they turn 65 and he would like City Staff to contact HealthPartners to determine whether they offer a supplemental insurance policy that the City would be able to offer that would not be in violation of its master agreement and determine what the costs to do so would be. Council Member Thomas indicated Council had discussed looking at the option of providing • supplemental insurance when the healthcare contract is renegotiated but it is not an option at this Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting February 25, 2002 Page 14 • point. She then stated that, because the City has to abide by law now, does not mean that there are not options to be discussed and investigated. She further commented that the City has not said Ms. Norquist needs to cancel her policy because she is a member of this separate from the City but, the City is not allowed to reimburse her for it at this time. Mr. Serfling commented that, if people of goodwill really wanted to resolve this problem, Council would direct Staff to sit down with the union and HealthPartners to discuss the options. Mayor Sonterre indicated he did not want Council portrayed as vindictive or cold hearted in this matter because Council has said it would be amenable to discussing that type of coverage and determining whether the City can afford to offer it as a benefit to all employees in the future. Council Member Marty commented that Ms. Norquist is part time and has limited funds. He then asked whether City Administrator Miller could contact HealthPartners to see if this type of policy is offered by them. City Administrator Miller indicated she would contact HealthPartners to determine if a supplemental policy is available and what the costs to the City would be. Council Member Marty commented that he sees both sides of the issue and knows Council needs to correct this situation but would like to investigate the possibility of providing supplemental • insurance through HealthPartners in the future. Council Member Quick asked Mayor Sonterre to call for the vote because the discussion had strayed from the discussion at hand. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Council Member Marty asked if Council would authorize Staff to look into an alternative through HealthPartners. City Administrator Miller indicated she would attempt to obtain the information and provide it at the upcoming work session. 8. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS None. 9. REPORTS Council Member Stigney noted he had asked for a break down of attorney's costs associated with resolving the fitness equipment issue. • City Administrator Miller indicated she had passed the question on to the City Attorney. Mounds View City Council February 25, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 15 • Cit Attorne Ri s indicated he had not had time to 0 over the issue in detail with the Ci Y Y gg g t3' Administrator but said he estimates less than $1,000. He then stated he could go over the detail and provide the information if Council would like. Council Member Stigney indicated he would like an exact figure. Council Member Stigney asked whether the Mayor had reimbursed the City the $703.33 as asked for by Resolution at the January 28, 2002 meeting. Mayor Sonterre indicated he had asked City Administrator Miller for clarification as to what the City wants to do with regard to unpaid sales tax. Council Member Stigney asked when Mayor Sonterre intended to pay the $703.33. Mayor Sonterre indicated he had asked City Administrator Miller to ask for the opinion of Council as to whether Council wants to have the sales tax deducted from the payment or would prefer to be billed for the sales tax. Council Member Stigney indicated there was a resolution passed asking that the $703.33 be reimbursed to the City. He then asked when Mayor Sonterre was planning on paying the City. • City Administrator Miller commented that she had advised Mayor Sonterre to ask for direction of Council during the report section of the meeting as to how Council wished to handle the sales tax matter. She then apologized if there was any misunderstanding stemming from the conversation. Mayor Sonterre indicated he would pay the amount as soon as the sales tax question is answered. He then noted the Resolution directed City Administrator Miller to seek repayment and she has done that. Mayor Sonterre stated he thought City Administrator Miller would be bringing up the sales tax question because she was directed to seek repayment and noted he had posed the question not as Mayor. He then commented that when Council gives direction regarding the sales tax he would be happy to pay. Council Member Stigney indicated he would like to ask that Council establish some form of collection for the resolution that was passed asking for $703.33. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Direct the City Administrator to Make a Demand for Payment of $703.33 For Repayment for the Fitness Center Equipment From Rich Sonterre. • Mounds View City Council February 25, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 16 • Council Member Marty stated, if need be, the City could garnish wages. He then noted that the Resolution was specific and asked for restitution of $703.33. He further commented that the matter should have been resolved a long time ago and he is surprised it has gone this far. Mayor Sonterre commented he was asking, under the report section, what Council wished to do with regard to the sales tax. Council Member Stigney commented that the sales tax has nothing to do with the demand for payment. He then commented that the Mayor has had use of the City's money for a year and a half and that is why he feels the demand for payment of the $703.33 as per Resolution passed on January 28, 2002 is appropriate. Mayor Sonterre said he would be happy to make the payment but wants clarification as to what the City wants to do with regard to payment of the sales tax. He then commented he would be fine with making the payment and notifying the state that the City of Mounds View will make restitution for sales tax. Council Member Thomas said she felt the whole thing was ridiculous because the motion is no different and carries no more weight than the resolution that was passed. She commented that City Administrator Miller is doing her job and said Council Members are making a huge drama out of this situation and it gets tiresome. • Council Member Stigney commented that it is tiresome that the City cannot get this bill paid. Council Member Thomas said the motion is duplicative. Council Member Marty said he felt