Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 2005/07/11PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COYTNCIL~ • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, A~IINNESOTA ~~~ ~~ Regular Meeting July 11, 2005 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112.,: 7:15 P.M. 1. 2. 3. 4. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Many, Gunn, Flaherty, Stigney and Thomas NOT PRESENT: APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Monday, June 13, 2005 City Council Agenda. • MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney To Approve the Monday, June 13, 2005 agenda as presented. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 5. PUBLIC INPUT Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated that it is his understanding that there are more detailed documents now available that are relevant to the Medtronic proposal. He stated that he has the original synopsis of the proposal adding that he would like to have a copy of the detailed documents. City Administrator Ulrich stated that he would be able to provide Mr. McCarty with a copy tomorrow. David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated that he would like to share a bit of information with the Council. He stated that he owns 40-acres on Highway 65 and several large developers are interested in developing the land. He indicated that he asked one of the developers why they weren't interested in making a deal on this land to develop it. He stated that the response he received was that there was no way any of the developers could compete or get the kind of concessions that Medtronic got to develop the roads and land. He noted that the comment was • Mounds View City Council July 11, 2045 Regular Meeting Page 2 • made that they got a good deal adding that when you think about the concessions the City is getting it is a tremendous amount and he thanked the Council. Carol Mueller, 8343 Groveland Road, referenced the current issue of the Sun Focus Newspaper stating that it has a great, well written, non-biased, factual article about the June 20t'' Town Hall meeting. She stated that it includes a lot of good quotes from both the residents and the Council adding that it is her hope that the public knows that this information is available in the Sun Focus Newspaper. She suggested that the Council read the article noting that it would be worth their time to see it. She stated that it does help to put things into perspective. She noted that she also read the May/June Mounds View Matters newsletter that included the City of Mounds View Mission and Value Statement. She referenced Item 3, Ethics and Integrity stating that she agrees with the statement and reviewed with Council. She expressed concerns stating that she is wondering if perhaps the value statement, in its' entirety, has have been set aside in our eagerness to get rid of a drain on the City budget. She stated that she believes the public was not treated fairly when the decision was made last August to empower the City Staff to do everything they needed to do to work out a plan with Medtronic for the property. She stated that if the decision, at that point in time, was to go forward, that in essence meant that the property was for sale. 'She stated that the City does lose integrity when the City sells something to a private party without offering it up for bids the way it normally should happen. She acknowledged that Medtronic is a wonderful company and she acknowledged that many are saying that the golf course is a huge drain on the City adding that she questions the ethics and integrity of the way all of this was put together. She stated that for the record, she is not for or against this, she is just thinking the City • lost sight of their values and some of the vision. She noted that Dan was not able to attend this evening but has a quote from Dan, he told her that a baby born on June 27~' would go through preschool, elementary, middle and high school along with college, and possibly start their own family before they would see the tax benefit of this 25-year tax increment funding deal. She stated that this is a rather profound statement noting that our children would be quite old before realizing any benefits. Council Member Stigney stated that he couldn't disagree more with what Ms. Mueller just said. He stated that to attack the integrity and ethics of the Council is inappropriate unless you have direct statements to make. He noted that she referred to the process of going out for bids and clarified that the City does not own the property and it would be hard to go out and ask for bids on property that the City does not hold the title. He indicated that the Sun Focus article Ms. Mueller referenced specifically states this as the reason the City did not go out for bids on the property. He stated another reason why the Council wouldn't want to go out and ask for the highest bid is that it could be an asphalt company and asked if Ms. Mueller felt that would be a better option than Medtronic. He clarified that it is not his intent to put her down but she is attacking the integrity of the Council and he feels that the Council did have entirely good integrity as far as what was directed to Staff to see what negotiations could be worked out with Medtronic and identify the legislative issues through the process. He acknowledged that Ms. Mueller is not happy with the plan adding that it is his hope that it does take affect. Ms. Mueller stated that if the City did not have the power or authority to take bids for the . property how does the City have the authority or power to sell the property. She stated that if it is Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 3 a public property shouldn't the public have a say in what happens to it. She asked the Council if • they could let the residents of this CitS~ help them make a decision that is going to impact the City for generations to come. Council Member Stigney acknowledged that they have a very different opinion to what Medtronic brings to the City versus the golf course adding that is all he has to say. Mayor Marty stated that he does not see Ms. Mueller's statement as an attack. He stated that she was just clarifying her understanding of the City's vision and value statement. Council Member Thomas stated that she does not consider it an attack adding that when someone suggests that the Council set aside their integrity and ethics when the project began, this is not the most positive statement to make. She assured Ms. Mueller that no one ever set aside their values or integrity adding that the Council discussed all of this and their publication throughout the entire process. She assured her that this was always number one. Ms. Mueller clarified that if a private interest were to approach the City with a proposal to purchase the Community Center and property for their development, has the City set a precedent where the City can do again whatever they choose, within this body of our City Council, and the same thing could happen again. She asked what would happen. if a developer wanted to purchase Silver Lake Park, could the City sell this public property as well. • Council Member Thomas explained that the City did not set a precedent. This is how a City functions everywhere. She explained that the Council does not consider an enterprise function in the same way that they view the parks. She stated that it involves an entirely different thought process and function. She assured Ms. Mueller that the Council did not establish any precedent that wasn't already established. She stated that the park analogy doesn't work for anyone up here at this point. Ms. Mueller stated that she does not have the benefit of everything involved, but as a resident of the City, what we consider public properly, she assumed was owned by the City, and it is her hope that this is not setting a trend. Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated that his old Irish Grandfather used to talk to him about common sense and statements that he makes noting that he tries to adhere to his advice whenever he can. He stated that it appears to him that common sense seems to be lacking when he hears that Council didn't put it out for bid because they didn't own the land yet it certainly didn't stop them from chasing Medtronic around the block. 6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS A. Review Fire Department Building Plans -Fire Chief Zikmund. Fire Chief Zikmund explained that the purpose for the presentation this evening is to receive . feedback from the Council noting that next Monday he would be presenting to the Spring Lake Mounds View City Council Juty 11, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 4 Park City Council and the following Thursday to the Blaine City Council. He indicated that the • Architects are ready to move forward with the construction design. and provided the Council with an overview of the site plan and floor plan of the building. He reviewed the tentative schedule stating that they have closed on the property and now own it free and clear. He stated that the ideal situation is that they would be back to the Blaine City Council on August 18th for the first bid package, which includes the excavation, footings and foundation. He stated that the process would start right away if the proposal is approved at the September 15th meeting with actual construction beginning sometime in October. Fire Chief Zikmund provided the Council with an overview of the floor plan noting their priorities were the apparatus bay, the training space, office space and storage with a secondary priority on the apparatus mechanics bay. He explained that they are trying to replicate what they have at Station 1 noting that they currently have six full time administrative employees at Station 1 and eventually over time they want to place four to five at this location. He stated that between Station 3 and 5 they have five apparatus bays noting that they remain at five although the entire space is larger and allows the ability to park trucks in between the bays. He stated that the far end bay is the apparatus maintenance noting that they are now into $100,000 a year on apparatus maintenance and believe that they could fund this position just through the savings and would be included as a 2007 budget proposal. Fire Chief Zikmund reviewed the equipment, utility functions and storage space with the Council. He stated that the training room is currently setup to seat 100 adding that they are currently at 72 and in the process of recruiting. He stated that this is also amulti-purpose room that would be available to the public for different activities. He reviewed the lobby area; conference rooms, restroom area, storage rooms, fitness/recreation area and kitchen/lounge areas with Council. He stated that they envision this building to be a SO-year building noting that they keep all of their records for fire and personnel. He stated that this is their 61St year in maintaining records for the fire department. He explained that this design has been scaled back from the original proposal adding that they have also built in a police/ambulance office noting that they have a good working relationship with Allina and can now provide a paramedic service to the City. He stated that it is in the best interest of the City and the Citizens to have advanced life support with paramedics stationed at the Station. Fire Chief Zikmund reviewed the proposed landscaping and station parking stating that it basically fits with the current plan. He referenced the geo-thermal well field and explained that it takes advantage of the ground temperatures to heat and cool. He stated that it is an incredibly efficient system with high upfront costs adding that the paybacks are typically over a three to five-year period in energy savings. He noted that it is an approximate $100,000 up front cost compared to the traditional adding that the recovery rates are incredible. He stated that as of the meeting this morning they are $67,000.00 under budget as they did scale back in several areas of the project. He reviewed the proposed elevation with the Council noting that they broke the building into two parts and reviewed the layout and materials. He stated that he has asked the architects to use the Blaine City Hall as the basis for the building design noting that the brick would be on the stationary and contemporary glass on the right side where conference rooms and • offices are located. Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 5 • Council Member Thomas referenced the mezzanine Level and asked for further clarification of its' purpose. Fire Chief Zikmund explained that the mezzanine level over the southern part of the building would include the generator room, the mechanics room and a file box storage area; the mezzanine level over the central part of building would have a dual purpose, it would include the central supply area and an unfinished space that would give them the potential to put three to four dorm spaces in the area for overnight duty. Council Member Flaherty referenced the training facility and asked for further clarification. Fire Chief Zilanund stated that primary purpose is to provide a training area and office area. He stated that it would replace the current training facility at Station 3. He stated that the training facility would be primarily classroom training adding that they would also do some low level hands-on training at this facility. He stated that they have agreements with Fridley and Brooklyn Center in addition to having access to the National Sports Center when they need larger training areas. Mayor Marty clarified that the Fire Chief s office is currently located at Station 1 and asked if he would be moving his office to the new location. • Fire Chief Zikmund confirmed that his office is currently located at Station 1 adding that he does not have any plans to relocate at this time. He explained that there has always been an unwritten understanding that the administration offices would remain at Station 1 noting there inay be a time where they would consider placing a Deputy Chief at this location but there is no need to move his office to this location. Mayor Marty asked if the mini-pumper would be kept at the new location or would it remain at the Blaine City Hall. Fire Chief Zikmund stated that the mini-pumper would stay at the Blaine City Hall. He explained that they currently have seven individuals at this location. He further explained that they are currently working on the PRA Legislation allowing City Firefighters that are not in the Public Safety. He stated that they currently have to be in Public Safety to be part of the Police and Fire Fund as a recruitment and retention tool. He stated that the policy process has stalled and will take another two years. He stated that this is an integral part of the process noting that they are hoping to increase the number of individuals once the legislation is passed. Mayor Marty stated that if they have anyone out in the audience that would like to be a Fire Fighter feel free to contact Fire Chief Zikmund at Station 1. Fire Chief Zikmund provided the Council with an update on the engines and command vehicle noting that the engines were approved to go out for bid by the City of Blaine. He stated that the • bids are due back on August 18~' and will bring the bids to all three Councils for consideration. Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 6 He stated that the Command Vehicle is on hold because the Mayor of Blaine had serious • recovery issues from surgery and asked that the item be held until he is able to return. He stated that he would keep the Council informed of the progress. 7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS. Council Member Flaherty had the following questions: • Page 19, Other Professional Service Fees, - He stated that they are very vague and he was not able to find all of them. He stated that he counted six services used and asked that more detail be included with the description of the expense. Director Ericson explained that some of the expenses are in departments other than his and is not sure what the expenses are for. He stated that this is in the Central Services Account and it would have to be reviewed. Ms. Burg asked who the Vendor is. Council Member Flaherty stated that he went through each and was not able to identify them within the Just and Claims report. Ms. Burg stated that she would research this section and provide Council with a more detailed description of the services. • • Page 5, Check No. 116425 -Best Access System for re-keying locks. He asked why they had to have locks re-keyed. Ms. Burg explained that this expense is connected to the Police Department. She stated that several locks were re-keyed and she would get further clarification from the Police Chief. Council Member Thomas had the following question: • Page 7, Check #116442 for DS Productions. She asked if this was for the projection screen and video system for the Community Center or was this done for security. City Administrator Ulrich explained that this was for additional video cameras for surveillance at the Community. Center. He stated that they also purchased a portable screen for the Community Center. Council Member Stigney had the following question: • Page 7, Video System Upgrade - He stated that there are two invoices listed that add up to roughly $6,700.00. He stated that it was his understanding that they were only purchasing a couple of security cameras and asked how it got up to $6,700.00. lJ Mounds View City Council July 11, 2445 Regular Meeting Page 7 City Administrator Ulrich stated that he would have to research the expenses and would provide • Council with an update on the details. He stated that they did have an audio system upgrade noting that he would clarify the details and update the Council. MOTION/SECOND. Guiui/Flaherty To approve the Just and Correct Claims as presented. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. S. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Resolution 6577 Approve 2404 Certified Annual Finance Report. Aaron Nielsen, Audit Manager, thanked Staff for the assistance in the audit process. He referenced three documents including the Financial Statement, which was prepared by the City, the second is the Special Purpose document and the third document is the Management Report. He provided the Council with an overview of the Management Report noting that the report they issued is an unqualified opinion, which is the cleanest opinion they could provide. He reviewed the government auditing standards noting that they have no instances ofnon-compliance to report. Mr. Nielsen stated that in the final opinion they have identified three separate findings, one for claims and disbursements, one related to group insurance and one related to administrative • penalties. He stated there are additional details included in the Special Purposes Audit Report. He stated that there were no changes in this years' Significant Account Policies for this years report noting that this is the second year the City is reporting a financial document under the Gasby 34 Reporting model. He noted that under Audit Comments there are items identified during the process that they would like to see improvements made. He stated that it also include suggestions that Staff could use to determine what would be most viable in their use for reportin purposes. Mr. Nielsen referenced the resolution documentation noting that he does believe there is enough information presented to Council that allows them to identify and understand what is being presented and passed although in the minutes, what they read to identify what is happening there are certain cases where they are not clear on what is actually happenng with respect to certain projects and how they would be financed. He stated that the other instances involve the bid and quote process for projects. He stated that they want to be sure that they are following the bid laws versus the less restrictive quote process. s g Mr. Nielsen noted page three moves into funding Cities in Minnesota and at the time of printing the report to make the June 30th deadline there wasn't any finalized legislation to report on. He stated that they have identified the property taxes and have disclosed the market values in the cities have been increasing and reviewed the percentages with Council. He referenced page four noting that it presents a table and graph of the City of Mounds View property by type and reviewed the average tax rate noting that it was consistent with the rates in 2003. • Mounds View 'City Council July 11, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 8 Mr. Nielsen noted page five and six discusses the governmental funds including the General . Funds and it includes the revenue per capita in 2004. He reviewed the individual funds, general funds and cash balances with Council. He noted that City has been able to maintain and increase the cash and fund balances despite the legislative cuts, which is important with the size of the growth and the size of the operations. He stated that the overall impact to the General Fund was very close to the anticipated final budget and reviewed with Council. He referenced the Enterprise Funds stating that it has remained relatively stable noting that it has improved due to decreases in some of the contract agreements from 2003 to 2004. He stated that it is very important to monitor the utility rates to make sure they are charging a rate that would generate replacement costs and to cover the overhead costs. Mr. Nielsen stated that there was an improvement in the operating costs for 2004 over 2003 and reviewed with Council. He reviewed the Golf Course operating funds stating that it is an enterprise fund treated by the City. He stated that they did report a net increase in assets of $116,000 after reporting a reduction of net assets in 2003 of $248,000.00. He stated that the increase in assets is largely due to a transfer from the Community Capital Fund, as approved by Council, and also because of the billboard revenues. He stated that the improvement in operations helped the interfund borrowing between the Golf Course Fund and the Community Capital Project Fund by $37,000.00 this year. He reviewed the Citywide Financial Statement presentation noting that the Gasby 34 model does require a separate review of the financial statements as separate entities adding that there is an additional discussion and analysis included for their review. He stated that the City's total net assets did increase by $2.3 million and • reviewed the overall City activities. Mayor Marty stated that this is a good report noting that the deadline for reporting was June 30~'. He explained that the former Finance Director was concerned that the City would have to apply for an extension and asked if they were able to meet the deadline. Mr. Nielsen stated that they did apply for an extension but it was denied by the State. He stated that they worked hard to meet the June 30~' deadline and it was submitted on time. Council Member Flaherty referenced page 4, Schedule of Findings and Recommendations regarding the segregation of duties stating that it surprised him to see the recommendations that the City continue to segregate duties wherever it can adding that it was his thought that cross- training was a good process and asked why they recommended further segregation of duties. Mr. Nielsen explained that there is a need to have someone separately reviewing and approving the work to ensure that it checks and balances. Council Member Flaherty asked how they track payments to the sub contractors. Mr. Nielsen reviewed the tracking process noting that before snaking final payment to a general contractor a confirmation from the State must be received to ensure that all taxes have been deducted from their payroll checks. Mounds View City Council July I1, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 9 City Administrator Ulrich referenced the administrative penalties listed noting that the Police • Department has been utilizing the administrative penalty process versus using the State Tickets for moving violations. He stated that a number of cities have discontinued this practice due to potential legal issues it could present adding that the Legislature was supposed to address this issue last year and never did. He stated that the City has continued with this process adding that the City should have the discussion as to whether this practice should be dropped from the Police Department. He indicated that this issue would be included as an agenda item for the September work session. Mayor Marry asked if this process is now against the law. City Attorney Riggs clarified that nothing has actually changed adding that there was supposed to be some legislation addressing this noting that it is being done on a piece mail process. He indicated that the City of Mounds View has been using this process for several years in addition to several other Cities who are still using this process. He noted that several Cities have discontinued using this process adding that this is something that Council should review and decide if this is an appropriate process to continue to use for traffic violations. He stated that the Courts are saying that the process should not be used adding that traffic offenses should run through the Minnesota Court process. He stated that this has not been definitively answered adding that this is something that Council should be aware of and review. Mr. Nielsen noted that he was reviewing the comment in Claims and Disbursements adding that . he had confused it with another statutory requirement for contracts and clarified that what they are looking to ensure that the language is included within the contract and that the contractors are being paid in a timely fashion. City Attorney Riggs explained that the majority of the City's contracts do include the language. He indicated that some of the outside engineering type situations did not include the language adding that this has been corrected. He explained that technically, statutorily, they are not required to have the language but they are subject to the requirement of filing a form IC134 before final payment is paid. He stated that he and the League does recommends including this language into the contract so that it is consistent with what the auditor is saying. He stated that this has been done with the contracts where the City does have control of the drafting process. MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Thomas To Approve Resolution 6577 and waive the reading Approving the 2004 Certified Annual Finance Report. Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. B, 7:05 p.m. Public Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance 760 Authorizing the Sale of Land Comprising The Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course to the Mounds View Economic Development Authority. Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that on June 27, 2005 the Mounds View • Economic Development Authority and the City Council considered and adopted the resolutions Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 10 approving the sale of the land comprising The Bridges Golf Course to Medtronic and the contract • for private development. He stated that the items that have transpired since June 27~' include the first meeting of the County road J project group met on July 6`~`; Ramsey County has executed an agreement between itself and S.E.H. for pre-design activities, which began on July 8~' and they are currently doing soil borings along County Road J so this aspect of the project is moving forward. He explained that in order to allow the sale of the land to Medtronic the City will be conveying the property to the EDA and the ordinance is attached for Council review. Mayor Marty opened the Public Hearing at 8:26 p.m. Barbara Haake, 3024 County Road I, stated that when they had Ehlers present there was a reference to $11 million dollars that would be used for a parking ramp in Blaine and asked how the $11 million would be used to purchase the land in Blaine. City Administrator Ulrich explained that there is approximately $24 million in TIF eligible expenses and the amount of the City's subsidies is $14.8 million. He stated that under the agreement the TIF eligible expenses within Mounds View would be paid for first. He stated that part of the Special Legislation allowed tax increment monies to be expended within the project area, which includes the City of Blaine, in the acquisition of properties, which is the $11 million dollars referenced. He stated that if, after all of the Mounds View expenses have been paid, that there is still a portion of the $14.8 million that still has to be paid, it would also be paid for out of the TIF dollars generated by the project, which could include a portion of the $11 million • referenced. Ms. Haake stated that there is a contamination clause in the purchase agreement that is being executed between the City of Mounds View and Medtronic and she asked if the City states that. they are holding Medtronic harmless in the event of future contamination on the land. City Attorney Riggs explained that this was forwarded to her via email and explained that it states that the City has a $200,000.00 cap with a limited scope and time. Ms. Haake noted that under Item 3, M-4 Exhibit, it does set the limitations and the City does agree to indemnify everyone and it sounds like it is forever. She noted that the M-7 Exhibit states that the EDA hereby fully and forever covenants not to sue and that they would release and discharge the indemnity, which would be Medtronic. She clarified that even in the future sometime, regardless of whatever is found, the City is capped at and is responsible for at least $200,000.00 and asked who would be responsible for paying the difference if something is discovered twenty years down the road. City Attorney Riggs stated that the landowner would be responsible for any additional expenses above the $200,000.00, which would be Medtronic. Ms. Haake clarified that the City did get a better deal than what was offered in New Brighton. • City Attorney Riggs stated that after basing this on the phase 1 and phase 2 processes that it is a Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005 Regular Meeting Page I1 better deal than what was discussed in New Brighton. • Ms. Haake stated that she did ask for additional information on Jul 2na re ardin the referendum Y g g and what the citizens need to do. She asked how many signatures would they need for the petition. City Administrator Ulrich stated that he did forward an email today noting that they would need approximately 989 signatures. Ms. Haake indicated that she was referred to Chapter 8205, Secretary of State for the Petitions, noting that it states how the petition has to be worded and it does state that they could paraphrase the question that would be on the ballot yet the City Charter, under 5.07, states that the wording of the referendum by petition shall state at the head of each page the exact text of the measure to be considered by the electorate. She asked if she should go by the City Charter 5.07 and include the exact wording used on the petition at the top of the ballot. City Attorney Riggs stated that this would make the most sense and is what was discussed in the email sent by City Administrator Ulrich. He suggested that they use that form noting that it is consistent and interpretive based on the Minnesota Rule 8205-1010. He stated that this would be the safest and most credible approach because everyone will know and understand what they are voting on. Ms. Haake stated that a meeting is scheduled at Hillview Park tomorrow evening, Tuesday, July 12, from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 pm. and also Thursday, July 14~', 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. for residents to come out and sign the petitions. She stated that they also plan to walk the neighborhoods noting that so far, based on the phone calls, she has heard feedback from residents who are concerned about what she is doing and also wanted clarification as to what the referendum is all about. She reviewed the calls with the Council noting that the results could prove to be very interesting. Cindy Sudeska, Hillview Road, stated that the golf course is nice to have adding that she also believes that Medtronic is a good company. She stated that she is not against either of the options noting that there is benefit with both. She stated that given a choice there is more expenses with the golf course adding that to the south the City would probably see an increase in general business for the area and agreed that there would probably be an increase in the area traffic. She stated that she really believes that the people of Mounds View should have good understanding of what a TIF District is adding that if they were to look at Medtronic's financial statement they would see that Medtronic's profit for one year is approximately $2 billion, which is their discretionary income and in comparison, the average income for the City of Mounds View is approximately $40,000. She explained that if they were to further compare the $2 billion . in discretionary income for Medtronic to the discretionary income for Mounds View it would equate to approximately $ .02. She stated that she wants what is fair and reasonable for both sides and would like to see Staff do fizrther exploration to find a fair deal that is good for both sides. She expressed concerns stating that she could actually visualize taxes going up because of • Medtronic and she does not feel that she or any other resident should be expected to subsidize Mounds View City Council July I1, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 12 • any company. Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated that the process is actually going fast noting that Ramsey County is already out there digging holes. He suggested that the City take a breather and take some time to try and find some common ground. He asked that the Council wait for the petition before taking any further action noting that it could possibly delay the project for a year or more. He stated that he is trying to get his mind wrapped around the details of the contract agreement and referenced the $8.6 million stating that it is his understanding that the Legislation requires the City to kick in approximately $1 million, which in his mind brings the overall total to $9.6 million, yet Medtronic is only paying a park dedication fee of $865,000. He noted that currently there is noting coming in for the fixed assets adding that the City could possibly consider moving the clubhouse to another location in the City. He noted that he is at a loss as to where they would be able to relocate the clubhouse. or how they would move it adding that a mover would probably tell them that it couldn't be done on a slab. He reviewed all of the golf club assets including the out buildings, the irrigation systems, and the lighting noting that the list goes on. He expressed concerns that the bottom line shows a gain of $4.6 million for 72.2 prime acres noting that the location is right at the top of the list for development possibilities. He stated that this project is crying out for citizen involvement noting that he was not sure if the Council would have the ability to back away from the agreement at this point. He stated that it seems as if the tail has been wagging the dog for a long time and is concerned that this is only going to get worse, much worse, if the petition is successful. He asked Council to consider delaying action on this issue until the petition process has been completed. David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated that he hopes and prays that the City Council does not back off from the Medtronic decision. He stated that the golf course has cost the City too much money and is in need of repairs. He stated that he can't believe that anyone would want to keep something that is costing the City money. He stated that it is his understanding that the City Council has received all of the facts and figures needed to make their decision adding that Medtronic would bring jobs to the community and State during a time when many companies are leaving the State. He stated that he cannot understand why people believe that this is a bad deal for the City of Mounds View when no other development would come in here and get the same kinds of concessions from the State. William Werner, 2765 Sherwood Road, stated that he has been holding off on making any statements for a long time adding that he would like to clarify the financial shape of Mounds View. He indicated that in the last two years taxes have increased by over 20-percent and asked why the City keeps increasing the taxes it only shows that the City needs money. He indicated that there is a $4 million debt for the golf course over the last ten years and expressed concerns that the golf course has never broken even and has also had to borrow money. He stated that the street fund has been spent down, which in turn leaves no money for the necessary repairs. He noted that past City Councils have hired poor golf managers in the past noting that faulty construction at the golf course led the City to a lawsuit that cost the City $300,000 fora $150,000 settlement. He stated that the City taxpayers were advised to approve $3.3 million for a new community center that was promised would make money for the City noting that losing money is • ok, no other community center makes money either. He explained that he is dredging up the past Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 13 to show that one should learn from history and not repeat the same mistakes. He stated that some • of the very people, from past Councils who steered this City to its' present financial condition, are now the loudest to give the advice as to why bringing in Medtronic is not a good deal. Mayor Marty closed the Public Hearing at 8:50 p.m. Mayor Marty stated that when the City had the land appraised last fall it was appraised at $10 million, the sale price to Medtronic was $8.65 million and since then the Legislature asked for an additional $1 million and Medtronic stepped up to say they would pay the additional $1 million, which brought the total sale amount to $9.65 million. He restated that the land was appraised last fall at $10 million and asked why the City is selling it for less than the appraised value. He noted that he has felt, all along, that the City should go out for bids adding that currently there is only one player in the game. He stated that based on minutes from the last meeting it was quoted that other offers had come in and Staff had deemed that the quotes were not justifiable. He clarified that this was a decision made by Staff, in their own words, not the Council. He stated that he is sure that all members of the Council have received many letters, calls and emails from all sides of the issue and he feels that with an issue of this magnitude that the decision should be made by the citizens. He noted that a couple of years ago the Council discussed the need to hire two additional police officers. He stated that this was brought before the Council and it was shown that the decision would affect the citizens and taxes noting that it was suggested that this should be placed on a ballot through a referendum. He stated that the citizens did stand behind this decision and ultimately the City did hire two additional police officers. He stated that with respect to the current issue, it has been pointed out that in today's dollars it would lower taxes by one or two dollars over a 25-year period. Mayor Marty stated that if Medtronic were coming in, paying for the golf course and not asking for TIF this would be a much better deal. He acknowledged that this would go onto the tax rolls right now but it would not affect the taxes until the TIF is paid off. He stated that the Economic Development District for the TIF that would be used was capped at 8-years, which was extended by the Legislature, through. special legislation, to 25-years. He stated that this is their prerogative noting that he does not believe this is a good deal for the City. He explained that if it was an 8- year period it wouldn't be as bad noting that in 8-years the revenue from the taxes would come back to the City sooner. He stated that one of the items mentioned by Ehlers is that in order to have a cap of $14.8 million they were concerned that it would actually take 25-years to pay off. He stated that if they were to get back into a series of tax compression for business taxes it could take the full 25-years or longer. He stated that the City was in this position approximately five to six years ago noting that it has been falling off. He stated that with the new legislature and senate the City ends up back in a situation like this. He stated that he does feel the City is premature noting that other land in the area, such as Roseville, for $300,000 an acre; land in Blaine for $250,000 an acre, land in Lino Lakes selling for $200,000. He stated that the land in Blaine and Lino Lakes are both land-locked, whereas the golf course is prime location off 35W and Highway 10/610 adding that he cannot support Mounds View selling the land for $120,000 an acre. He believes the City could get a better deal. Council Member Thomas stated that she never actually questioned the decision. She stated that Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 14 • when the City put the police officer positions out to referendum it was because it would have been a significant tax increase that would have been born financially by the residents of this City m a s~gmficant one-year tax increase that would continue on. She further clarified that rt wasn't that they were voting on two police officers it was a voting on paying the two police officers, which. is a big difference. She referenced the trading of public land and asked if the Council recalled the land swap for Walgreen's and asked if the City did a referendum because the City took public property and gave it to a private business and traded over. She clarified that the City owns property and is expected to manage property the City does not go to referendum to manage property, not even to a sale. She acknowledged that this huge and is probably the largest