Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 2005/08/08PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL ; , ~..- • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ` - 9/I ZJ~ RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting August 8, 2005 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 7:25 P.M. 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Gunn, Flaherty, Stigney and Thomas NOT PRESENT: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Monday, August 8, 2005 City Council Agenda. • MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Thomas. To Approve the Monday, August 8, 2005 agenda as presented. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS A. Senator Don Betzold and Representative Connie Bernardy Senator Betzold provided the Council with a brief update on the recent Legislative Session noting that the regular session ended on May 23, 2005 with a special session that followed beginning on May 24, 2005 and ending July 13, 2005. He explained that the budget had to be set for this year noting that they went into the budget cycle with a deficit that had to be addressed. He stated that it was a tough special session noting that in the end they ended up with a good funding agreement for education, which was one of the main issues. He explained that the main concern was how they would pay for it and they ended up deciding that it would be paid for through the use of a Cigarette Health Impact Fee. He provided the Council with an overview of the adult health care changes noting that there was a brief government shutdown during this period of time. He stated that some of the issues addressed included an increase in the minimum wage, tightened sentences and stricter penalties for sex offenders noting that he was pleased that they were able to pass the bonding bill for the North Star Rail and the Medtronic TIF bill. He stated that overall it was a very good session. He indicated that proposals were considered that Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 2 • would have restored monies to government aid noting that the original formula would have put back some of the funds for Mounds View but in the end it all collapsed and the monies that did remain were distributed to the smaller cities. He stated that they also considered bipartisan funding for a transportation bill, proposals on clean water legacy and smoking bans in restaurants and public places. He indicated that another special session could be called if the Governor deems that it is necessary noting that the regular session would begin next May 2006. Representative Bernardy referenced the funding Mounds View received for the County Road J improvements stating that the City should be proud of the fact that the community did receive funding for the repair of their roads. She noted that one item that did not pass was the proposal to close up the loopholes that would prevent businesses from diverting their funds on tax payments. She indicated that the State did end up with a 4-percent annual increase for the Education Fund and they tightened the sexual predator and methamphetamine laws. She stated that the changes would help to restore some of the funding cut from education last year and reviewed with Council. Mayor Marty stated that Council has asked before whether they could use MSA funds for road repairs and asked if this issue was discussed. Senator Betzold stated that there was almost no bill period and when the transportation bill came up for discussion they had a major amendment to consider that put funds back into fund. He explained that the entire bill was basically re-written before it came over to the Senate adding • that the Senate concurred with the recommended changes. He stated that he did not recall any specific discussions on the use of MSA funds adding that he does not see a lot happening in transportation this year. Mayor Marty asked if the City could put in a request for next year. Representative Bernardy stated that this was something that they were going to suggest adding that they could fill out the request and submit it, see what happens. Senator Betzold stated that since the transportation funds were not passed this year they might consider it for next year and urged the Council to consider putting in a request for the funds. Representative Bernardy stated that she would also like to let the Council know how proud she is to represent the Citizens of Mounds View. She stated that she is pleased to see so many individuals in this City involved in the Legislative process. She stated that she has received a huge response from the residents and is very proud to represent such an involved community. Council Member Flaherty asked about the federal funding process for the transportation projects and clarified that the State would not have received funding had they not passed the legal limit to .08. • Representative Bernardy reviewed the federal funding process noting that this was going to be the year that the State would have received a huge amount for complying with the national limits. Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 3 • Senator Betzold noted that the State actually passed the .08 limit last year and that it would go into affect this year. Mayor Marty pointed out that the LGA funds were cut again this year noting that Minneapolis, St. Paul and some of the smaller Cities did receive some LGA funding. Senator Betzold noted that Minneapolis and St. Paul were hit harder in 2003 and explained that a couple of different formulas were used noting that one of the formulas would have helped some of the inner ring suburbs. He further explained that what happened is that when they had the final agreement with the Governor, he insisted on using current law or it would all go to the smaller Cities. Economic Development Coordinator Backman thanked Senator Betzold and Representative Bernardy for all of the work they have done in the Legislature relative to the City of Mounds View. He noted that from January to May there were ten hearings that involved the City of Mounds View and he thanked them both for their efforts on behalf of the City of Mounds View. Ron Morgan, 2656 West County Road H2 thanked Senator Betzold and Representative Bernardy for attending the City Council meeting and providing their update to the City. He stated that it is nice to hear that they appreciate the Mounds View citizen's involvement and asked them to get involved in the Red Oak Estates development. He expressed concerns stating that he believes • that his property rights have been voided as a landowner. He indicated that there was a lawsuit between the City and the developer that has affected the financial value of his homestead and as a homeowner, has affected his liability. He stated that this is a very big development in Mounds View noting that they could possibly lose their wetlands if the development does come in to the area. He expressed concerns stating that it could also impact the value of the current properties adding that he is concerned about who would be responsible for the watershed and stormwater issues. He referenced the special use permits noting that the original developer did not hold up their end of the agreement but the good news is the permit was taken away from this developer. He stated that there should be security bonds and other issues that would guaranty that what happened the first time would not be repeated. 6. PUBLIC INPUT Rick Perrozzi, 2832 Highway 10, asked if Director Ericson had updated the City Council regarding his concerns and situation. Director Ericson stated that he has not discussed Mr. Perrozzi's concerns with the Council. He noted that the project is currently underway and that there has been correspondence between Mr. Perrozzi and Velmeir. Mr. Perrozzi indicated that Velmeir was aware of what they wanted done at the time of the initial • development. He asked how the City would have handled this situation had a developer left the property in the same condition his was left in. He asked the Council what kind of help the City Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 4 • would give him to resolve this problem. He explained that he would like the space to be retail and indicated that there are several interested parties who would like to rent space but before he feels comfortable renting space the grade level and parking lot should be corrected. He further explained that he did ask the contractor to tear out the current lot and re-grade to the original specifications noting that the contractor told him that they couldn't tear out and re-grade because they just completed it. He expressed concerns and frustration stating that the contractor did a very poor job on the parking lot. He reviewed the issues with the grade noting that he is very concerned about the stormwater flow and what would happen when the catch basin fails, and if it fails, what would be done with the property. He asked the Council to visit the site adding-that he would be happy to give them a tour and explain what is actually happening on the site. Mayor Marty asked if the City had received a copy of the letter and if so, to clarify the content of the letter for Council. Director Ericson confirmed that he received a letter from Velmeir, addressed to him, that indicates that they are in agreement with what should be done and also agree that they should provide the improvements, as promised. He stated that he, along with Economic Development Coordinator Backman had a conference call with Velmeir to discuss the issues and all are in agreement with what should be done at the site. Mr. Perrozzi stated that he has not received a copy of this letter. He expressed frustration stating that the lack of communication is wearing thin with his patience adding that this is not the way it • should be dealt with. He questioned how they could complete a project where the parking lot is two and half feet higher than the entrance to the building. He clarified that the issue here is not in getting the parking lot done the issue is getting the grade of the lot corrected. He explained that due to the current grade, water would flow into the lot and cause flooding. He asked the Council how the City would deal with this kind of an issue and is this something that the City Council could help him to resolve. Mayor Many stated that he would direct Staff to look into this and find out what is actually happening and provide Council with an update. He asked Director Ericson and City Administrator Ulrich to research this issue and pull the information together for review at the next City Council work session. Mr. Perrozzi indicated that he is applying for variance to have a zero lot line. He stated that when he met Velmeir at the site to review the grade issues the developer did state that if the curb could be moved back to the property line they would be able to get it to work better. Council Member Flaherty indicated that he visited the site and agreed that there is a considerable decrease in the grade elevation up to the building. He agreed with Mayor Marty that Council did ask Staff, at a previous meeting, to research and clarify what is happening with Velmeir and to date Council has received nothing. He asked that Staff provide an update for their review at the next Council work session. Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 5 • Mr. Perrozzi stated that he did ask both Director Ericson and Economic Development Coordinator Backman what direction they wanted to see for this site and he was told retail. He stated that this was the direction he took in remodeling the building but found it is hard for him to do when he has to enter the building on the east side and step down five steps to enter the building. He stated that they kept telling him the grading was fine adding that he caught the problem the day they were digging the footings. Council Member Thomas cautioned the Council and City Staff stating that they have to be careful with the level of their involvement, as to the extent of what the City could do to support the process, when they are not a party to the negotiations. She agreed that there are issues that the Council could help with but there are also issues that the Council can't resolve. She agreed that Council should review and discuss this issue at their first work session in September and then determine what kind of assistance, if any, the Council could provide. Mr. Perrozzi asked who would be responsible for plan review and blueprint acceptance. He asked if it would be the City, Velmeir or Loucks. Mayor Marty stated that Council would review this issue at the next Council work session in September. Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated that he has some concerns regarding the draft Medtronic contract he requested and received three weeks ago. He stated that the way he sees it, • after reviewing the contract, the way the proposal was presented there was a lot of attention made to the $14.8 million that Medtronic would pay upfront to help enhance the feasibility of the project, but after reading the purchasing agreement he realized that Medtronic would receive repayment of that $14.8 million from the tax increments, which means that Medtronic would get their investment back via a note from the City at 5-percent interest. He stated that he would like to be able to get 37-percent of his property taxes back at 5-percent interest noting that he thought that Medtronic stood a bit higher than that in terms of their commitments. Mr. McCarty stated that there is also an indemnity clause included in the contract that would require the City to indemnify all persons against what the contract identifies as environmentally unsafe situations at the golf course property. He stated that although there is some claim that there would be a $200,000.00 limit on the City, he is not sure how this would work. He asked who would pick up the balance if an injured party were to sue and be granted, in court, an award in excess of $200,000.00. He expressed concerns stating that this issue has not been clearly outlined in the contract. He expressed his doubts that the City and Medtronic would be able to contractually agree that the most they would ever pay out on a claim of harm, under these conditions, would be capped at $200,000.00. Mr. McCarty stated that much of the proposal and presentation revolved around three phases for the Medtronic project. He stated that the purchase contract that is before Council that would run for 25-years, very clearly only touches on or controls Phase 1. He stated that Phase 2 and Phase 3 • were purposely left out so there is no guaranty or warranty that the City would see anything more than Phase 1. He indicated that the contract recognizes this adding that Medtronic has no Mounds View City Council August S, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 6 • intention of purchasing the 72-acres with the thought of land trading or profit by selling. He stated that at the same time the contract gives Medtronic a free hand to the extent that they can, under certain conditions, sell the property. He stated that he knows that there are provisals that the EDA would be involved in adding that there are also provisals that the EDA cannot unfairly or unnecessarily withhold the approval of the sale of the property and under at least two of the conditions Medtronic could sell the property. He suggested that if subdivision and sale is going to be allowed the City should break it up and convey the land by section/subdivision. He stated that if Phase 1 comes to be, that is fine, but Phase 2 would require renegotiation because the City would still own the land and the City would gain from the increase in value. Mr. McCarty summarized stating that the job issue very clearly shows, by testimony from Medtronic, that the jobs in Phase 1 would come from two facilities in Shoreview that would be closed, two facilities in Arden Hills that would be closed, and the facility in Spring Lake Park. He stated that Medtronic has stricken the exclusion verbiage in the contract that excludes existing jobs from the job commitment of 1500, which simply means that Medtronic is not tied to this number and they are now hearing that Phase 1 would not bring very many new jobs and nothing is guaranteed beyond that for Phases 2 and 3. Mr. McCarty concluded by stating that in presenting the amount of money that Medtronic claimed they would bring to the City of Mounds View, they put in $46,000.00 for administration costs noting that these are TIF related administrative costs and it does nothing for the General • Fund. He noted that they are calculating their taxes a bit higher at $43,000.00 per year, but in the face of this year's $S.I3 million dollar budget, the $43,000.00 doesn't impress him. He stated that was does impress him is Medtronic's claim that their franchise fee would be $80,000.00 a year to the City of Mounds View noting that as all of the Council knows the last Council he served on tried to get rid of the hidden tax and bring it to floor so the residents would know what they are getting. He stated that the last Council incorporated a provision in the last budget that 25-percent of this would be taken away and replaced with the property tax and over a period of four years would be gone. He stated that he understands it is back to the original 4-percent and expressed concerns about the future when future Councils see $80,000.00 a year in franchise fees at the very start. He stated that the business community and residents should know this noting that if the franchise fee is such a plum for the City then they should consider how long it would lock the rest of us in for the same situation. He stated that they would never see the hidden tax come into the light of day on the property taxes it should be. David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated that he would like to comment on the last speaker noting that he has never seen a tax that went away in the City of Mounds View. He stated that he does not understand what all the comments were about adding that he is very disappointed that nothing was mentioned about all the pluses the Medtronic project would bring to the City of Mounds View. He stated- that only the negatives were mentioned, which he found very disappointing. He indicated that a resident did come down and shared honest information with the City noting that there should have been a mass mailing to the community that included the true facts of this .project. He expressed concerns regarding the information that is being provided • to the community noting that there has been considerable miscommunication from the start. He expressed his doubts about signing the petition when the information on the petition is not clear Mounds View City Council August $, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 7 • or completely true. He stated that the facts have not been communicated clearly adding that distribution of the pamphlet was a good move because it provided the community with the true facts about the project. He stated that he is having a hard time figuring this whole thing out adding that he would never sign his name to a document unless it tells the entire truth. He stated that the golf course has never made money for the City adding that he is very proud of the individuals who put out this pamphlet because now the people have the true facts about this project. Ron Morgan, 2656 West County Road H2 stated that he would like to quote a sentence from the court order to the City noting that it states that the construction of the 66 townhouse units must comply with all of the applicable provisions of the current building and fire codes noting that this becomes the mandate of the City. He stated that as they move forward they should do their job and do it well noting that as he looks into the past with this development it was not done well. He acknowledged that there were a lot of different reasons and there were a lot of different players involved in the process and they as an association had to obtain legal help and spent thousands of dollars just to get legal title to their properly. He stated that they had to threaten to sue noting that it was resolved before it went to court. He stated that everyone has been involved and asked who the bigger losers would be. He noted that the City would gain in taxes and the developer would gain but the owners within the association are taking an extreme risk with no gain. He asked the Council and Staff for due diligence as they look to issue permits that the permits be done through the normal protocol, that there be a planning committee in place for people to go to, and that it be on a PUD basis so that regulations can be outlined and included. • He stated that people have sat and waited for thirty years for a promised swimming pool adding that if the City doesn't document this and include performance as part of the security bond it might not get done. He stated that. it is easy to cherry pick and it would be easy for the developer to pull out and what could the City do. He stated that he did attend the Watershed meeting and expressed concerns that he did not see any representation from Council or City Staff. He suggested that someone from Staff review the meeting. He stated that he was appalled at the developer when the developer complained that the City of Mounds View would not allow them to dump clean fill on their land. He expressed concerns stating that they were not sure that it was actually clean fill in addition to the fact that this is not the developers land. He explained that this common area is association land called common land and is deeded to the association. He stated that there are six homeowners that homesteaded this and one person who owns some vacant property are going to profit financially. He stated that for them to not see due diligence through for the people living here would be wrong and it is his hope that the City would follow the rules. He stated that if this goes through the City should condemn the property noting that the City has great powers and questioned how the City ever lost the lawsuit. He stated that it was good that the City pulled it noting that it was a conditional special use permit and pulling it was the right thing to do. He stated that the thing he believes the City should do is condemn the property, take it, pay the residents for it, and do whatever they want with the property. He stated that they have had several years of hardship and wrong doings here and would rather see the land condemned. and give it back to the developer. He stated that he believes this would be the prudent way to handle this situation. Mounds View City Council August S, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 8 . Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated that he meant to mention when he was dealing with the contractual issues that he had read in the minutes of the Council meeting where the Fire Department had come in to request approval for their project to replace Stations 3 and 5 on Highway 65 and the land costs for the first estimate was at $115,000.00 per acre. He noted that one of the Council Member's had moved to make that the cap in the motion and Staff quickly informed that Council Member that the land in that area along Highway 65, although as congested as it is during the day, goes for $150,000.00 to $170,000.00 per acre and they thought that if they could make the $115,000.00 work, which is an unusual situation, but perhaps if they couldn't, then the amendment to cap it at $115,000.00 would put the City in a difficult situation. He commented that considering that the golf course property is prime location and much more desirable than anything else that could be produced on Highway 65, he asked why the City is taking $120,000.00 for the golf course property when the prices for less desirable properties are going for $150,000 to $170,000. Council Member Stigney stated they are not discussing what is up in Blaine they are talking about the appraised land value for The Bridges Golf Course. City Administrator Ulrich confirmed stating that this was a negotiated land sale based on the value of the appraisal and reflects the value of the land for this location. He added that there is quite a difference between large parcels per acre value and a small retail or commercial parcel. He referenced the Walgreen's parcel, which is a smaller 1-2 acre parcel, noting that it would be worth more per square foot than a 40-acre tract of land that would be used for an office building. • He explained that generally the parcels would be priced differently in the marketplace on a per acre or square footage basis. Mr. McGarry noted that along that line a previous speaker had pointed out eminent domain and asked if three appraisals were done on this. Mayor Marty clarified that the City only did one appraisal He stated that he had some questions regarding the development that Mr. Morgan was discussing. He stated that the developer had done some soil borings noting that the City had received a copy of the plat showing that the location of the borings was in the middle of the driveway area and that it was indicated at the last Council work session that they received Rice Creek Watershed approval, which means that the developer could begin the permit application process. He asked if the developer has started the permit application process adding that because much of the development east of Greenwood is located within a wetland or wetland buffer zone shouldn't the developer provide soil borings from the actual area where the pads would be placed. He asked if they should have soil borings from the specific area before a developer can build in that specific area. Director Ericson confirmed stating that before any building permits could be issued for this project on an area such as this the City would be requiring an engineered soil analysis for each building. He stated that soil borings would have to be conducted noting that the Rice Creek Watershed approval was conditional and it is his understanding that there are a number of issues • that Mr. Hartstad has to resubmit back to Rice Creek Watershed District. He stated that he is not sure if this has happened yet noting that he could find out when they plan to have this Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 9 • information back to the Rice Creek Watershed District. He stated that once the information has been received and the permit is approved the City would receive a fax from Rice Creek Watershed upon issuance of the permit. He assured the Council that the City would know, in advance, about any activities that would be occurring on that site. Mayor Many asked if the Rice Creek Watershed would receive the results from the soil borings for the footprints of the building locations and would the information be forwarded to Rice Creek Watershed if the area is deemed to be a wetland area. Director Ericson stated that the Rice Creek Watershed would not receive the results from the soil borings because it is a City issue. He explained that the judges ruling indicated that the City's wetland zoning provisions, the alteration provisions and the buffer provisions are not applicable in this case. He stated that the judges ruling looked at it from a 1972/73 perspective indicating that anything adopted since then should not apply to this case, with the exception of the building and fire codes. He stated that when the City receives the plans for the buildings Staff would review them based on the current codes. He assured Council that Staff would review them very closely to make sure they do satisfy all requirements for a building of that size. Mayor Marty asked if the Rice Creek Watershed district would have anything to say about the developer being able to build within a wetland or could the developer actually fill and build within a wetland area. • Director Ericson stated that the developer provided a wetland delineation report to the Rice Creek Watershed District and the Rice Creek Watershed did accept that delineation. He explained that there is some mitigation that would be occurring with that site and Rice Creek Watershed has approved the mitigation plan for that development. He stated that in terms of finding wetland that is not going to occur because they have already identified where the wetland areas are located. He noted that the soil borings could result in unsuitable land or soil and they would then have to do some engineering to provide stability for the homes or they could determine that it would not be cost effective to build a home due to poor soil. He stated that they could opt to leave that sit rather than construct on the poor soil. Mayor Marty stated that it was originally reported to the Council that if there were any changes to the original plat that the original justification or approval would be null and void and asked if this is correct. Director Ericson stated that this was not correct and explained that if there are any changes to the site plan that would relate to drainage, runoff, location of the drive aisles or anything that affects the approved stormwater management plan for that site would have to go back through the Rice Creek Watershed Board of Commissioners for review and approval. He stated that it would not negate the permit .but it would require that the Board review the changes and address any issues at that time. • Council Member Thomas stated that this discussion has gone beyond the scope of public input and suggested that this item be included on the agenda for the next Council work session. Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 10 • Mr. Jahnke stated that if the residents would sit down and really look at the funds the City has received from all of this they would understand that no other developer would have been able to help this City with projects like the County Road J improvement project. He stated that the City was able to do this project because of Medtronic and they never say anything about that. He stated that the City got plenty for this land for what Medtronic got for the City. Mayor Marty asked if the Council feels that the development should be brought back for discussion at a work session. Council Member Thomas stated that she does not think it is necessary. Council Member Flaherty~stated that Council should discuss this further. He stated that he would like to review the plan further before they start developing the land. Council Member Gunn asked if they have new information that should be reviewed. Director Ericson stated that there is no new information at this point noting that Staff would provide Council with updates if they do receive any changes. He stated that this is not a project that would be heard by the Planning Commission or the City Council noting that it would not be rezoned or go into a PUD. He agreed that Mr. Morgan brings up a point that the City could consider condemning the property but it would involve spending millions of dollars to acquire • the land. City Administrator Ulrich clarified that Mr. Morgan is asking the City to purchase the existing units or purchase the land for the 66 units or both. He stated that his answer would dictate whether it should be discussed at a work session. Mr. Morgan stated that he does want due diligence from the City relative to the building permits. He stated that he wants it to follow normal protocol. He stated that the court order did not say that it could not be a PUD, that it shouldn't go through the Planning Commission or that it should not be reviewed by City Council. He stated that this is the responsibility of the City to follow the normal protocol and do the right thing to protect the problems the City has experienced in the past. He stated that it has been 30-years noting that he thinks they, as owners, take an extreme risk. He stated that it is his understanding that the court order states that the developer has to build 66 units. He stated that just because the developer doesn't want to, he doesn't get that vote. He stated that they sit on peat moss and there are structural problems. He explained that this has nothing to do with the Watershed adding that the Watershed has told them that this is a City issue. He stated that the warranty comes from the builder. He expressed concerns stating that the homeowners bear the costs and the condemnation would give him a fair market price for his property and it would get him out of the responsibility of bearing those dollars. • City Administrator Ulrich stated that Staff could take a look at condemning the existing six units on the property noting that generally the City relies on a slum and blight finding, which he Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 11 • doesn't think would apply. He stated that it would probably be inappropriate to acquire the properties because there would be civil issues with the development. Mayor Marty stated that the Council would pass on discussing this further at a work session until more information has been received. 7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS. MOTION/SECOND. Flaherty/Thomas. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as presented. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 8. COUNCIL BUSINESS. A. 7:05 Public Hearing and Resolution 6593 Approving the Development Agreement to provide $250,000 in Tag Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance to SYSCO Food Services of Minnesota to facilitate expansion of the business located at 2400 County Road J in Mounds View. Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that SYSCO Minnesota in Mounds View has outgrown its' existing parking areas and would like to add approximately 100 parking stalls for passenger vehicles and 53 for truck parking. He stated that SYSCO Minnesota has estimated • that the expansion project would cost approximately $1.2 million. He stated that SYSCO Minnesota has requested $250,000.00 in TIF assistance to pay for redevelopment costs including stormwater management and wetland mitigation. He stated that Staff recommends that Council adopt Resolution No. 6593 approving the development agreement to provide $250,000 in TIF assistance to SYSCO Minnesota with the two caveats discussed during the EDA. He explained that instead of a three-year term it would be a two-year term at 30-percent. Mayor Marry clarified that the EDA discussed this issue extensively and it was 30-percent and was changed to 50-percent in order to cover the two-year term. Mayor Many opened the public hearing at 8:32 p.m. Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:33 p.m. Council Member Stigney stated that his concerns are that SYSCO has exceeded their required space and would now like to expand into the wetland, which is land they deeded to the City as passive use and now want to use it as heavy industrial and use TIF money to do it. He stated that if SYSCO wants to expand into a wetland and get the land back for free he doesn't have a problem with that because they gave it to us and now want three acres back but they should do it themselves without asking for TIF money from the TIF District to support that operation. He stated that he is sure they can do it themselves, but if they can't and upper management doesn't • think it is a good thing to do then they should do it. He stated that the City does not need another 53 semi-trucks coming into the City. Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 12 • Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that he would like to point out one item relative to the three-acres and explained that they are talking about three-acres out of the 46-acres donated to the City. He stated that a good portion of the land added is not necessarily currently wetlands and reviewed the locations with Council. He stated that there are wetlands located in the area adding that not all three acres are in the wetland area. Council Member Stigney clarified that he had said that SYSCO wished to build into the wetland acres by 3-acres and obviously they wouldn't be asking for money to mitigate if it wasn't a wetland area. He stated that if it were open top land they wouldn't need the money to relocate the pond and everything else out there. He stated that is the reason why he does not support this. Mayor Many explained that one of the reasons that SYSCO is asking for this assistance is because their corporate offices capped their expenses at $1 million dollars for expansion and development projects like this and the expenses for this expansion would be slightly over the capped amount. He stated that he spoke with President Phil Seipp earlier today and he explained that SYSCO's money could very possibly go to another facility located in another State if this is not approved. He expressed concerns stating that SYSCO has been a good neighbor to the City of Mounds View and they have added business, added employees and with this expansion they would have the potential to add another 100 employees. He stated that without this assistance from the City this development, expansion and the new jobs would very likely not be coming to the City of Mounds View. He also noted that this would be paid back to the City over atwo-year . period and reviewed. Council Member Stigney clarified that if SYSCO wants to cut off the expense at $1 million that is a corporate decision on their part and is their decision to make. He stated that if they wish not to expand here on that basis that is their decision to make and his decision is to determine whether to allow them to come in and expand in a wetland and ask for TIF money to do it. He noted that the residents are picking up $61,000 a year in fiscal disparities in order to keep that TIF District open. Mayor Marty clarifed that this would be paid back within two years noting that SYSCO has been a good neighbor and business. He explained that the reason they are expanding is to add jobs. MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Flaherty. To Approve Resolution 6593 with the two amendments and to Approve the Development Agreement to provide $125,000.00 in Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance to SYSCO Food Services of Minnesota to facilitate the expansion of the business located at 2400 County Road J in Mounds View. Ayes-4 Nays-1 (Stigney) Motion carried. B. Review Proposed 2006 City Budget/Preliminary Levy. • City Administrator Ulrich referenced the enclosed copy of the preliminary budget, which the recommended action for this evening is to postpone for discussion at the Special Work Session Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 13 • scheduled for August 15, 2005. He noted that Staff is projecting an 8-percent increase in the base levy based on expenditure increases of approximately the same percentage. He explained that the goal Staff had in developing this budget, in terms of the impact to the general levy, is to keep it at less than 10-percent. He stated that this is also consistent with past Council comments and citizen surveys where it was indicated that the desire was to keep the levy low. He stated that this is a starting point, open for discussion adding that the LGA cuts of $122, 217.00 brings the City down to a zero amount received for local government aid from the State of Minnesota. He stated that in order to make up that amount it would mean a 3-percent increase in the base levy if the City were to choose to levy for it. He noted that there are no levy limits in place for 2006. • City Administrator Ulrich stated that there are two major personnel changes proposed, the first involves upgrading the Administrative Assistant to an Assistant to the City Administrator and adding communications coordination duties to the City Receptionist position; and the second involves adding Code Enforcement personnel and staff in the Community Development Department. He referenced the wages stating that 3-percent across the board was used to determine the increase in wages; he indicated that the health insurance would be an issue this year noting that the contract, approved last year, was capped in the second year, by the provider, at 18-percent and the City's portion of that is an increase in the family insurance of 13.6-percen He stated that at this point the preliminary budget has to be to the County by September 15, 200 He explained that it generally follows a budget process time for the City Council where a preliminary levy is established and that means that the City Council can levy no more than that amount, but the levy can be reduced between that time and December when a final levy has to b certified to the County. He further explained that the preliminary levy is establishing the ceilin for the levy by September 15, 2005. City Administrator Ulrich stated that it is important to note on the proposed budget that a lot of the base levy impact was reduced by placing a fair burden on the vehicle and equipment fund adding that the fund would have to be reviewed in detail to determine how the fund would be replenished. He stated that $259,000 was spent out of this fund last year noting that the current balance is $1.5 million and $622,000.00 of that balance is currently proposed for this year's vehicle and equipment expenditures. He indicated that the City budgets an annual contribution of $90,000.00 to this fund and Staff plans to review the details of this fund as a part of this process. He stated that if they have questions or would like to see modifications made prior to the meeting on the 15th that could be done based on tonight's discussion. Council Member Stigney referenced the $122,217.00 LGA loss and asked what the percentage increase would be to the current 8-percent base levy if the City were to levy that amount to offs the loss. City Administrator Ulrich explained that the 8-percent includes the increase to make up for the LGA loss. He further explained that the LGA alone is 3-percent, which is included in the 8- percent base levy. Mayor Marty clarified that they are only considering a preliminary levy at this time of Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 14 • City Administrator Ulrich confirmed noting that last year the City lost nearly three times as much in local government aid and the City also experienced significant increases in the health insurance. Council Member Flaherty stated that the City knew that the LGA loss of $122,217.00 was coming adding that the 8-percent is way overboard as far as he is concerned with a levy. He stated that this is one of the reasons why he ran for the Council. He asked the City Administrator and Staff to look for ways that would reduce this before they get to the roundtable. He stated that he would not back an 8-percent levy. Council Member Gunn agreed stating that they go through this every year and keep asking Staff to find more ways to cut from the budget. She expressed concerns stating that she is not sure that there is anything more that can be cut. Council Member Flaherty noted that he is probably not saying anything new but everyone is very tired of what the levies have been in this City. He stated that if they need to be tough that is what they have to do. Council Member Thomas stated that she would hold off on any comments until next week. She stated that she is planning to spend the next week to review this information adding that this is giving Council a starting point to begin their discussions on the budget. • Mayor Marty referenced the ersonnel allocations on a e two of the Staff re ort notin that due p pg P g to the concerns about allocations of the salaries to the EDA fund, salaries for the City Administrator, Finance Director and Community Director have been relocated to the General Fund and in 2006 the General Fund will cover an additional 5-percent of the City Administrator and Finance Director salaries and 10-percent of the Community Director's salary. He stated that the reason some of these were allocated out of the TIF pool is because some of their responsibilities were related to TIF and in overseeing TIF and asked if any of the time and amounts could be allocated to the TIF pool. He asked Staff to look at this more closely noting that they might not get the percentages that are going to be allocated back into the General Fund but if they could keep any of this out of the General Fund and paid for out of TIF they would like to see that happen. Mayor Marty referenced the franchise tax noting that the last paragraph reads that City Council has the option to increase the percentage going to the General Fund. This would hold down the General Fund's tax increase in 2006 but increase debt service taxes in the future. He clarified that the debt services taxes are probably related to street improvements. He stated that it is up to Council to review this information and identify areas where they could cut. He stated that he has highlighted areas that he would like further clarification noting that he would direct his comments later in the week and asked Staff to clarify. • Council Member Thomas stated that it is her understanding that the TIF changes, as far as personnel allocations, was not done out of a finance reason but out of concern for the Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 15 • interpretation of where they were putting the funds. She stated that they have more than enough of the funding issues available to cover it and could leave it in the TIF funds if they wanted to and at this point this would be a good direction for Staff if paying this is a legitimate concern. City Administrator Ulrich explained that it had become an accounting problem with respect to the time spent over the last couple of years. Mayor Marty confirmed noting that the more they could transfer under that, as it was pointed out to them earlier, that with the amount in the TIF pool, if this keeps building the City might have to start paying some out. Council Member Thomas stated that this is not enough of a concern to her to justify moving that to the General Fund. She stated that she believes these are legitimate expenses in the TIF District, which is why they have administrative fees with TIF .Districts. She stated that she believes it is entirely appropriate to leave those personnel costs, for the moment, within the TIF funds. Mayor Marty explained that when he spoke with Mr. Hansen about the funds, one of his concerns was with the accountability in reporting, which is where this probably came from. Council Member Gunn explained that her concern with this is that as they go through decertifying the TIF Districts, the City does not get hit all of a sudden with three salaries that • would have to come completely out of the General Fund. She suggested