HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 2005/08/22~ ~
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL'~"V 4,
• CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 9 :,:,< ~'
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA {~~' ~~..~
Regular Meeting
August 22, 2005
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
7:53 P.M.
L MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, and Thomas
NOT PRESENT:
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A. Monday, August 22, 2005 City Council Agenda
• Mayor Marty requested to delete Agenda Item 9.F.2. and to reschedule it to a different meeting
since the review forms were received just today.
Mayor Marty asked about Agenda Item 9.F.1. to hold an executive session to discuss threatened
lawsuit and demand letter. City Attorney Riggs suggested this issue be discussed at that time.
Mayor Marty moved Agenda Item 6A to be considered immediately following Agenda Item 4
since they have already been in attendance for over an hour waiting for this meeting to start.
Mayor Marty noted there are a lot of people in attendance to speak and advised that each speaker
will be allowed three minutes minus time spent by staff or Council to provide answers.
Mayor Marcy asked about rearranging other agenda items to address matters for which
consultants need to be in attendance.
Commissioner Thomas requested to move Agenda Item 7, Just and Correct Claims, to be
considered after Agenda Item 8, Council Business
With regard to Council Business Item 8E, City Administrator Ulrich advised that the property
transfer has not yet taken place on that property. He explained that staff will recommend
opening the public hearing and then continuing it to the next meeting for action. He also
•
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
• recommended that Consent Agenda Item 9E, Licensing for City Tavern, be deleted from the
agenda.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Approve the Monday, August 22, 2005 agenda as
amended.
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried.
5. PUBLIC INPUT
This item was considered following Agenda Item 6.
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
A. Presentation by Northwest Youth and Family Services to discuss their
services offered
Kay Andrews, Director of Northwest Youth and Family Services, and Mary Sue Hanson,
Suburban Ramsey Family Collaborative, provided presentations advising of the services
provided, gaps in services, funding sources, and desire to work with the City of Mounds View to
assure that. no youth or family remain at risk.
• Mayor Marty stated he is familiar with Northwest Youth and Family Services and pointed out
that over the years, when looking at the budget and the amount of aid that Mounds View receives
in comparison with all other cities, he believes that Mounds View far out receives any of the
other cities in the coalition. He stated he has always maintained this is one of the best
investments in Mounds View.
Ms. Andrews advised that the thrift store in Mounds View Square has been reconf gored. The
Grand Reopening is scheduled for September 8, 2005, from 4-7 p.m. She invited all to attend to
see the reconfigured store and enjoy the entertainment. She also encouraged people to drop off
their surplus items so they can be recycled, noting that youth do the work.
Mayor Marty pointed out that for many of the kids, this is their first job and used as a training
facility for marketing and using a cash register so they are able to get a job somewhere else.
Councilmember Thomas stated she has visited the store several times and greatly respects the
program because the kids learn not only business skills but also interpersonal skills on how to
compliment and be critical while still being supportive of individuals. It also teaches the kids
how to speak up for themselves and interact with others. Councilmember Thomas stated this
program changes their perspective and gives them a new environment.
Mayor Many noted they are also open for adult volunteers. Ms. Andrews stated that is correct
• and announced they are open Tuesday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. and on Saturday
from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
• 5. PUBLIC INPUT
Barbara Haake, 3024 County Road I, stated she wanted to address the Festival in the Park that
was held yesterday. She stated this Festival has been held for many years and noted the letter
from Medtronic that was an invitation from them to come to Festival in the Park. She read a
portion of the letter that indicated: "We've arranged to sponsor the fireworks of the grand finale
of the Mounds View Festival in the Park on the evening of August 21St and it is our hope that the
fireworks will capture our excitement of becoming part of the community. Please consider this
your personal invitation to attend." She asked how Medtronic can write a letter to invite
residents to a Festival that is already theirs. She stated she is annoyed that Medtronic took over
the Festival, had a booth, and put their sign next to the music stage, which may lead one to
assume they also, perhaps, sponsored the music as well. She asked if this is what we want to
look like and expressed concern that the "M" in Mounds View will stand for Medtronic. Ms.
Haake stated that getting free balloons and free f reworks should not win over votes for their
project.
Ms. Haake stated she, along with many others, has been working on the Medtronic proposal for
five months and what is driving her is principal. She wants to get a fair deal for the citizens of
Mounds View and that is important for economics of Mounds View. She stated she dealt with
principals in the Legislature and may have lost some friends but felt she did her best. She stated
she wants this project to be the best it can be. She noted there are many viewpoints that will be
expressed in the meeting tonight and maybe concerns will be answered.