issue the Council will face, whether it rises to the issue of a referendum is for the people to decide. She stated that she is very happy to see so many people involved and this active in a City issue. She noted that this is the most activity she has seen in years and is excited to see Mounds View residents so active. She stated that if it does go to a referendum, that is a separate issue to address at that time. She stated that she believes she is fully capable`of making a decision based on property evaluations noting that she believes the City is probably getting the best deal the City could get. She is confident in this and stands by her decision. Council Member Gunn stated that she spent most of her day sitting at the computer reading emails and reviewing her notes from the Town Hall meetings. She stated that she has also spent a lot of her spare time and lunch breaks discussing Cite politics with residents. She stated that based on her emails and the responses from residents at the Town Hall meeting she found that approximately 90-percent of the residents are in favor of this project. She stated that she has to • listen to the people adding that she also feels that she has made the right decision for the City of Mounds View. Council Member Stigney stated that he keeps hearing a comparison that should be better and worth more. He explained that the appraisal of the land is for land located in Mounds View, not Blaine, Lino Lakes or Roseville. He stated that his only concern is with the appraisals they received for land located in Mounds View adding that fair appraisals were given, the City has done a negotiation with Medtronic and he believes the City has come up with a good deal for the City of Mounds View. He asked what the golf course has done for the City and answered nothing, until 2014, maybe, if the City is lucky. He stated that he does not believe that the golf course would bring in big dollars noting that the City would receive $4.6 to $S million that would come into the City immediately, yet no one mentions this. He stated that the City could utilize the money to help lower taxes and asked how the residents could just throw this out the window to go with a golf course that is losing money. He noted that it is also capped at $14.8 million adding that as the years go by the $14.8 million by today's dollars would be a lot less every year because they are capped at that value. He stated that Medtronic is the one taking the beating for the cap adding that Medtronic is also providing $8.65 for the park fund and $1 million for MnDOT. He stated that it is mind-boggling to keep hearing the spin and asked why they would keep a golf course that is losing money over Medtronic. He stated that if anyone could show him how the golf course would actually make money he would be willing to sign the petition. Council Member Flaherty noted that when this deal originally came to the table it was nowhere close to what it is today. He assured the residents that the Council has worked very hard on this Mounds View City Council July Il, 2005 Regular Meeting Page IS issue and if anyone thinks the Council has lost their integrity, ethics or values they are sadly • mistaken. He stated that he has thought long and hard on all of the issues and concerns and that he took in all comments, feedback and information and made the best decision he could for the City with the information he had received. He explained that he compared the golf course's previous earnings to what it is today; he reviewed and studied the benefits Medtronic could add to this community; and he considered what the people had to say about the golf course and about Medtronic. He agreed with Council Member Stigney adding that no one wants to say anything about the $5 million the City would receive, all they want to talk about is the $43,000 a year in property taxes and that isn't enough. He stated that he believes the deal the City has now with Medtronic is as good a deal as the City is going to get. Council Member Thomas stated that there is one correction that is necessary to make. She referenced Mayor Marty's statement that the Council was not in on the decision regarding other properties and other offers and expressed concerns that he would make this statement. She agreed that Staff could say, in their opinion that the options did not rise to the level the City should be pursuing. She acknowledged that this was Staff's opinion adding that they brought the options to the meeting to review with Council. She stated all five Council Members were at this meeting and all agreed that the options did not rise to the level of what the City should pursue. She stated that they discuss how the plan could be divided and how things could be done. She stated that the Colulcil did discuss all of the issues and asked how Mayor Marty could say that the Council did not take part in the discussion. She stated that Council did agree in a group consensus that the offers received did not rise to the level of pursuit. • Council Member Stigney stated that not only did the options not rise to something the Council should consider, nothing was brought forth that had the wear withal to do anything about the County Road Jcorridor,-the road improvements or the bridge. He stated that it took legislative action noting that Medtronic worked real hard to get legislative action on all these issues. He stated that just because someone says they are interested, they wouldn't have been able to provide the access. He stated that with Medtronic there would be access and improvements that are needed on County Road J. Mayor Marty referenced the golf course losing money, as Bill Werner mentioned, after the golf course opened they had a law suit. He stated that the City won the lawsuit but still had to pay attorney fees and court fees, which put the golf course behind before it ever got started. He stated that they have the billboards noting that the contracts were negotiated and the billboards were put in place last year. He stated that six. billboards generated approximately $250,000 a year with a 4-percent inflation factor built in for atwenty-year period. He stated that last fall the land was appraised at $10 million and asked what the land would be worth ten years from now noting that property values continue to go up. He stated that no one on the Council liked the idea of the billboards adding that they saw it as a means to avoid raising property taxes to pay for the golf course. He stated that right now with the bond debt and the internal loans the City owes approximately $4.2 million, which includes everything. He stated that the billboards are up there for twenty years and in order to negotiate out of the billboard contract, now in the current agreement the billboards will be in Mounds View for thirty years. He stated that they can only fit • three billboards north of Highway 10, which means the other three billboards will be placed Mounds View City Council 3uly 11, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 16 somewhere south of Highway 10. He stated that the billboard contract on each billboard doesn't • start until the billboard is placed, which means the contracts could run well beyond the thirty years. MOTION/SECOND. StigneylGunn To Approve the Second Reading and the Adoption of Ordinance 760 Authorizing the Sale of Land Comprising The Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course to the Mounds View Economic Development Authority and waive the reading. City Administrator Ulrich called a roll call vote as follows: Mayor Marty -Nay Council Member Stigney -Aye Council Member Gunn -Aye Council Member Flaherty -Aye Council Member Thomas -Aye City Administrator Ulrich stated that the motion passes 4 to 1. Ayes-4 (Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, Thomas) Nays-1 (Marry) Motion carried. C. Resolution 6540, Approving a Comprehensive Land Use Amendment for The Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course Site. Director Ericson stated that this is something that originated back in 2003 when the City rezoned the property from public facilities designation to industrial. He explained that Minnesota Statues indicate that the Comprehensive Plan and zoning should be consistent with each other noting that earlier this year, in January, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to review the designation of the golf course and come up with an amendment that would be appropriate given the zoning of the property and the possible future reuse of the property. He stated that in February 2004 the Planning Commission adopted a resolution, which would recommend the office designation as the appropriate land use. He stated that subsequent to the Planning Commission recommendation the amendment was forwarded to the Metropolitan Council, who took significant time to review the amendment and found issues associated with other agencies including transportation issues. He noted that at the same time the City was going through the AUAR process on the same land, so they were looked at in the same light in terms the potential impacts. He stated that on April 27~' the Metropolitan Council did recommend and approve the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Amendment to office. He stated that the City held a public hearing on May 23, 2004 and there is a resolution before Council that would effectuate the change from outdoor sport/recreation and passive outdoor to office. He stated that this is something that could be acted on regardless of what happens with the Medtronic project and is something that is necessary based on the fact that the City rezoned the property in 2003. He acknowledged that there are some ties to the previous item adding that this something that has to occur regardless for statutory compliance. '~ ~ Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated that he is so glad that the Council wrote into the Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 17 Charter that citizens have a right to address issues before the Council. He stated that he is • unaware of any communication with the City of Blaine, particularly with the fact that they are going to lose some revenue producing properties to be turned into a parking lot. He asked what Blaine's reaction was to the changes in the Comprehensive Plan for Mounds View and asked if they reviewed the changes or did they respond to the City Council or Tom Ryan. Director Ericson confirmed that the City of Blaine supported the City of Mounds View's request to change the future land use to office. Mr. McGarry asked if they support it knowing that a portion of their industrial land would be taken away. He stated that he didn't know it until the last minute noting that the first map he saw was in relationship to the property in Mounds View. He asked if the City of Blaine knew, at the time of their approval, that the impact from the development would extend beyond Mounds View's border to the extent of removing tax producing buildings and properties from their City. He asked if they were aware of this at the time and did they make specific approval to that condition. Director Ericson stated that the City of Blaine was aware of that activity and the potential for redevelopment within their own community. He stated that these are two separate issues noting that Blaine was aware of it and they did support the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the proposed development. • Mr. McCarty indicated that he is not against this adding that the Council should be commended for the investments they have made in the parks system. He indicated that the City has spent over $500,000 in parks improvements and that he applauds them for their investment and hard work with the parks system but he does not understand how members of this City Council can constantly bang the dnun that the City is putting $40,000 a year into a golf course that is about to be removed and yet at the same time vote in over $231,000, since 2001, for the North Suburban Tourist Bureau. He stated that it is a little difficult to understand when the Council is approving $57,000 per year for the North Suburban Tourist Bureau and then whine about $40,000 for a good recreational facility, such as the golf course, that serves everyone from the developmentally disabled to the hearing impaired and senior citizens. He stated that he is having a hard time understanding this. He stated that he doesn't care where the money comes from it is still the citizen's money, no matter where it comes from. Economic Development Coordinator Backman clarified that the money that go to the CPB are based on a 3-percent lodging tax noting that there are very specific uses for those monies. Barbara Haake, 3024 County Road I, referenced the Comprehensive Land Use Amendment and asked if there was specific zoning that the City was required to put in place by the courts in order to be able to place the billboards. City Attorney Riggs stated that he does not see a direct tie and explained that the property, based on what the court said, had to match the use that was actually being made. He further explained • that the public facility zoning was not consistent with the business-type setting and that was the Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 18 distinction. He stated that Council reviewed this issue and determined that the district would be named based on the actual use, which is consistent with what zoning is. He stated that it actually applies to the land use. Ms. Haake clarified that currently there are two zonings on the property. She asked if the entire area would now be zoned as office. Director Ericson explained that the office designation would be consistent with the industrial zoning and the zoning would be consistent with the office designation. Ms. Haake stated that, if by chance the referendum does succeed at the election in November and the golf course stays, would this land use amendment cause the golf course to become a non- conforming use in this area. Director Ericson explained that there would not be a need to do a subsequent Comprehensive Plan amendment noting that there are a number of properties in the City where the City