gradually working through this little by little so that the City is not hit with the entire amount all at once. Mayor Marty acknowledged her concerns and suggested discussing this issue as part of next year's budget discussion. He noted that the Council has a special work session scheduled for next Monday at 7:00 p.m. to specifically discuss these issues. C. Resolution 6585 Approving a Severance Package for Regular Full-time Golf Course Employees. City Administrator Ulrich stated that this item was discussed at the City Council Special Work Session on July 5, 2005 and at that time it was the consensus of the Council to allow the normal vacation, sick leave payouts in accordance with City policy and to allow accumulated flex time to be paid out, over time, to each of the golf course employees impacted. He stated that currently there are three fulltime, permanent employees at the golf course. He explained that flex time was the vehicle used to account for the overtime hours the employees work during the summer that are carried over into the winter. He explained that the employees normally work extra hours during the summer and are paid, via flextime, during the winter months in order to remain on the payroll as full-time, year-round employees. He stated that currently the City does not have any special severance pay provisions for economic layoff noting that the last time this was discussed he had proposed cone-week, per year of service severance provision and the Council, at the time, • wanted more time to consider the proposal. He stated that the Resolution, as presented, outlines the severance package and consists of the normal severance provisions of sick leave and vacation Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 16 • severance as well as allowing the employees to utilize accumulated sick time and flex time noting that each employee would be given an additional severance payment that would consist of one week of pay for each complete year of service. He stated that as of January 1, 2006 one employee would have nine years of completed service and the other two employees would have three years of completed service. City Administrator Ulrich provided the Council with a packet of information for each employee noting that Staff had $50,000.00 budgeted in the proforma for the Medtronic project to cover the severance packages. He explained that he had tried to project this as a `most cost' situation in terms of the most the City could expect to pay. He further explained that based on historical records the flex-time for these employees tends to extend until approximately March 1St adding that the overall total payout, based on the vacation, the flex-time severance payout, the 50- percent sick time payout up to a maximum of 960 hours, and a one week/per year of service payout, for all three employees would be $54,956.00. He noted that the current numbers are based on the employees working until December 31, 2005 and indicated that this amount could be reduced if the severance date is adjusted to either October or November 1St. He stated that an actual end date has not been determined yet noting that he anticipates the need to keep the employees on through the shutdown process, as they would need their help to resolve the disposition of the equipment and in closing the books. He stated that this would be the `most cost' scenario that could be envisioned based upon the resolution presented to Council this evening and recommended its' consideration and approval. • Council Member Flaherty asked what the City's policy is for carryover of vacation time. City Administrator Ulrich stated that there is a maximum carryover limit of two weeks over the accrual rate. He stated that some of the carryover would have to be used by the end of the year. Mayor Marty clarified that this is not the actual highest rate and asked if it could end up lower than what is proposed. City Administrator Ulrich confirmed stating that it would depend on the actual termination date adding that as things wind down there would be fewer hours accrued during that time period. Council Member Thomas stated that her biggest concern is the payout of one week per year of service on what the City is actually doing. She stated that this would be approximately five months of paid severance time in addition to the cash out. She expressed concerns stating that they are talking about a lot of time, a total of 15 weeks. She stated that her point is the City paying severance to people who might have another job. City Administrator Ulrich noted that the sick time and vacation time would still be paid out whether they left tomorrow to go to another golf course or through this process. Council Member Gunn stated that this is the same kind of severance package that was used during the layoffs that occurred during her time at UNISYS. She stated that this is a basically normal type of package if based on industry standards. Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 17 Council Member Stigney agreed that this is a typical package based on industry standards and noted that this is not a private industry. He stated that they have had layoffs in the Park and Recreation department in addition to the displacement of a Building Inspector. He stated that the Human Resources Committee is currently reviewing some of these items and he is surprised to see some of this included in the package being recommended for approval. He stated that he would prefer to see this more clearly defined before taking action on it. He stated that the listing showing dollars amounts does not show the amount of flex time accumulated by these individuals and he would like to know that number. He explained that the way he understands the resolution the termination date for each employee would be established based on their flex time balance, which means that the employee would not be terminated until all of their flex time has been used. He expressed concerns stating that it is his belief that the termination date should be the actual date that the employee is laid off. He stated that if the City wants to pay the employee for their flex time then the City should consider that as a separate item but the termination date should be reflected as the actual last date the employee worked. He stated that if the City wants to ask someone to stay on to complete a certain amount of work then that could be addressed at that time noting that their end date would be the actual date of termination. Council Member Flaherty stated that he comes from the private sector and was very surprised at all of this noting that he had no idea of the dollars involved in something like this. He stated that this does not include the flextime. City Administrator Ulrich stated that the numbers actually do include the flextime because it carries the employees out to March 1St Council Member Stigney stated that they should not carry anyone to March lst, the City should only carry them to the day of termination noting that if the City wants to pay them for their flex- time address it as a separate item. City Administrator Ulrich referenced the accrual of vacations and confirmed that it is true that the employees would continue to accrue vacation and sick leave during the period of time that they would be kept on to complete the shutdown process. Council Member Stigney stated that it would also continue to accrue time that would help to pay their health insurance for a longer period of time. He stated that he firmly believes that an employees' termination date should be the final date worked. Golf Course Manager acknowledged Council's concerns noting that it does look like a large number adding that Staff did put in all of the hours with the benefits attached to the hours they worked for their health care insurance and if it is cutoff they would actually get less earning and should get the time paid back to them as paid time off. She assured the Council that they did work the hours and it is not like the Council is giving the employees something they haven't earned. She stated that they have put in the effort and time adding that they would be paying • them less for the time they have earned and to give them less that what they have earned would not be right. Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 18 • Council Member Thomas indicated that the Council has already discussed this, which is one of the reasons why she supports allowing them to use the flextime at the end of the season. She agreed that it would be unfair to cut them off on something they have been deliberately using and setting up their job schedule to utilize and hold the days for that specific purpose. She explained that normally it is an unusual situation to payout flextime noting that in this case it is called for due to the odd nature of the schedule. She stated that the issue is in trying to determine if they would use the flex plus the one-week or is there atrade-off where they use the flextime or take the one-week per year. She stated that she definitely believes that the employees should be allowed to use up the flextime that they have already earned noting that she is not sure on the payout of one week per year. Council Member Flaherty agreed with Council Member Thomas noting that he has no issues with the flextime. He stated that he is concerned about the one-week pay per year of service noting that he can't get past the amount of vacation time the employees have accrued. Mary Burg, Golf Course Manager clarified to Council that most of the employees do take the majority of their vacation time and reviewed the carryover process with Council. She agreed that it is a large number in comparison to the private sector adding that typically people who work at a golf course tend to work longer hours in the summer. She stated that these employees do give an awful lot when it comes to the hours they actually work adding that it is a labor of love by the people who are employed there and they work very hard for the City to make the golf course a good operation. She also noted that in Ken Manthis's case, from what she can gather, this is the only golf course that does not pay him for the time he spends giving customers a golf lesson. She stated that he gives lessons all the time and he never tells a customer that he cannot give them a lesson and he doesn't get any monetary value for it. She stated that Ken has put in a lot of effort and time and has brought in a lot of the income for the City. She stated that she is willing to turn her money over to Ken. Council Member Thomas stated that this was a kind offer but it is not set up in the system to be able to accommodate that request. She asked what the hiring window is for golf courses and when are they looking to hire new people. She asked what options the employees would have if they were kept on the payroll until March 1St and would the timeframe end up being too late for any of them to find a job with a different golf course. Manager Burg stated that it is her belief that some people are already looking for jobs noting that some may have already found a new position. She stated that there is always a big shift throughout the winter months noting that they usually want to have people in place by February. Council Member Thomas stated that one of the things she wants to be sure of is that there is coverage for these employees during this window of time noting that they do work very hard and this is something that the City should be covering them on. • Council Member Flaherty clarified that he does not have a problem with paying out for the vacation time because this is something the employee accrues. He stated that he also agrees with Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 19 the sick leave payout adding that typically one week of pay for each year of service is usually reserved for a department head. He sated that in his view the only department head is Manager Burg and would have no problem with her receiving this severance package but for the other two this package would not be appropriate. Council Member Stigney stated that severance, however it is accrued and paid to who should be balanced with the flextime. He stated that they should do one or the other adding that his bigger problem is the termination pay. He stated that he does not believe the City should be carrying people on the payroll, accumulating vacation and benefits until March 1St. He stated that when an employee is terminated they are no longer an employee and have been laid off effective on their last date worked. He stated that if the City wishes to pay either severance or flextime, it should be based upon the termination date of the employee. He stated that if the City wants to keep a couple of the employees on to wrap things up he has no problem with that but if they are laid off they are laid off on that date, not Mazch 1St Manager Burg, asked if this is a TIF eligible expense. City Administrator Ulrich stated that he assuming that it isn't but it is something they could look into. Mayor Marty stated that he is a little concerned about Ken noting he has been here the longest and has seen the ups and downs of everything that has gone on with the golf course. He stated • that Ken has kept that golf course running over the years noting that the City has been through several golf course managers and if it hadn't been for Ken that golf course would have lost a lot of money. He stated that he has probably put in more time than what he has been credited with here and he is concerned about his future employability or future insurance. He stated that he would see this as warranted noting that Medtronic has picked up a lot of the development costs and maybe as a gesture of goodwill they might help to cover this cost. Council Member Thomas stated that the City is perfectly capable of taking caze of their employees noting that this is not a dollar issue for her. She explained that her concern is the possible precedent issue this sets for all other employee relations. She stated that the Council has to take into consideration how this decision would impact alI of the employees noting that if the City deviates from the standard practice it could be used as a precedent on future issues. Council Member Gunn asked what the policy is for flextime payouts. City Administrator Ulrich stated that currently there is no specific policy addressing flextime. Golf Course Manager Burg explained that there is a different provision for the golf course employees with respect to their flextime adding that the policy outlines the number of hours that can be used per week noting that the golf course puts their entire week of work into smaller increments and periods of time. • City Administrator Ulrich clarified that currently the policy does not allow payout for flex time Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 20 • noting that if a golf course employee chooses to leave for other reasons there is no payout to the employee for their flex-time. Golf Course Manager Burg stated that if the Council does decide that there would not be a payout for flextime at this point she is not sure if they could manage the golf course with people trying to take 16 hours off every pay period. She stated that she wouldn't be able to do it without the employees noting that they had 280 golfers one day last week, which was 20 away from the maximum. She assured Council that if her staff leaves they wouldn't get the money to pay for the costs of the golf course for this year. Council Member Gunn stated that based on whatever the termination date is and the employee is given a choice of a flex-time payout or one week of pay for each year of service noting that if they choose the service payout the flex-time would be mute and if they choose the flex-time payout the service payout would be mute. She stated that this is not something that the Council is prepared to make a decision on at this point adding that the Council needs to know the flextime hours and amounts. Golf Course Manager Burg stated that she could provide the Council with a rough estimate of the hours for their review. She indicated that she has approximately 100 hours, Dave has approximately 400 hours, and Ken is approximately 250 to 300 hours. She stated that it might be easier to understand the dollar impact if they supply the Council with the actual hours accrued. • Mayor Many agreed and asked that they put together the actual hours and dollars and provide to Council for their review. City Administrator Ulrich stated that he would provide each of the Council Members with a copy of the standards for the flextime payout and vacation payout for their review. Council Member Thomas asked if they are going to adapt the formulation on dollar value for flex hours to reflect the appropriate accruals that they would get for other dollar values on time. She stated that if they stayed on the books using that flextime they are accruing a dollar value of vacation time for payout. She explained that if they take away that working time of flex time and pay it out instead they are not getting the true value of those dollars unless they are accruing the other benefits they would be gaining while using those flex hours. She stated that this was the only reason why she said it would make more sense for them to be on the payroll using those flex-hours to get true values of the time they have put in. She stated that the Council could assign the dollar values for the straight hours if that is what they would prefer but this is an exception in the policy that states that the flex hours should be treated differently for these people because their schedule is different. She stated that this is a factor that should be brought into play if they are going to determine a drop dead date on the flex hours and pay out on the flex hours, then it would be appropriate to include the formulation of what the accruals would have been because that was a part of the benefits of their job and it would be a piece that is being lost. • Mayor Marty noted that a lump sum payout would have an affect on their taxes adding that it would behoove them to remain on the payroll and use their flextime hours. Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 21 • City Administrator Ulrich stated that it also sets the precedent for paying off the flex-hours rather than having them use the hours. He stated that they would have the same issue with any of the administrative staff who also accumulate flex-hours and the City has not compensated those upon termination. Council Member Thomas stated that the least amount of deviation was to let them to work out the flex hours because it was actually mentioned in the personnel manual as an exception whereas nothing else they have discussed is. Council Member Stigney stated that with this being an exception the exception should be that the City should pay the flextime based on the date of termination. Mayor Marty suggested getting copies of the documentation on the flextime from the manual and an update of the actual hours and include for discussion at the next Council meeting. D. Resolution 6595 Approving the 2005 Festival in the Park Contract. Administrative Assistant Crane stated that at the August 1, 2005 Special Work Session the City Council discussed and reviewed the Festival in the Park of Mounds View contract. She explained that the Festival in the Park of Mounds View contract authorizes the Mayor and the City Administrator to execute the 2005 Festival agreement. • Ma or M clarified that this is the same contract that the Ci has used for the last four ears. Y ~y h' y Council Member Gunn confirmed noting that Administrative Assistant Crane also has a copy of their insurance contract and the insurance contract from Melrose Pyrotechnics. She assured the Council that everything was current. City Administrator Ulrich noted that later on the agenda they have the discussion for the distribution of the Bethlehem Baptist Church funds in the amount of $2,500.00, which is projected to go towards the Festival in the Park and it is his understanding that this would be in addition to the $4,000.00 that the City would contribute. He stated that he does not want any misunderstanding noting that there would be the $4,000.00 plus the $2,500.00 going through the City for the Festival in the Park. MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Stigney. To approve Resolution 6595 Approving the 2005 Festival in the Park Contract and waive the reading. Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. E. Resolution 6596 Approving a Step Increase for Sergeant Mike Kampa, Mounds View Police Department Administrative Assistant Crane explained that Sergeant Mike Kampa is a current employee of the Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 22 • City of Mounds View and the Mounds View Police department noting that his supervisor has reviewed his performance. as it relates to the responsibilities outlined in the job description. She stated that it was determined that Sergeant Kampa has more than satisfactorily performed in the capacity of his position and therefore the step increase wage adjustment is consistent with the personnel manual and the labor agreements. She stated that he would go from Step 4, $31.93 an hour to Step 5, $33.61 an hour, effective August 2, 2005. She stated that Staff recommends approval. Mayor Marty clarified that the date of his current position started February 2, 2004 and asked if this would mean that Sergeant Kampa is no longer on probation. Administrative Assistant Crane confirmed that he is in his 18th month and is no longer on probation. MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Flaherty To Approve Resolution 6596 Approving a Step Increase for Sergeant Mike Kampa, Mounds View Police Department. Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. F. Resolution 6597 Approving a Gasoline and Tobacco License for Mounds View BP, Inc., located at 2155 Highway 10. • Administrative Assistant Crane stated that the applicant, Mr. Simon and his business corporation, Mounds View BP, Inc., is requesting a tobacco and gasoline license for the business located at 2155 Highway 10. She stated that Oasis Market #355, which is owned by Twin Cities Stores, Inc., currently owns it and Twin Cities Stores, Inc. would be transferring ownership to Mr. Simon upon approval of this resolution. She stated that all appropriate materials, fees and proof of workmen's compensation insurance have been submitted. She stated that a fire inspection was done with minor code violations noting that the transfer of ownership to the new owner has 30- days to correct the fire code violations. She stated that Twin Cities Stores has submitted a final request for the water bill adding that the license period would be from August 9, 2005 to June 30, 2006. Mayor Marty stated that the only question he has is with respect to the fire code violations noting that they just granted a license on July 1st to the other owner and expressed concerns that they already have a fire code violation. Administrative Assistant Crane explained that they have corrected some of the problems noting that they did not have time to correct all of the violations prior to the transfer to the new owner. She assured Council that an effort has been made to correct all of the violations noting that some are still in the process of being worked out. MOTION/SECOND Stigney/Thomas To approve Resolution 6597 Approving a Gasoline and • Tobacco License for Mounds View BP, Inc., located at 2155 Highway 10 and waive the reading. Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 23 Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. G. Resolution 6589 Approving a Minor Subdivision of 2812 Sherwood Road and 8084 Fairchild Avenue. Director Ericson stated that the property owners of 8084 Fairchild Avenue are requesting the approval of a minor subdivision noting that it would include the back one-third of the properly located at 2812 Sherwood, which is adjacent to the Fairchild property. He explained that currently there are two lots involved in this subdivision and it would create a third lot and the third lot would be fronting Fairchild Avenue. He stated that all of the properties involved are zoned R-1 Single-Family residential and they are designated low-density residential on the City's Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. He stated that the minor subdivision would be consistent with the subdivision regulations, zoning regulations and all other requirements of the City of Mounds View. He stated that this request has been reviewed by the Planning Commission noting that couple of the issues discussed included Park Dedication requirements noting that they did some research on in previous minor subdivisions of land prior to the City code changes. He stated that they had previously accessed a 5-percent valuation on the park dedication and that is now open-ended and up to the Council's discretion to determine what would be an appropriate designation for a subdivision. He stated that if they utilize the 5-percent park dedication fee for this property based on the per square foot value for the lot to be created it would be a fee of $2,835.00, which is substantially more than previous minor subdivision park dedication fees. He explained that it does reflect the fact that as the years progress land values • are increasing and there is evidence that Ramsey County is catching up on property values as well. He noted that they are not looking at a dollar per square foot as they have seen in the past adding that it is closer to $4.00 per foot, which is why they have a larger park dedication fee. He stated that originally they had indicated that it could be as high as $5,000.00 based on the 10- percent valuation adding that there has to be some reasonable relationship between the subdivision and the intensification of the land use. He stated that with the park dedication fee Staff felt that a recommendation fora 5-percent park dedication fee would be appropriate for this case and is included in the resolution. Director Ericson stated that easements would be dedicated associated with this subdivision and reviewed with Council. He stated that there is an easement that runs through the property and is identified as Tract B noting that it would be the larger of the two properties located on Fairchild Avenue. He stated that there would be a five foot easement towards the back of the property that would have to be vacated and would be done by ordinance subsequent to Council's action this evening. He stated that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the request and there is some research on park dedication fees that goes back to the year 2000 that should be helpful in making a decision about this subdivision. He stated that Staff is recommending approval noting that a house would remain on the property and would be close to the lot line. He explained that they intend to eventually remove the house and replace it with two new homes but would like to keep the house located on the property so that they can maintain services on the property. He stated that the Planning Commission felt that it was reasonable to grant them cone-year . extension in demolishing the home until the first new home is constructed. He stated that it is a minor subdivision and does not require a public hearing but they did send notices to the property Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 24 owners in the immediate area in an effort to maintain good communication with the residents so that they are aware of what is happening within the community. Mayor Many stated that he thought it was a bit odd noting that he had never seen Ordinance 745 Park Dedication Fees ever included in their packets before and asked if it had already been questioned at the Planning Commission level with the intent to appeal the fee. Director Ericson explained that it was pointed out to the applicants that they could appeal and it is an ability that they have by virtue of recent statutory changes. He stated that in communicating the 5-percent fee the applicants agreed that this would be much more reasonable. He explained that the ordinance was provided along with the research as additional information for Council to review. Mayor Marty noted that in the past it was always 10-percent and asked if this is the first one that would not be 10-percent. Director Ericson confirmed that this is the first minor subdivision that could be open to whatever Council felt would be appropriate up to 10-percent. He stated that in previous years the City code indicated that a minor subdivision that is less than one-acre would be 5-percent adding that there is no longer any such delineation as to the level of park dedication fee, it just needs to be appropriate and reasonable based on the City Council's determination. • Council Member Stigney referenced the list provided on the park dedication and asked how it differs from the top one on the list, which had minor subdivision into two lots from three and now they are going one into three and they were paying $5,670 at 10-percent. Director Ericson stated that the 10-percent park dedication fee is what was originally done and they are now recommending to Council that it be a 5-percent dedication fee consistent with all of the previous minor subdivisions approved by the City. MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Gunn To Approve Resolution 6589 Approving a Minor Subdivision of 2812 Sherwood Road and 8084 Fairchild Avenue and waive the reading. Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. H. Resolution 6599 Approving a Charitable Gambling Permit to conduct excluded Bingo for the 2005 Festival in the Park in Mounds View. Administrative Assistant Crane stated this is to request approval of the charitable gambling permit to conduct excluded bingo for the 2005 Festival in the Park in Mounds View. She indicated that she had provided the Council with a copy of the request for their review noting that Staff is recommending approval of Resolution 6599. MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Stigney. To Approve Resolution 6599 Approving a Charitable Gambling Permit to conduct excluded Bingo for the 2005 Festival in the Park in Mounds View Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 25 • and waive the reading. Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 9. CONSENT AGENDA A. Licenses for Approval. B. Set a Public Hearing for 7:05 p.m., Monday, August 22, 2005 to Consider the PUD Amendment for SYSCO Minnesota to Expand their Facility. C. Set a Public Hearing for 7:10 p.m., Monday, August 22, 2005, to Consider the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the SYSCO Minnesota Facility Expansion. D. Set a Public Hearing for 7:15 p.m., Monday, August 22, 2005. to Consider the General Concept Plan of the Medtronic PUD. E. Resolution 6598 Accepting and Approving the Donation and Distribution of Bethlehem Baptist Church Community Donation. F. Set a Public Hearing for 7:20 p.m., Monday, August 22, 2005, to Consider Resolution 6594, A Resolution Approving the Removal of Certain Parcels from the EDA's Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 and Approving the Tax Increment Financing Plan Establishing Tax Increment Finance (TIF) District No. 5, aSpecial-Legislation Economic Development District, within the Redevelopment Project Area. • G. Set a Public Hearing for 7:25 p.m., Monday, August 22, 2005, to Consider Resolution 6600, a Transfer of Ownership of an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Jake's Sports Cafe located at 2400 Highway 10 due to a Transfer of Ownership from Mounds View Jake's Inc., to Stuart Thomas. H. Set a Special Work Session for Monday, August 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. to Discuss the City Budget and Set an Executive Session immediately after the August 22°d Special Work Session to discuss the City Administrator's Annual Performance Review. MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Flaherty To Approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. A. Minutes for the July lltb and July 25, 2005 City Council meetings will be approved at the next City Council Meeting. 11. REPORTS A. Reports of Mayor and Council • Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 26 • Council Member Gunn reviewed the Festival in the Park schedule with the Council. She stated that the golf tournament is scheduled for August 20, 2005 and anyone interested in signing up can do so at the golf course. She stated that Bingo is scheduled to begin at noon adding that they would also have strolling jugglers wandering the park throughout the day. She noted that the jugglers would also be involved in the parade and would be offering lessons to anyone interested in learning the art of juggling. She stated that a Battle of the Bands is also scheduled and encouraged teens with bands to sign up for the competition. She stated that the band scheduled for the evening entertainment would be the Rocking Daddy and the Rough Cuts, which was the blues band that played last year. She stated that Saturn of St. Paul in Mounds View would be sponsoring the dance. She stated that there would be plenty of food vendors and the Bethlehem Baptist Church is bringing in a lot of items of the children to play on noting that the fireworks would be sponsored by Medtronic and is scheduled to begin at 10:00 p.m. She stated that local businesses have really stepped up to the plate this year in their support of the festival and thanked them for all of their support. She stated that the parade is scheduled to begin at 3:00 p.m. adding that the route would begin along Bronson, go up Edgewood, east on County Road I, south on Quincy and ending again on Bronson. She stated that they have a lot of fun events planned this year and encouraged everyone to come out and join in the fun. Council Member Gunn stated that she watched the last Planning Commission meeting and was quite upset with one of the Planning Commissioners for insulting City Staff and calling the City Council and Staff lazy. She stated that this is totally unacceptable as the Planning Commission represents the City and should show more respect and support. She acknowledged that everyone • has a right to their opinion but there is a time and a place for expressing their opinions and this was not one of those times. She stated that staff works very hard adding that she is very proud of the work they do. She stated that she felt that something should be done or said, as this was totally uncalled for. Council Member Stigney stated that he also watched the meeting and expressed his agreement with Council Member Gunn. He stated that the attack on City Staff is uncalled for and to take it further, they were basing their votes on a personal belief rather than on a charter of what they were hired to do. He stated that if they don't know their duty and the tasks they are assigned to handle then they should be covered on the expectations of their position with the Commission. He