Councilmember Gunn responded by saying that she takes offense at Ms. Haake's statements.
She explained that the Festival committee members talk to each business, asking for money to
put on the Festival. She stated that she asked, they gave, just like Bethlehem Baptist who had the
whole field. She asked if Ms. Haake had pointed out that there were Bethlehem Baptist blue t-
shirts ail over the place. Councilmember Gunn stated Medtronic sponsored the fireworks and
Saturn sponsored the music but forgot their sign so she allowed Medtronic to put their sign on
the fence. She noted that the sign was taken down when it was time for the fireworks so no one's
view would be blocked. Councilmember Gunn stated the Medtronic sign was a good one, and
the saying on it was her idea. She stated the Festival received money from Bethlehem Baptist,
Saturn, and Medtronic. They are the three main sponsors and it is not a Medtronic festival but a
Mounds View Festival and Medtronic donated just like the rest of the people.
Mayor Marty noted that the City is currently in contract negotiations with Medtronic and asked if
there is a conflict since Councilmember Gunn is the Chairperson of the Festival.
Councilmember Gunn asked the audience not to "boo" her. She then excused herself from the
Council chambers for a few minutes.
Councilmember Thomas clarified that the City is not under contract negotiations. The
• negotiations are done, it was voted on, and the City is now in the development process. She
cautioned Mayor Marty to be careful of his question and how it is worded.
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 4
Mayor Marty asked if Medtronic had paid the Festival sponsorship prior to the negotiations.
Mary Scotch, 7806 Gloria Circle, said no one is putting anyone on the spot but the question is,
did Medtronic sponsor in the previous years before now. Councilmember Thomas stated she is
not on the committee and does not know.
Ms. Scotch stated that is a fair question. Councilmember Thomas stated that was not the
Mayor's question and that is why she urged caution.
Mr. Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated that Medtronic has not been a sponsor in the
past. He stated the community is hurt when put head-to-head with neighbors in a negative way
and he is begging the Council to take a stand, sit down with Medtronic, and talk this out. He
stated he does not think the contract has been signed, noting City Administrator Ulrich stated it
was just finalized from the July 8~' draft. Mr. McCarty asked all to go back to their roots, noting
Mounds View is full of nice people, as is Medtronic. He stated when driving someone out as
sweet as Councilmember Sherry Gunn, then that is the wrong thing to do. He asked for a standby
for two weeks and stated he will be happy to debate Mr. McCombs and search what their project
really means. Mr. McCarty stated Mounds View is an involved community and residents care
very deeply. Residents support a continuum of recreational programs and the golf course if a part
of that He stated he thinks the City can put that together with Medtronic and again asked the
Council to give residents two weeks to sort it out in calm and civil manner.
Councilmember Stigney stated this is a "cheap shot" on Medtronic by Ms. Haake and personally
thanked Medtronic for their contribution to the Festival in the Park for the fireworks. He stated
he hopes Medtronic also contributes in the future. If it was their first contribution, he welcomes
it and thinks Ms. Haake's attack was out of line.
Councilmember Thomas stated she works very hard to stay calm, rational, keep working
relationships with people, and not let things get into personal attacks. In response to Mr.
McCarry's request, she stated that two weeks will not do anything because the Council has
looked at those options and made the decision. Councilmember Thomas stated she will not go
back and do it again. The Council is done with the negotiations and the matter was voted on so
there is no negotiating anymore or participating in negotiations. She stated that whether this can
be talked out as rational adults and everyone stay calm, that is the stage where we are at. The
decision is made
Councilmember Flaherty stated that no one took more time on this and no one has had more
compassion than him and all worked very hard to look at all the variables so everything was
taken care of when the Council took the vote.
Mayor Marty stated he also did a lot of work, as did Councilmember Flaherty. He stated even
when he met with Roger McCombs he was trying to negotiate. But that is the consensus.
•
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 5
• Ken Glidden, 5240 Edgewood Drive, stated he has now heard that "negotiations are completed,
the contract is in place, and that is the end of the story." He stated he was not aware that was the
case and believes there are other matters before the Council that need to be dealt with before that
statement can be made. He stated it was published several times that Medtronic will make a one
time donation of $100,000 to School District 621 which has an annual budget of slightly under
$100 million a year for 2005 an 2006. Given the estimated property tax of $46,000 a year under
TIF, if they paid their normal estimate property tax of $563,000 a year without TIF, the school
district would receive roughly $160,000 a year. He asked Medtronic to pay their fair share
because the school district would benefit far more than from aone-time contribution of
$100,000. Mr. Glidden stated that is just the impact to the school district but there may be
additional funds for the City and the Northwest Youth and Family Services.