has taken the position that the future long-term use should be something other than what it is. He stated that it could remain a golf course forever, even with the office use designation. Mary Berg, The Bridges Golf Course, responded to Council Member Stigney and referenced page 14 of the current audit report, stating that the report outlines the golf course expenses including the debt services. She noted that it shows $856,000 for expenses and $700,531 for the • revenue with a $300,000 amount that has to be kept in the account to cover the debt services. She noted that this is another interfund loan that has to be paid back by 2017 with interest. She pointed out that this year the revenue from the billboards was supposed to be $252,000 and if you subtract the $155,000 you would have approximately a $90,000 profit. She stated that the only reason she wanted to point this out was due to Council Member Stigney's challenge that if they could show him a profit he would consider signing the petition. Council Member Stigney asked when the golf course would break even with the debt and losses. Ms. Berg stated that everything would be paid off in 2017. Council Member Stigney concurred that everything would be paid off in 2017 adding that the golf course wouldn't come close to breaking even until that time. He stated that this is part of his concern noting that this is when a possible profit from the golf course would be seen, if there even. is a profit. Ms. Berg stated that unfortunately no other options were considered to sell a small portion of the golf course without TIF to bring in tax revenue today. She stated that it could be making tax revenue with a portion of the golf course adding that these ideas were brought to the Council. She acknowledged that some of the current Council Members were not members of the Council at that time, but the options were disposed of when the Medtronic project came in. • Mr. McCarty stated that he appreciates Council Member Stigney's junkyard dog approach Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 19 because he kept the Council on the straight and narrow in many instances, however, as a • businessperson he needs more education. Council Member Stigney asked for a call to order, he does not need an education from Duane McCarty on how to run a business. Mr. McCarty stated that if he were running a business his mind would not be locked in on the simple day to day income and outgo, he would include in the business rolling stock, inventory and real estate assets. He agreed that it would be 2017 before everything that catches up adding that if they were to calculate the value of the property and include that calculation into the total value of the operations of the property it would be worth over $16 million within the next twenty years if you were to add a simple 3-percent growth. He stated that they know very well it would be much more than that. He apologized to the Mayor stating that he did not mean to upset the Council or hurt Council Member Stigney's feelings. He explained that the Council has to get beyond simple sales, income and costs adding that they need to include all assets. He stated that the asset they are giving up for the Medtronic deal is a whale of an asset in terms of future value of that property. He stated that to think that that property was appraised at $10 million and the City is selling it for $8.6 based on one or two appraisals and three appraisals are the norm. He stated that this is why people are concerned. He stated that he believes the Council is trying to do their best but somehow they have found themselves in a corner and he fears for the way this is going to turn out. Council Member Stigney referenced the future use of the golf course noting that the City has an 18-month timeframe to sell or develop noting that after 18-months it is all gone. He stated that maybe by 2017 they might have the wear withal to go back to the Legislature and get it all changed again, noting that he does not believe that would happen. Mayor Marty clarified that the 18-months is on the MnDOT property and the driving range is 13- acres adding that the City does have property in the area that is not controlled under the MnDOT covenants. Council Member Stigney clarified that Mr. McCarty believes that the City should hang on to the golf course and piece meal it out in the long-term and he does not agree with that. Council Member Thomas asked the Council to get back to the agenda item addressing the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment. Ms. Haake stated that she did calculate out the value of the property in terms of $35,000 an acre, over 25-years at 5-percent increase, it would be worth $57,568 million. Mayor Marty stated that it was pointed out that the Planning Commission made a unanimous decision on February 2, 2005 and since February more information has come in and the Council did not have much information until approximately three weeks ago. He stated that he was approached by several of the Planning Commissioners expressing their concerns on this issue. • He stated that they explained that what they reviewed in February is not what they envisioned at Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 20 this time and they wanted to know what they could do to change this. He explained that this is • just a matter of information. Council Member Thomas asked why this matter of information would be appropriate to this venue. She stated that having served on the Planning Commission she knows how to go about getting answers to a question as it would be brought forward and discussed with the Planning Commission to readdress the issues, should it be necessary. She stated that she does not believe that speaking for nameless individuals, who have recourse to do so with the Planning Commission, should they wish too. She stated that something seems inappropriate here noting that if the Planning Commissioners wish to readdress this with the Planning Commission she would encourage them to do so as this is the appropriate body to do that. She stated that to go to the Mayor and have the Mayor announce it at a meeting is not the proper forum. Mayor Marty noted that he felt totally different about this in February adding that as things have come to fruition he began to believe that this is not the best deal for the City of Mounds View. MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Gunn. To approve Resolution 6540 and waive the reading, Approving a Comprehensive Land Use Amendment for The Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course Site. Ayes-4 Nays-1 (Marty) Motion carried. • D. Resolution 6541 Accepting and Approving the Final Draft of The Bridges Office Development Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Document. Director Ericson stated this item was authorized by the Economic Development Authority on September 13, 2004 as a means to address the potential development out at The Bridges Golf Course. He stated that the City authorized RLKISYSCO to work on the AUAR, which they have done. He stated that they have published the preliminary and final drafts of the AUAR noting that the City has received a lot of positive feedback from agencies. He stated that there has been a lot of participation and teamwork coordination with the Cities of Blaine and Shoreview, Anoka County, Ramsey County, MnDOT, and the Department of Natural Resources. He stated that a lot of meetings were held and a lot of information was shared back and forth throughout the process. He stated that the area of primary concern, which. was common across all agencies, was the transportation impacts given that County Road J does not function right now at peak performance. He stated that there are issues with regards to the deficiencies with the transportation system and RLK has put together a transportation impact plan. He noted that they have actually received some funding from the State of Minnesota to do some improvements to County Road J and the bridge over 35W. He stated that the AUAR documents are available for Council's acceptance and approval. He indicated that earlier public meetings it was prefaced that the Council's approval of this document does not, in any way, obligate the Council to take any action on the Medtronic development. He explained that it is simply is an assessment of the impact at the golf course if a development should occur. He stated that the issue is before Council again noting that the public hearing was held on May 23, 2005 and they are back for • acceptance and approval of this document. Mounds View City Council 3uly 11, 2005 Regular Meefing Page 21 • Council Member Thomas clarified that this is the same as the Spring Creek Regional Pond report and Council is just accepting the document they are giving the Council. Carol Mueller stated she is very concerned about the impact study not including the residential streets. She stated that it is apparent that the feeling was that the main access roads would be County J, Central Avenue, 35W and US Highway 10 noting that she believes the new employees in town would use the inner streets including Silver Lake Road, Long Lake Road, and Red Oak Drive. She stated that she is very concerned that they do not have the means to enforce and control the speeds. She stated that people run stop signs as it is and with the potential for additional 3000 to 6000 vehicles on their streets she believes this is something that definitely should be reviewed and considered. She stated that she really hopes that with the improvements the City is planning to do on County Road J that the City would consider repairing the potholes and the existing roads. She asked that the City not narrow the roads and plan to do serious traffic controls to make sure the streets are still safe for the pedestrian residents. Director Ericson stated that Ms Mueller brings up some good points noting that the City did ask RLK to examine the transportation impacts not only on a regional transportation basis but also for the internal road system within Mounds View. He stated that given the proximity to 3 5 W, US Highway 10, Highway 65 and County Road J that it would be highly unlikely that there would be any appreciable impact to the Mounds View roadways. He agreed that there could be some people, who live in New Brighton or other surrounding areas, that could use internal street • systems but it would be unlikely that they would try to navigate through the residential areas rather than utilize another easier traveled roadway. He stated that the bottom line with the RLK memo, that was included in the Council packet that they believe that any local traffic would be negligible adding that if there are concerns with a lot of traffic going into Mounds View that maybe some of these people would stop at local businesses to make purchases. Council Member Thomas noted Ms. Mueller's comments stating that this is a problem the City would have to address regardless. She assured Ms. Mueller that the Council has talked a lot about the residential road problems noting that no matter what goes on with the improvements for County Road J it is something the Council does have to review. David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road asked if the billboards should support a golf course or should the golf course support itself. Mayor Marty stated that if the golf course can't support itself due to lawsuits and bonds the City then has to find another way to finance it so that the residents aren't taxed for it. Mr. Jahnke stated that he does not personally believe that using the excuse that the City lost the lawsuit that it should make a difference after ten years. He stated that every business experiences bumps adding that his question was not answered. He asked if the Cits~ believes that billboards should support a golf course. He stated that figures show that the golf course won't support itself without the billboards. Mounds View City Council July 11, 2045 Regular Meeting Page 22 Mayor Marty stated that he did not want the billboards to support the golf course noting that it was either the billboards or tax the citizens. Mr. Jahnke stated that maybe the City should get rid of the golf course and use the billboards as a revenue source for the City. Mayor Marty stated that this is a good point noting that the City has six billboards that they are getting $250,000 a year, with a 4-percent inflation factor. He noted that the City is only getting $15,000 per billboard for the first ten years and $25,000 per billboard for the second ten years, which is only a pittance of the contract the City currently has. Council Member Thomas noted to Mr. Jahnke that she does not want to cut him. off adding that this is not the item the Council is currently discussing. She asked the Council to get back to the agenda item they are supposed to be discussing. City Administrator Ulrich noted that there are several typos that should be corrected. Mayor Marty stated that he spoke with John Diedrich regarding a letter written by Vernon, a summary by RLK. He stated that it did address the traffic concerns in the City noting that it touched on the issues saying that the traffic would travel to the more main arterials. He stated that letters from MnDOT, also included in this report, state that the general growth for this area is more than what the freeway system can handle even if funding is obtained to reconstruct the • interchange, the intersections map operates poorly if the freeway is congested. He noted that as he said to Mr. Diedrich if the freeways are congested people find other ways to go. He noted that during morning and afternoon rush hours the City does get traffic through the area. He stated that it was pointed out that a lot of this is areverse-commute adding that it was also pointed out how many of the Medtronic employees live in the surrounding areas. He stated that they are talking about 2000 up to 6000 employees once it is built out and no matter how you look at it, it will increase the traffic on our streets. Council Member Gunn stated that if you look at the reports the majority of the congestion is not from our area and it will not be that significant from having Medtronic there. She explained that it is from the growth that is happening in Blaine, Ham Lake, Andover and Lino Lakes. She stated that Blaine has a lot of new homes going in and now they have the TCAAP area to consider, which would add more congestion on 35W than Medtronic. She stated that they would not have a116000 employees driving through the Mounds View area adding that the people who do that do it now. She expressed concerns stating that sometimes it is made to look a lot worse than what it going to be. She stated that you can't say that 6000 employees are going to be driving up and down the local roads, it is not going to happen. Council Member Thomas agreed that the City already has a traffic problem and will continue to have traffic problems noting that she would like to get as many of the cars into Mounds View as they can because many of these cars would stop at local businesses. She stated that the City is already aware of the traffic issues and must be addressed, but this is a separate problem. • Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 23 Mayor Many clarified that he did not say that they would have 6000 people using the local roads • adding that the freeways are already past capacity and this is a concern. MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Stigney. To approve Resolution 6541 Accepting and Approving the Final Draft of The Bridges Office Development Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Document as amended and waive the reading. Ayes-4 Nays-1 (Marry) Motion carried. E. Resolution 6574 Severance Payment for Marla Manypenny. City Adminstratar Ulrich stated that this is authorizing severance payment for Marla Manypenny. He explained that it would include payment for vacation, comp time and sick leave for a total of $449.49. MOTION/SECOND. Marty/Thomas. To Approve Resolution 6574 Severance Payment for Marla Manypenny. Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. F. Resolution 6579 Revising the Policy for Employee Appreciation Events and 5-year Employment Milestone Gift Certificates. • City Administrator Ulrich stated this was reviewed at last City Council work session. He explained that the direction was to look at an amendment, which also provided the return employee an option of a $50 gift certificate in lieu of a plaque. He noted that this was inserted into the resolution and the revised policy. He stated that in also doing this it was found out that the employee appreciation event is to be held at the Mounds View Banquet and Conference Center and the amendment added City Hall Park because a couple of the events were held at City Parks. He stated that the language has been added to allow the event to be held at City Parks. He stated that this is to inform people that it is the policy of the City to give employees $5.00 gift certificates for each of the five years of their service. He stated that Resolution 6579 has been presented for City Council approval. Council Member Gunn noted that the amendment requires a correction. She stated that it currently states that events would be held at the Mound City Parks and it should read Mounds View City Parks. Council Member Stigney asked if he could make an amendment that the employee gift certificates be applicable to Mounds View City businesses. MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Marty To Approve Resolution 6579, Revising the Policy for Employee Appreciation Events and 5-Year Employee Milestone Gift Certificates as amended and to include language that states that the Employee Gift Certificates be made applicable to Mounds • View City Businesses. Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 24 • Ayes-2 (Stigney, Flaherty) Nays-3 (Marty, Thomas, Gunn) Motion Denied.. Council Member Thomas expressed concerns stating that many employees live in this area but many of them don't adding that it is good to support the local businesses but this part is a little bit beyond what is necessary. She stated that if they don't live in this area the City is placing a bind on employees that would find it difficult to do. She asked who is to determine what is appropriate or inappropriate. She stated that this is going beyond what the City should do. MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Thomas To Approve Resolution 6579, Revising the Policy for Employee Appreciation Events and 5-Year Employment Milestone Gift Certificates and amend the language to reflect Mounds View City Parks, not Mound City Parks. Ayes-3 (Marry, Thomas, Gunn) Nays-2 (Stigney/Flaherty) Motion carried. G. Consider Appointing a Candidate for the Finance Director Position. City Administrator Ulrich stated that the City Council is considering two candidates for the Finance Director Position. He stated that the interviews have been completed and at this point the Staff recommendation would be to move forward with one of the candidates, get an authorization to make an offer to the selected candidate and bring it back to Council at the next regular meeting for formal approval of the hiring package. He stated that he has personally • called all of the references for the candidates noting that both are good candidates and qualify for the position. He stated that Bob Sandberg has the best experience for Mounds View at this time and that they should make an offer to Mr. Sandberg at this time. Council Member Stigney stated that he believes Mr. Bier gave the best responses to the questions he asked and his personality would fit much closer to what they have in the City. He stated that he is very dedicated and is a CPA. He noted that the other gentleman has only been in his last position for a year and is moving on again noting that he does have reservations about that. He believes that Mr. Bier is the best candidate for the position. Council Member Gunn agreed with Council Member Stigney for most of the same reasons. She stated that she was impressed with his answers and agrees that his personality would fit better with the staff. Council Member Flaherty stated that he would prefer Mr. Sandberg noting that he is currently doing the kind of work that they are looking for and believes that Mr. Sandberg would hit the ground running. Council Member Thomas stated that she is not sure of her decision yet. She stated that she is concerned about the size of the pool of candidates the Council had to choose from. She stated that she did speak with both candidates noting that she was not able to go as in depth with Mr. Bier as she was with Mr. Sandberg. She stated that both candidates have skills that would . benefit the City adding that Mr. Bier in more intermixed with a variety of skill sets in his Mounds View City Council Juty 11, 20Q5 Regular Meeting Page 25 background. She stated that at this point she feels that Mr. Bier has a more global/broader view • and she is leaning towards Mr. Bier as the candidate due to his broader view of what should be accomplished within the City. Mayor Marty stated that he spent approximately twenty minutes with Mr. Sundberg and 40 minutes with Mr. Bier. He stated that he feels both are very capable and that he is impressed with both candidates. He stated that Mr. Sundberg referenced the software also mentioned by Mr. Hansen and that he suggested utilizing the Roseville server and that he also indicated that the software would be a considerable savings for the City. He stated that Mr. Sundberg was very knowledgeable about the application and process adding that he recently went through the same kind of process with. the City he is currently working with. He stated that he also spoke with Mr. Hansen noting that he worked for him while working for the City of Brooklyn Center and Mr. Hansen did stated that Mr. Sundberg is a very quick learner and that he gained considerable experience in the area of TIF while working for the City of Brooklyn Center. He stated that he believes that Mr. Sundberg would transition more comfortably into the position than Mr. Bier noting that it would be less of a learning curve for Mr. Sundberg. Council Member Gunn clarified that she is not opposed to Mr. Sundberg but would like to know why Staff feels he would be the better choice. City Administrator Ulrich explained that their decision was based on his experience with the City government process and agreed that the learning curve would be considerably higher for Mr. Bier • m comparison. Council Member Stigney stated that overall he prefers Mr. Bier adding that Mr. Bier left him with a really good feeling that he would do what it takes to get things done and he really does want this job. He stated that he did ask Mr. Sundberg about TIF and tax rebates noting that Mr. Sundberg left him with the impression that he does not like doing things with TIF. He stated that he felt the need to determine who would be best overall for the City and believes that person is Mr. Bier MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Gunn To recommend to Staff that Mr. Bier be considered as the candidate for the Finance Director and have the City Administrator bring back final recommendations to the next regular City Council meeting. Ayes-3 Nays-2 (Marty/Flaherty) Motion carried. 9. CONSENT AGENDA. . Council Member Thomas asked to pull Item 9C, Resolution 6576 Approving the Tobacco and Gasoline License for Gas for Less located at 2525 Highway 10. She asked where is the City at with the license as far as how long it is going to be in place since the propei-ry is going to be purchased by Snyder's. She asked if there would be apro-ration on the. fee or is this for the full year and they don't get it. Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 26 City Administrator Ulrich stated that it would be an annual fee that they would have to pay. He explained that they wanted to be open during the July 4th weekend and they did not get their paperwork in on time, as they had planned to close in June. He explained that they had to have a license or at least one_ pending in order to stay open. He stated that it is anticipated that they would close within the next thirty days. He stated that no pro-ration of the license was indicated, only that they would have to apply for a new license. MOTION/SECOND Thomas/Stigney To Approve Resolution 6576 Approving the Tobacco and Gasoline License for Gas for Less located at 2525 Highway 10 Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried Council Member Stigney asked to pull Item 9D, Resolution 6578 Approving a Contract for the Scheduled Replacement of a Street Sweeper. He agreed that it is a nice sweeper but there is nothing wrong with the one they are currently using. He stated that he personally feels that when the City is experiencing, like last year, a 27.5-percent increase in the median value of a house in Mounds View that now is the time to go out and buy a new sweeper. He stated that they could purchase a new one when the old one breaks. He stated that he does not support the purchase at this time, which why he pulled it. Council Member Flaherty stated that the budget for this year has been approved by the City Council noting that this item was included as a budgeted expenditure for this year. He stated that this request should go forward as part of what has already been approved. He noted that the sweeper is $12,000.00 more than what was budgeted and asked where the additional funds would come from. City Administrator Ulrich stated that the additional funds would come from the Capital Equipment Fund. Council Member Stigney stated that he did not vote for the budget approval and never has. He stated that it irritates him to no end when he sees a replacement request just because it was included in the budget. He stated that he actually questions whether it should even be included in the budget at all. Mayor Marty acknowledged Council Member Stigney's concern and explained that the current sweeper is 15-years old and is past its prime. He noted that they have been using the sweeper all summer and they have been using it to vacuum the sewers. He stated that the additional sweeper would cut staff time and would allow the staff to do twice as much work within the City. MOTION/SECOND Stigxley/ To Postpone Purchase of this Item at this time until the Current Sweeper breaks down and there is a justifiable reason to replace the equipment. Motion denied for lack of a Second. • Mounds View City Council -July 11, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 27 MOTION/SECOND Marty/Gunn To Approve Resolution 6578 Approving a Contract for the • Scheduled Replacement of a Street Sweeper and waive the reading. Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Stigney) Motion carried Council Member Gunn asked to pull Item 9F, Resolution 6565 Approving and Authorizing the Conversion to an IP (Internet Protocol) based Phone and Voice. Mail System with the City of Roseville, as part of the City Hall Renovation Project, and Approving the Draft Joint Powers Agreement and Draft Cost Recovery Agreement (contingent upon review by legal counsel) with the City of Roseville for Use and Support of the IP System. She explained that she has concerns regarding the IP systems and the 911 connection. She stated that she has heard that there might be some problems with the 911 connection and where it would be connected. City Administrator Ulrich acknowledged that this is an issue with some of the systems but it is not an issue with this one. Council Member Stigney asked if they have gotten any answers regarding the cell phones. Mayor Marty noted that the phones would be from Nextel and it shows 67 phones for six months that would be $18,456.82 with a 1000-minute plan. He noted that this would be a basic phone service. • MOTION/SECOND Stigney/Gunn To Postpone Approval of Resolution 6565 to direct Staff to review and verify the costs for the Conversion to an IP (Internet Protocol) based Phone and Voice Mail System with the City of Roseville, as part of the City Hall Renovation Project and the Draft Joint Powers Agreement and the Draft Cost Recovery Agreement (contingent upon review by legal counsel) with the City of Roseville for Use and Support of the IP System. Ayes-1 (Stigney) Nays-4 (Marty, Thomas, Gunn, Flaherty) Motion denied. MOTION/SECOND Gunn/Flaherty To Approve Resolution 6565 Approving and Authorizing the Conversion to an IP (Internet Protocol) based Phone and Voice Mail System with the City of Roseville, as part of the City Hall Renovation Project, and Approving the Draft Joint Powers Agreement and Draft Cost Recovery Agreement (contingent upon review by legal counsel) with the City of Roseville for Use and Support of the IP System Ayes-4 Nays-1 (Stigney) Motion carried. A. Licenses for Approval B. Establish Special Council Work Session for 7:OOpm, July 18, 2005 at City Hall to Discuss Work Plan and Review Schedule for County Road J Reconstruction. C. Removed for Separate Vote. D. Removed for Separate Vote. E. Set a Public Hearing for July 25, 2.005 at 7:05 pm to Consider an Amendment to • the Walgreen's PUD Related to Allowed Uses on the Vacant Parcel Behind Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 28 • Walgreen's F. Removed for Separate Vote. MOTION/SECOND Thomas/Flaherty To approve Consent Agenda Items A, B and E. Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried 10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. A. City Council Minutes, June 13, 2005 Mayor Marty had the following corrections to the minutes: • Page 7, Line 8, should read `proper ventilation `of the air conditioning' • Page 1 1, Line 37, place a comma after `his' • Page 12, Line 7, should state `Headquarters `for' R&D. • Page 12, Line 9, `CDRM' should be `CRM' • Page 12, Line 11, reads `Council Member Thomas stated that according to the TIF files the filed' it should read: `Council Member Thomas stated that the TIF files were filed with the Legislature and that phase one would be 1200 moved jobs and the remaining would be new jobs. • Page 12, line 23, insert "Mayor Marry stated that if taxes went up $400.00, then with Medtronic the taxes would only go up $398.00.' • Page 13, Line 3, should read `Louisa' • Page 13, Line 16 and Line 25, should change "Hart' to `Hartstad' Council Member Gunn had the following correction to the minutes: • Page 13, Line 21, states `Council Member Gunn clarified that if they do get the approval to go off Long Lake Road then Greenwood be closed' Should read `Council Member Gunn clarified that if they do get the approval to go off Long Lake Road then Greenwood `would' be closed.' MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Many To approve the City Council Minutes, June 13, 2005 as amended. Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. B. June 27, 2005 City Council Meeting Minutes will be presented at the July 25, 2005 City Council Meeting. 11. REPORTS A. Reports of Mayor and Council • Mounds View City Council Juty 11, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 29 Council Member Stigney noted that earlier in the evening it was said that one of the golf course • problems and reason it doesn't make money is due to the lawsuit and the outstanding legal debts. He recalled that last year the Council voted to pay off the debt of $262,000.00 so that debt has been wiped out of the golf course. Council Member Thomas stated that the Legislature does have a deal noting that all of the Committees were supposed to complete the actual language for the global deal by 5:00 p.in. today to allow Staff time to assemble the bills to be heard this next Wednesday. She stated that they were not done when she left and it is her hope that they were able to draw it to a close and be able to complete by the end of this week. She stated that she is not sure if everything that would have been done in the regular session was done in the special sessions adding that she believes that they would only be adjusting the budget items. She indicated that there is an additional $46 million put to LGA in the tax bill. noting that how it would apply and what formula would be used had not been decided at the time she left the meeting. Council Member Flaherty stated that he was surprised to find out that the City does not sponsor or budget for the Festival in the Park. He stated that he would like to know the history and asked if this could be included as an agenda item in a Council work session. Council Member Gunn noted that the Festival in the Park is coming up and would update the Council as they get the schedule more solidified. She noted that August 20th is the Golf Tournament and August 21St is the Festival in the Park. • Mayor Marty asked City Administrator Ulrich for a copy of the Springsted Feasibility Report for the golf course that was done in the 2000-2001 timeframe. City Administrator Ulrich clarified that the report he is referencing outlines the deficit and how it would be financed. B. Staff City Administrator Ulrich referenced the City Hall remodel project noting that the project would necessitate moving Staff from this building to other locations while the work is being completed. He explained that the Police department would move to the Ramsey County Sheriff's department at Arden. Hills and the City Council would have to utilize a different facility for the City Council meetings. He stated that he has put out inquiries to both Arden Hills and New Brighton to see if they could utilize their Council Chambers. He explained that the reason they wouldn't want to utilize a conference room at the Community Center is because the Cable TV access is less than desirable. He explained that they would need four technicians to handle the truck and it would be similar to what they had to do for the meeting held on Tune 20th and it would be more feasible to utilize another Council Chambers. He stated that if Council has a preference the Arden Hills location is three miles closer than New Brighton, but if they use Arden Hills the Council would have to change the Council meeting night from Monday to another night due to conflicts. • Mounds View City Council July Z1, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 30 Mayor Marry stated that he would prefer to keep the same meeting night unless it doesn't work • out with New Brighton. Council Member Thomas asked if it would be possible to do it in other building locations and utilize the cable truck. Mayor Marty clarified that the need for a larger crew, the time to set up and manage it would be an issue. City Administrator Ulrich stated that the current plan is to move the Office Staff to the Community Center because the phone system would be easier to install and the utilities are already there along with aII of the computer connections that are already in place. He stated that the other option would be to lease space adding that to lease space would expensive. He indicated that the Canyon Grill asked not to pay rent for the six months that the City would occupy the space. He stated that the cost for rent would be approximately $5000.00 a month plus utilities plus $6000.00 for a Tl line for six months. He stated that there would be no big cost breaks due to the extra costs and asked Council for their feedback. Mayor Marty asked if the Canyon Grill would still be catering on the weekends. City Administrator Ulrich stated that they would want to keep the weekend dates and they would allow community groups to use the banquet rooms during the week. • Mayor Marty asked where staff would set up and would they have to pack up each day. City Administrator Ulrich explained that City Staff would setup in Conference Room A and D. He noted that there are three large offices that the Church currently occupies that would be vacated and City Staff would co-locate into these offices. Council Member Thomas stated that she is all for the Community Center location but she is not ok with free rent. City Administrator Ulrich stated that one of the issues the Canyon Grill has is going from the $3000.00 to $5000.00. He asked what would be an acceptable number for the rent reduction. Mayor Marty stated that $2500.00 would be an acceptable figure. Council Member Flaherty asked how much space would they lose. City Administrator Ulrich stated that it is hard to calculate because they have events that are open at certain times of the day. Mayor Marty stated that it would be an advantage to the City just to keep the office space closely located and easy to find. He stated that he would be ok with reducing their rent by $2500.00. Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 31 Director Ericson provided the Council with an update noting that the City has reached an • agreement with the Snyder's developers and have a stonnwater management plan that addresses all stormwater issues. He stated that it would be consistent with Rice Creek Watershed requirements and would not involve any deep stormwater pits. He stated that they have a real good plan. He stated that he has no update on the Hartstad development adding that it would probably be on the Watershed District agenda for July 27th. He stated that they posted notice for the Planning Associate position in the newspaper this weekend and already have people interested in the position. He provided the Council with a large map with the route changes for the Metropolitan Transit System. He stated that the routes and services for Mounds View did not change and all services will continue to be maintained. Council Member Flaherty referenced the 'for sale' on the property across the street and asked what the City is looking for on the property. Director Ericson clarified that the City does not own that piece of property noting that it currently belongs to Walgreen's. He noted that this item was included on this evening's agenda for the planned unit development amendment. He explained that this property is allowed one use and that is for a restaurant. He indicated that City Staff has been working to help develop this lot noting that developers and real estate agents have stated that the reason there are no takers is due to the location and no visibility to Highway 10. He stated that on the next Council agenda there would be an amendment request to allow for office use at this location. He stated that the Caribou coffee shop will be opening on August 6, 2005 and are currently in negotiations with • other possible tenants. Council Member Stigney asked how much they are asking for the property. He suggested finding out the asking price as a possibility for the City to purchase the open land. Director Ericson stated that he did not know what they were asking adding that the City did ask a couple of times in the past to donate the property to the City if they wanted to. He stated that he would research what they are asking for the property and update the Council. C. Reports of City Attorney City Attorney Riggs stated that they clearly have amulti-prong process with this referendum. He noted that they now finally have an ordinance in place and the Charter allows challenges to ordinances in certain situations and it requires a petition to come in. He stated that they do not have the petition yet but the assumption is that the citizens will bring it forward. He explained that when this happens it will fall on him and City Administrator Ulrich to determine the adequacy of the petition based on the information that has been supplied to Ms. Haake including the appropriate statutes, the appropriate sections of the Charter and the appropriate sections of the Minnesota Rules. He stated that the next step in the process of reviewing is determining whether the question is a valid question for the ballot. He stated that case law is not favorable of this kind of question being placed. on a ballot. He stated that he wants to be sure that the Council understands that there is a clear difference between administrative acts and legislative acts. He • stated that it pretty clearly falls under the administrative context and Council should be aware of Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 32 this fact because then it would come back to Council. He stated that if it were a valid petition on all of the grounds, potentially it still wouldn't be a question that would go to a ballot because of this issue because of Minnesota case law. City Attorney Riggs stated that people have asked if there are alternative ways of approving this whole transfer of property. He explained that potentially, under State law, there is an alternative option noting that there are a couple of provisions that are not utilized often that allows transfer by resolution regardless of what it says in the City's Charter and regardless of what it says in other State Statutes. He further explained that this is something the Council could utilize only for transfers between public entities, which would be the City and the EDA. He stated that it would not apply to any transfer to Medtronic itself but again that transfer is not subject to Charter because it is dealing with the EDA, which is a very different context. He stated that he has discussed this with Director Ericson and City Administrator Ulrich and let them know that he would update the Council that this is something that could be considered if they want to deal with it simply by resolution. He stated that these are two issues that could fall out from this based on the potential that the City would receive some type of petition for referendum. Council Member Stigney clarified that they would pass an ordinance and then turn around and pass some type of resolution. City Attorney Riggs stated that he doesn't see any reason at this point that Council couldn't adopt a resolution that would follow these two statutory provisions. He explained that this is just • another method to approve the transaction. and the project itself. He stated that either would have the same effect noting that the question is that if they have some form of petition that is deemed valid on all of these grounds, the reason he brings this up is to show that in the administrative versus legislative context, the Legislature has created these two statutory provisions and the courts have interpreted it as a valid way to do it, yet when you read it, it clearly looks administrative. He stated that it does bolster the argument that there is an issue with the final question and it makes the comment that if the petition is brought before the Council and is deemed valid on all grounds that