stated that Director Ericson did a good job of explaining noting that it fell on deaf ears or they just had a Planning Commission that did not want to hear what he had to say. He stated that their actions should be based on something other than their own personal views. Council Member Thomas agreed stating that she too was very disappointed. She stated that she has been one to go publicly on the record each time they have had a question and she has ultimately supported the recommendations of our Commissions because that is what they are there for, noting that there were so many public .statements made at that meeting that were blatantly in opposition to the topic at hand and it does color for her how she will accept a recommendation from them. She stated that it does change how she views their recommendation. • Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 27 Mayor Many stated that he would like to thank the Planning Commission noting that they do a lot of work for the City and saved the City Council countless hours. He stated that these are dedicated individuals who do this on a volunteer basis. He noted that there was one comment concerning TIF that Staff likes it because it lets them be lazy. He stated that the comment didn't make sense to him and he did not understand where the comment came from. He agreed that people are entitled to their opinion but the Council does ask that if they do serve on a Commission that they try to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of that Commission. He stated that any citizen is welcome to come before the Council to speak on any issue at any time. He stated that the Council has an open forum at the beginning of every Council meeting and work session and asked them not to use their position on a Commission to try and pass on personal views. He stated that all citizens are welcome to attend a Council meeting to express their views. He stated that he thought Director Ericson's explanation was very good as to the duties and responsibilities of the Commission. He noted that there have been times on the Council where particular votes have not gone the way everyone would have liked stating that they are charged with working for the City and working for the Citizens and you play with the hand you are dealt. He stated that there is a time and place to get up on your soap box adding that he would like all of the volunteers throughout the City who serve on Commissions to try and keep this in perspective and serve the Commission you are on with truth. Council Member Flaherty agreed with the Mayor and Council Members. He asked Staff to provide Council with an update on what is going to be happening with respect to the upgrades and improvements for the filling station located on Highway 10 and County Road H2. He stated • that he has also had several requests from citizens at the senior citizen's home regarding the of a crosswalk near the senior home. He noted that it is a County Road adding that Tim Pittman checked on the possibilities of the County doing the job and found out that the project is not even on their radar. He asked if the City would want to go ahead with the expenditures and install the crosswalks. He stated that the City has identified the need for four crosswalks along County Road I noting that there is a large group of senior citizens that use these crosswalks and the question was asked if the City would be interested in going ahead and doing the crosswalks for the safety of the citizens. Mayor Marty stated that this. is a good question noting that often times through the year the City has various organizations that would be interested in working on a project like this. He stated that if anyone is watching and would like to volunteer the time, the City could block off the area and provide the paint. Council Member Flaherty stated that the templates are ready to go as they have been out working on other street improvements and crosswalks. Mayor Marty thanked everyone attending the Neighborhood Night Out celebrations last Tuesday. He stated that it was a huge success noting that he was able to get to several of the block parties. He stated that all of the parties he attended were a big success and commended everyone in the City for participating. • Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 28 • Council Member Gunn thanked the Fire Department and the Police Department for their participation in the celebrations and she also thanked the Fire Department for bringing out their trucks as a part of the celebration. She. stated that the citizens really enjoyed it. Mayor Marry stated that he and City Administrator Ulrich attended the Quad Cities Mayor's Organization meeting held in Arden Hills. He explained that the various Cities provided reports on what was going on in their respective Cities noting that everyone wanted to know about Medtronic. He stated that they also discussed the TCAAP property in Arden Hills, Lexington Avenue improvements in Shoreview and New Brighton wants to move along with getting Highway 96 repaired at Old Highway 8 noting that they are still in negotiations with the asphalt plant. He stated that the Post Office that serves Mounds View is moving to 35W and County Road D. He stated that it would be a 24-hour facility, which would be automated and open 24- hours. City Administrator Ulrich further clarified that it would be more of a retail store noting that currently there is a trucking operation located there that would be moved to a site further south in New Brighton. He stated that Shoreview is going to the single-source recycling for their entire City with Waste Management. He stated that jointly the four communities are looking at doing a single garbage contract for all of the municipal buildings. He explained that they are considering bidding it out as a contract for all four cities that would service the City Halls, Community Centers, Police and Fire Departments, noting that it might save the Cities a little bit of money. • City Administrator Ulrich stated that they also discussed the consolidated dispatch issues. He explained that a group of City Managers in suburban Ramsey County got together and drafted a letter that went to Mayor Gertz in St. Anthony who is working with the Policy Committee on consolidated dispatch. He explained that the letter outlines the position for the suburban communities noting that the big issue is the fact that St. Paul is able to move off much of their costs through a County levy and the County taxpayer ends up paying a lot more. He stated that St. Paul has approximately 70-percent of the combined dispatch calls for the combined service and they are only paying for approximately 45-percent of the costs. He explained that what they did was outlined the principles about consolidating dispatch and acknowledged that they agree with the principles but the funding formula does need some work. He stated that they reviewed a formula based on calls for service as well as tax base and the ability to pay. He stated that they are trying to work this together so that there is more equity in how the funding is arrived at and hopefully the County Commissioners will heed their suggestions and come up with a better formula. B. Staff City Administrator Ulrich stated that a letter from Innovative Images was included for their review noting that it would be forwarded to the City Attorney for his response. He asked the Council for their feedback noting that the City's response is due back by September 5th adding that it would be brought to the next City Council meeting for consideration and approval. r~ Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 29 • City Administrator Ulrich stated that the City of New Brighton has agreed to allow the City of Mounds View to hold their City Council and Commission meetings at the New Brighton City Hall beginning in October. He stated that Staff would work out the details and update Council. Mayor Marry noted that there might be a couple of conflicts with the schedules. He stated that he had contacted Steve Larson, the Mayor of New Brighton, to talk to him about the stop light at County Road H and Silver Lake Road. He stated that they were going to try and talk to the County to determine if they would need a letter from the Council or a resolution to try and get the stoplight included back into their budget. He stated that it was also suggested to possibly use TIF funds with them paying the City back in a year or two. He stated that Mayor Larson agreed that it was good idea to try and get the light installed noting that he was also going to meet with Commissioner Jan Weisner this week and would also mention it to her. Director Ericson stated that he is happy to announce that the Mounds View City Codes are now available on the City website. He stated that it is not interactive and does have some limitations but it is broken out with enough detail that a reasonable search can be done. Director Ericson provided the Council with an update on the Planning Associate position noting that they received twenty applications and the period end date was Friday. He stated that Staff plans to review the applications and set up the respective interviews for next week. He stated that he does not think that they would have anyone ready for Council consideration at the August meetings but they do plan to have something ready in time for the first meeting in September. • Director Ericson referenced the Sn der's develo ment notin that the Gas for Less building is Y p g gone and it is going to be a nice change of pace. He noted that during the course of their work on the site it was discovered that they had parked their construction trailer on City land. He stated that the City has indicated that the construction trailer cannot be located there and they did stop in today and asked him to ask Council if it would be ok for them to park their construction trailer there for a period of three months. He explained that they do plan on restoring the ground and there wouldn't be any issues with the condition of the site once they pull the trailer out. He stated that they could live with the trailer being on their location but it would necessitate several moves as they develop different areas within the site. He stated that this would be much more convenient for them and it could be written into the development agreement that the City is held harmless, there is no liability, they assume all risks and responsibility, the re-vegetate the site and restore it to it's original condition. He stated that if Council is not in agreement with this he would communicate it to them tomorrow that they would have to remove their trailer. Mayor Marty asked City Administrator Ulrich for his opinion on this. City Administration Ulrich stated that he does not see any problems with it as long as they can cover the development agreement so that they can get the restoration done. Council Member Gunn stated that one of the concerns is because the irrigation lines run through the area. Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 30 • Council Member Thomas agreed stating that she does have some significant concerns on both of the scores and asked that it being included. C. Reports of City Attorney • None. 12. Neat Council Work Session: Special, August 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Nezt Council Meeting: Monday, August 22, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. 13. ADJOURNMENT MOTION/SECOND. Adjourn the City Council Meeting of August 8, 2005, by consensus at 10:25 p.m. Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. Transcribed and recorded by: Bonnie Sullivan Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. •