Councilmember Thomas explained that part of the TIF process is that the school district has to
approve any new TIF and the school district enthusiastically supported the development,
knowing that this and future tax base would not happen without this project.
Mr. Glidden asked if they knew the amount of taxes they were giving up. Councilmember
Thomas stated they knew the figures and that this would not happen without the project.
Mr. Glidden asked what the school district made their decision on to give up roughly $160,000 a
year.
• Mayor Marty asked City Administrator Ulrich to respond.
City Administrator Ulrich explained the school district looked at the increase in the market value
for levies placed by the school district. And, even though the project is in a TIF District, it was
important to the school district that the increase in the market value levy (for the total value of
the project) go on the levy base, which will lower the taxes for everyone within the district.
Mayor Marty stated that to his knowledge he, as Mayor and President of the EDA, has not yet
signed a contract. City Administrator Ulrich stated the terms of the development agreement have
been approved by the Council but is not yet executed. He explained the document is over 100
pages in length and there are "I's to dot, T's to cross," and pages to number
Jan Brink, 7800 Gloria Circle, gave her three minutes to Barbara Haake
Ms. Haake asked about the interest payment on $.14.8 million and how the interest rate would be
paid. She informed the audience that there are a series of questions at the podium that anyone
can ask. She suggested that City Attorney Riggs had previously stated that there would be no
interest on the $14.8 million but then Medtronic crossed that off the July 8~' contract and put in
5% interest. She asked how the City can not negotiate something less than 5% interest or no
interest whatsoever.
• Sid Inman, Ehlers & Associates, stated he is not familiar with the contract draft referred to by
Ms. Haake that did not have interest. He stated he is also not aware of any type of contract where
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 6
• a developer would install improvements and not be paid interest. He stated that a 5% interest
rate is probably 250 basis points lower than the current average lending rate. Most are at 650-
675 so 5% is a lower interest rate by market standard. He stated he can provide many examples,
if requested by the Council, but does not have them with him this evening.
Ms. Haake stated Medtronic has agreed to pay $9.65 million for the Bridges and asked why $1
million of the purchase cost is relabeled as reimbursement by Medtronic, in place of sale price,
which in effect lowers the park dedication fee by $100,000. It also places $150,000 back on
trails that they get to use.
Mayor Marty stated he also has that question.
City Administrator Ulrich explained the $865,000 is based on what Medtronic is paying the City
of Mounds View for the property. Part of the negotiations is that a portion of the park dedication
($150,000) would be used to improve the .adjacent land for public use that would also be
available to SYSCO and Medtronic employees as well as the public.
Ms. Haake stated the legislation indicated that the $1 million was to be paid in the revertor clause
and paid for by the City of Mounds View. She asked if Medtronic is paying $9.6 million, then
why is the City not getting another $100,000 from them.
Dan Hall, 2200 Highway 10, stated he was one of the first people who wants to keep things civil
• because all are interested in what is best for the citizens of Mounds View. He stated he would
not like to be told over the last two months that he was not looking out for what is best for
Mounds View and was being duped and taken advantage of by Medtronic. Mr. Hall noted this
type of comment is coming from the "nice side" but he does not see the same tactics being used
by the proponents who want to sell the golf course to someone to make it profitable. He stated it
is his belief that Mr. McCarty, Ms. Haake, and Mr. Amundsen want to stall it long enough so
Medtronic will go to another city. He stated it is evident to him that they are "grasping at
straws." He stated when you accuse people of dealing under the table and taking bribes, how can
you expect a civil conversation and work going back and forth. He stated he agrees with the
majority of the Council that due diligence has been done and the Council has done a good job.
Cindy Sebesta, 2146 Hillview Road, stated she believes that moving forward puts the residents of
Mounds View at risk for unwarranted and unwelcomed liability and it astounds her to think that
residents could be priced out of their homes. She stated that Bethlehem Baptist Church made a
$25,000 donation in place of tax money generated since it is in a TIF district. SYSCO, who
provides more jobs to residents, took a small TIF and it will be repaid in two years, which to her
seems reasonable. However, she is concerned with subsidizing amulti-million dollar company
that can afford to pay taxes and should be demonstrating good corporate citizenship, which
includes paying its fair share. Ms. Sebesta asked for a fair deal or no deal. She asked the
Council if they saw, read, and understood the contract related to redeveloping the golf course into
a Medtronic facility prior to voting on it.