it would have to be reviewed at that time. Council Member Stigney asked if it would be beneficial to have a resolution come before the Council. City Attorney Riggs stated that if that is Council's wish something could be put together. Council Member Gunn asked who validates the question. City Attorney Riggs explained that the Minnesota Supreme Court has looked at this issue to determine what is the legislative authority that has been given to Cities for referendum or recall noting that in this case, specifically referendum. He stated that they have clearly said that the only questions that can go before the vote of the electorate are actual true legislative questions noting that there are a lot of questions that are considered administrative that are not valid. He stated that the Courts have bounced these kinds of questions in the past stating that they cannot deal with them. He stated that this is something that is strictly reserved for the elected authority, Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 33 which in this case is the City Council in this matter and cannot be handed off to the citizens, • whether it is by requested petition or otherwise. He stated that it is clear when reviewing the list of items that the sale of land is within that context. Council Member Stigney noted that there has been some discussion around the heading of the petition and whatever the heading is would go on to the ballot. He asked who would make this decision. City Attorney Riggs explained that this is one part of amulti-pronged process. He stated that the information given to Ms. Haake was a very specific provision, Minnesota Rules Section 8205.1010 that provides a list often to fifteen items that are required to be included in a petition that comes in under this type of circumstance and are based on the Minnesota Election laws. He stated that it is a little inconsistent with what the City's Charter says noting that the Charter says, in essence you put on the ordinance and say what it is and what it says in the rules is that the actual question is placed on the ballot. He stated that in an email from City Administrator Ulrich to Ms. Haake it was suggested that they do both because the question is whether they are going to adopt an ordinance and it would cover both issues and would be clearly compliant with the Minnesota Rules and the City Charter. He stated that the final decision would fall to the City Council. He stated that it sits with Staff to deterniine whether they have a valid petition or not and it would then be brought to Council for a final decision. Council Member Stigney stated that it might be desirable to proceed with a resolution. • .Mayor Marty stated that if they did this by resolution they would be circumventing the Charter to make an end run so that the citizens couldn't petition to go to a referendum. City Attorney Riggs agreed that they could look at it this way noting that the Council could also look at it in a way that would question whether they are looking at something that wouldn't go forward anyways. He stated that typically the Council does not issue an opinon until the petition comes in adding that there have been other circumstances of land sales like this where it has been deemed manifestly invalid far a ballot question, which is the opinion that goes out. Mayor Marty clarified that the Charter has no control over the EDA. City Attorney Riggs explained that the Charter does not have control over the EDA noting that the EDA is a separate public entity under Minnesota Statute Section 469.091 and once the EDA is created it becomes a separate corporate body. He explained that the Charter section language that Mr. McCarty mentioned earlier, Section 2.02 of the Charter speaks of only Advisory and Administrative Commissions. He stated that the EDA is a legal subdivision of the State of Minnesota, similar to the City Council. Council Member Thomas asked what the Council would have to do to get a ruling on the administrative versus legislative context. She asked if there is a question that asks if this ordinance is valid for referendum that they could put to the AG's office and get an opinion on it. • Mounds VieR~ City Council July 11, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 34 City Attorney Riggs stated that he did not know if there is Likelihood that they would get an • opinion directly from the AG. He explained that in the past the way they have gone is that they have been challenges to the petition itself or petitioners who have not had their ballot question move forward. He stated that what usually comes out of that is some type of cleratory judgment. Council Member Thomas stated that since they have an ordinance in place could they get a ruling on the ordinance and ask if this is a valid referendum item. City Attorney Riggs stated that he does not have an answer because the question he would have is whether it is really right because they don't have a petition in place saying that there could be a challenge. Council Member Thomas noted that at the time when the paperwork is drawn, at that point they could go forward noting that it does take awhile to get an opinion back adding that if the petition has the legal language then it is legal to put out noting that it would not be a legal petition for signatures if it doesn't already have the legal language. City Attorney Riggs explained that he hasn't dealt with this in-depth noting that every one of the main cases where they have the valid petition presented it then becomes a case where it cannot be put on the ballot because of these cases. He stated that they could explore the possibilities and report back at the next work session. He stated that the problem is that it still typically requires two parties and there has to be an adverse parry where a decision has been made against it or • requesting some form of judication where it is pending and without the petition pending before Council it would be difficult to get it into Court to get a declaratory action noting that none of this happens until all of the work has been done. Council Member Gunn stated that she knows there is another group out there talking about doing a counter position in favor of the project. She asked what they would do if this happens. City Attorney Riggs stated that he is not sure that a petition that could be done right for some type of action but they would be an adverse party that would review and challenge it as something that is not right for going to a vote. Council Member Thomas stated that there is no Language for a counter petition in our ordinance but there is a provision that. would make it an initiative all on its' own. She stated that they would have a petition for the ordinance and they would have an initiative and both would be separate. Council Member Flaherty stated that he is in no way in favor of short-circuiting this petition whatsoever. He stated that he believes that the residents need to know that they should have their ducks in a row before they present this petition and that it is not easy. He stated that he would not accept Council short-circuiting this petition. City Attorney Riggs explained that he and Staff couldn't tell the residents what the language is • for this question. He stated that he cannot represent them either as it would be an ethical Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 35 violation to the Council. He stated that he could only give out information to make them aware • of the issues. Council Member Stigney stated that this could open up some legal challenges if it doesn't meet legal requirements that it is a valid petition or that could be challenged and things keep dragging out it could harm the developer. He stated that Council should cover their bases Legally and proceed with a resolution as it might circumvent a dragged out legal challenge on some of these issues. Council Member Gunn asked if this would automatically stop the referendum process. Council Member Thomas stated that she feels that it is too soon noting that they could have this in a back pocket if they end up in a completely deadlocked position. She stated that the City already has amulti-prong thing going and if we add one more thing we won't know what street we are on. Council Member Stigney asked City Attorney Riggs if they should move forward or not. City Attorney Riggs stated that he does not have a good answer noting that the Council is treading on areas that are difficult because they have so many potential adverse parties involved and they also have potential dollars at stake. He stated that typically this is where they would be able to get some type of restraining order or legal action but they have nothing actionable to move forward with. He agreed that a resolution like this would arguably look like ashort-circuit effort but it also makes it clear that. this is an administrative act. He stated that he did not know if this would be the best route adding that this would be a policy question because it is another legal basis for potentially doing this. He stated that it is out there and there have been interpretations and appears to be valid as an alternative method. He stated that if the petition is valid and everything checks out, there is no question that they would end up with an adverse party on one side or the other. He stated that it is pretty clear, based on case law in place, that this is not a legislative act, it is an administrative act that probably does move forward to ballot, which would be the recommendation at that point in time. He stated that he is trying to point out that there is a lot of work that would have to go into this over the next month and may still not get to the same point, whether this is valid to place on the ballot or not. Mayor Marty clarified that by transferring this to the EDA they have already pretty much short- circuited the process of citizens having anything to do with it. City Attorney Riggs clarified that he is saying that they have other statutory provisions that would allow them to do this because they are transferring to the EDA and wouldn't if they transferred to a private party. He stated that the fact is those cases still deal with the sale of land or administrative acts and it wouldn't make any difference whether they were deeding directly to the developer or any other developer out there, it would still be an administrative act. He stated that but for Section 12.05 of the Charter, they would not need a motion to approve the land sale because they have made that decision to deal with the project and approve this agreement. He • stated that they would not be going through this process under 12.05 but for the fact that there is Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005 .Regular Meeting Page 36 language in the Charter, which is where the courts would step in and say no this is an • administrative act and they are only doing this because there is language in the Charter that says to do this. He stated that legislative items have to be far reaching, long standing and they have to affect the citizens. He stated that the ordinance is enforceable against everyone and everyone has to abide by it noting that the ordinance that they adopted tonight will be published next week and once it is published and the deed occurs the ordinance no longer has any validity and doesn't go into the City code as a codified ordinance, it goes into the back as a land transfer. He stated that there are a number of provisions in the Charter that are overruled by State law and offered to review with Council at a work session. He stated that the process is valid and citizens have the right to move forward with any type of petition noting that this is a difficult hurdle to deal with because they usually don't meet the standards. Council Member Gunn asked if Council could direct Staff to write up the resolution for their review. She stated that the Council is aware that this process is going to happen and suggested that they let this part happen and they have the resolution if it is needed. Council Member Flaherty stated that his is still very against trying to short-circuit the petition adding that he would much prefer that this to go to referendum than to circumvent. He stated that he wants to be sure that they know the guidelines. Council Member Gunn agreed that it does need to go forward noting that City Attorney Riggs did state that there is a probability that it won't fly. Council Member Thomas stated that it is premature at this point to set it up adding that there are bigger questions that should be answered. She asked if Staff is going to require the entire ordinance and is the ordinance Council just passed going to be part of the petition. She clarified that the language of the petition must contain the ordinance. Council Member Gunn asked if the City would have to pay for the entire ordinance to be placed on the ballot and if so they need to start working on the process. Council Member Thomas asked when the petition would have to be in and ~~hen is it appropriate to ask if this is a legislative or administrative act. She stated that they need to get this information from Staff and then move forward. Council Member Stigney clarified that the committee that signs up for the petition must be residents and should be included on each page of the petition.. He asked who is allowed to go out and obtain signatures. City Attorney Riggs reviewed the petition requirements and confirmed that they have to be citizens of Mounds View and registered to vote. He stated that they also have to sign an affidavit certifying that those are the people that signed in front of them. He stated that this is clarified in Section 5.02 of the City Charter. Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 37 12. Nezt Council Work Session: Special Meeting, July 18, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Nezt Council Meeting: Monday, July 25, 2005 13. ADJOURNMENT Council agreed by consensus to adjourn the City Council Meeting of July 11, 2005 at 11:27 p.m. Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. Transcribed and recorded by: Bonnie Sullivan Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. •