the matter has gone far enough and the City can deal with sales tax as a separate issue but, since it was not addressed in the resolution, Mayor Sonterre should pay the $703.33 as requested by Council. Ayes - 4 Nays - 1 (Sonterre) Motion carried. Council Member Stigney asked if Mayor Sonterre had reimbursed the City for hotel expenses billed to the City that were not allowed. Mayor Sonterre handed down a check for the payment to City Administrator Miller. Community Development Director Ericson reminded Council that the Fifth Annual North Metro Home and Garden Show is being held on March 2, 2002 at the Community Center from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. with more than 50 vendors. He then invited all those interested to attend. Council Member Quick indicated he would like to place a discussion of payment of the outstanding debt owed to the City by Council Member Marty on the next work session agenda • for discussion. Mounds View City Council February 25, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 17 i Council Member Mart commented he felt the form handed out b Finance Director Hansen that Y Y asks for principal place of business should list all places of business because some Council Members have part time jobs that could pose a conflict and should be listed. Council Member Marty said he understands an investigation was made into the computer system and it was determined that someone had accessed his computer as well as another council member's computer. He then asked if he could review a copy of the investigation. Acting Chief Brennan indicated he was not aware of an investigation. Council Member Marty said he understood it was done through the Roseville server. Acting Chief Brennan said he was not sure about that. Mayor Sonterre asked how Council Member Marty obtained this information. Council Member Marty indicated he would rather not disclose his source. Council Member Marty explained that when the City had wireless Internet each Council Member had a laptop and had a generic password and there were a number of times late at night when he • tried to get onto the computer and was unable to do so. He then indicated when he had talked to Mr. Hess and others it was determined that the reason he could not have gotten on his line is someone else was there and he understands that was investigated. Council Member Marty indicated he would like to know the status of the completion of City Administrator Miller's sixth month review considering the fact that it has been nearly a year and a half. Mayor Sonterre indicated Council did discuss this matter and there were a couple of Council Members who did not turn in evaluations and those Council Members are aware of it and will provide the information as soon as possible to continue the process. Council Member Marty indicated he had spoken to City Attorney Riggs concerning conducting a town hall meeting. He then said a number of residents had expressed interest in that type of meeting and asked the status of it. City Attorney Riggs indicated he would be happy to hold a town hall meeting if it would benefit the City by demystifying the process and answering resident questions. He then noted that he has done so in other cities and it was well received. Mayor Sonterre asked if the meeting would be a part of the retainer. • City Attorney Riggs indicated the meeting would be free. Mounds View City Council February 25, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 18 Ma or Sonterre asked that the item be ut on the work session a enda for discussion. Y p g 10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. January 28, 2002 City Council Minutes. Council Member Thomas requested the following changes: Correct the spelling of "Sandback" throughout the document. On Page 6, fourth paragraph from the bottom, fourth sentence after climb and before the period add the words "in a manner different than any surrounding city." Then remove "80% of to pay health insurance rates." On Page 15 a rewording of the fourth line down to read: "if the 20 stalls located on the east side of the building to create the bus only lane would be lost." On Page 25, fifth paragraph, last sentence before the period add "and encourage them to continue to monitor the situation as it progressed." Council Member Stigney requested the following change: On page 8 delete the word "national" because he meant entire travel budget. City Administrator Miller requested the following change: On Page 14, fifth paragraph down, add "City Administrator Miller indicated she did not have that report with her this evening but noted she would talk with the public works director and get it to the City Council as soon as • possible." Council Member Marty requested the following changes: On Page 8, fourth paragraph, third line add the word "as". On Page 9, fifth paragraph correct Stigney to Quick had asked at the work session. On Page 11, correct the spelling of "Berk" to "Berg" and in the rest of the document. On Page17, fourth paragraph add "Mr. Lee agreed that it would be more cost advantageous and Council Member Marty commended Mr. lee for looking into this so that no problems would occur in the future. On Page 23, third paragraph he requested clarification of that paragraph. Council Member Marty requested clarification of his comments on Page 29 just prior to the minutes because he felt there was more to the comment than was listed. Council Member Quick requested permission to abstain from voting on the minutes because he was not at that meeting. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Approve the Minutes for January 28, 2002 as Amended. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Council Member Quick abstained from voting. B. February 11, 2002 City Council Minutes • Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting February 25, 2002 Page 19 Council Member Thomas requested the spelling of Sandback be corrected. MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Approve the Minutes for February 11, 2002 as Amended. Council Member Marty requested permission to abstain as he was not at the meeting. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. • 11. CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING/THREATENED LITIGATION There was no closed session following this meeting. 12. Next Council Work Session: Next Council Meeting: 13. ADJOURNMENT Monday, March 4, 2002 Monday, March 11, 2002 Mayor Sonterre adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m. Transcribed and recorded by: Joan Lenzsneier Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.