•
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 7
• Mayor Marty stated he did not. He stated he contacted Mr. Ericson the on July 27, after the
second public hearing, and asked for a copy of the contract. Mr. Ericson provided him with a
copy, and all Councilmembers received a copy. Mayor Many stated that is when he started to
look at the contract. He stated the proposed development agreement and synopsis from the City
Attorney was received prior to the vote but the actual contract was not received until July 29
when City Administrator Ulrich was on vacation.
Councilmember Stigney stated the Council spent a long time negotiating the contract and he feels
it is an exceptional contract for Mounds View, is very fair, and wished all would "open their
eyes" to see what is coming instead of killing it for a golf course.
Councilmember Thomas stated she looked through the draft contract beforehand, reviewed the
development agreement, and found it contained all the conditions.
Councilmember Flaherty stated he has had a copy for a while now. He explained that the park
dedication fee was negotiated, the billboard buyout was negotiated, and the Council has been in
constant contact with the contract from when it was first presented. In response to the question,
"Have I seen it" Councilmember Flaherty responded, "Absolutely, I have before the vote."
Mayor Many asked when City Administrator Ulrich was on vacation. City Administrator Ulrich
stated he was on vacation until July 29~'. Mayor Many stated that is when I requested it.
• Councilmember Gunn stated she has the same information as the other Councilmembers and
attended the same meetings. All had the same information.
Councilmember Thomas stated the draft contract was available at City Hall and available to be
reviewed.
Ms. Haake stated there is a problem with the zoning of the 72 acres of the golf course and there is
a petition that will be certified whether or not it is sufficient. She referenced Ordinance No. 720
that was passed on October 13, 2003, amending the Zoning Code to make the Public Facilities
District into an Industrial District. Then Ordinance No. 721 made that permitted district, under I-
1, to be golf courses. Ms. Haake stated she reviewed all of the City's ordinances and that was the
only zoning change. However, the law states that when the City does a legislative action, it must
be by ordinance. She stated the City has done a Comprehensive Plan Amendment but the City
has not rezoned this property. Ms. Haake stated that will be the City's next step.
Director Ericson stated the property is zoned Industrial and an office use is consistent with an
industrial zoning district.
Carol Mueller, 8343. Groveland Road, stated her heart aches at what the City is going through but
she believes it makes the residents stronger and she is proud of the residents and Council for
what they are doing and going through. She stated all will survive and be better for it. Ms.
• Mueller stated she is concerned about the City Charter.
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 8
• Ms. Mueller stated in October of 1978 the residents adopted a City Charter that protects the
rights of residents and is available for viewing on the City's web site. She referenced Sections
5.01 and 5.02 that deal with the sale of property and stated there have been volunteers in the
community who have passed petitions and received enough signatures. She indicated that since
they carefully and successfully followed the provision of the Charter, she hopes and prays that if
the Council finds the petition sufficient, they will honor the City Charter, and offer this matter to
a referendum.
Councilmember Thomas cautioned the Mayor to not allow any derogatory remarks to City staff
who work hard to do what the Council has asked them to do. She urged residents to refrain from
those types of comments.
Kathy Olan, 8245 Spring Lake Park Road, pointed out that until recently citizens were informed
of one land value appraisal at the Bridges placed at $10 million by Orion Appraisers of Vadnais
Heights. At the July 25, 2005 meeting, staff rebuttal to a citizen statement claimed there were
two, not just one, commercial appraisal. She asked who did the second appraisal and what was
the recommended value.
Mayor Marty stated the City commissioned one appraisal.
City Administrator Ulrich explained that one appraisal was done by the State on the 40 acres and
indicated it was worth $3.6 million or $90,000 an acre. So, if extrapolated over the entire
• property, it is a value of just less than what the City is getting in the offer.
Ms. Olan stated she does not think the citizens of Mounds View are getting the best deal. She
stated she does not support the deal and is sorry that some people are shaking their heads and
indicating it is a "done deal." She stated she hopes residents will get to vote and then, at that
point, she will feel all right about the deal.
Ken Glidden, 5240 Edgewood Drive, stated he is speaking again in response to other questions.
He stated he was active in getting petition signatures but that does not put him in opposition to
anything because it is a provision of the City Charter and that is the option they took. He
suggested that calling for a referendum gives the citizens of Mounds View the opportunity to
vote on whether it is or is not a good deal. He stated when he was talking to residents, essentially
90% of them signed the petition. Mr. Glidden stated he thinks the City should be still
negotiating. He stated he gathered over 100 of the 1,200 signatures on the petition and urged the
Council to let residents vote. He asked if that is not what the soldiers are establishing in
Afghanistan and Iraq, to allow people the right to vote. He stated that is not opposition to
anything but utilizing the democratic government to weigh whether it is a good deal. He stated
one makes a decision when one votes. Mr. Glidden stated he knows that people do not believe it
is a good deal and urged the Council to please honor the democratic process.
Mary Kay Walsh stated everyone just heard from the Northwest Youth and Family Services
representatives that there is a huge amount of need and funding lost at the federal level so the
"buck stops" at each citizen to fund everything. However, some do not have sufficient work to
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 9
• provide their own needs. She stated it is important for Mounds View to get the best deal
possible for this very prime property that is close to two major freeways, and an airport. She
stated this property should be of great value to residents of Mounds View and the developer. Ms.
Walsh pointed out that citizens are also giving up access to an amenity of a golf course. She
stated she has questions about the terms of the contract and stated her understanding that State
statutes stipulate TIF Districts should only go for a term of 8 years but Medtronic is receiving a
25-year TIF term.
Mayor Marty explained there are different types of TIF Districts. One is for redevelopment for
blighted property or buildings created before 1990. Another is for contaminated soils. He noted
there are no buildings at the golf course constructed before 1990 and the soil testing was okay.
Because of that, the Legislature indicated the only type of TIF District to qualify would be an
economic development district that is capped at 8 years. It was then lobbied for and extended by
the Legislature to run an additional 17 years.
Ms. Walsh asked if this legislation occurred during the extended session. Commissioner Thomas
answered it occurred during the regular session.
Ms. Walsh asked when residents will hear whether the referendum will take place. Mayor Many
answered that it is an agenda item for tonight.
Ms. Walsh asked about the indemnification and if there is a way to know how much it may cost
• Mounds View residents. City Attorney Riggs explained the liability is capped for what is being
transferred to Medtronic fora $200,000 fee.
Ms. Walsh asked what that means. Councilmember Thomas explained that if something occurs,
liability is capped at $200,000 as the EDA. She noted that environmental studies have been done
and it is not believed that anything will come up.
City Administrator Ulrich further explained that should environmental contamination show up,
the City's liability would be capped at $200,000. Environmental liability that carries with the
property is a separate item and if there should be an environmental issue that causes liability then
the City, because of the nature of environmental law and chain of title, could be brought back in.
He stated there is no way to predict and he cannot estimate a dollar.
Ms. Walsh asked if catastrophic environmental insurance is available. City Administrator Ulrich
stated there may be if you are willing to pay the premium but he does not know what it would
cost.
Mary Burg, New Brighton Councilmember, stated they had negotiations with Medtronic until
mid-June when they learned New Brighton was not a site being considered. She stated the New
Brighton Council looked at catastrophic insurance and found a 10-year policy to cover the
$250,000 cap that is set by the State. The policy was for $700,000 and would go for 10 years.
Ms. Burg stated they were concerned at that time because while contamination was not on their
site, people would possible sue because of "deep pockets." She mentioned that she had called
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page ZO
• two of her colleagues about the interest question and both indicated that they did not recall that
New Brighton included interest payments in their TIF Districts.
Dennis Hammes, 5511 Quincy, stated he spoke at the Town Hall meeting and while he is not
"for" or "against" Medtronic, he is having a hard time considering a 25-year TIF district. He
stated it does not seem right, is too high, and he does not think Medtronic really needs it. Mr.
Hammes stated when he collected signatures for the petition, he said this is something the
residents need to vote on, and did not make statements against Medtronic. He stated this should
be a decision for the residents of Mounds View and not five people because it is too much of a
burden for five people. He stated the entire community should be involved.
Connie Hammes, 5511 Quincy, pointed out that only Phase 1 is guaranteed in the draft purchase
agreement and contract. Phases 2 and 3 show tentative starting dates of 2012 and 2017. Full
development is optional and dependent upon future financial assistance for Phases 2 and 3. She
asked if both Phases 2 and 3 occur by additional future subsidies, what are the projections
concerning TIF as a percentage of the City's future tax capacity.
Director Ericson stated staff has not considered those numbers because there are too many
variables to even guess what will happen in 10 to 15 years. He stated at this point he does not
know what the property values will be or the impact to the City.
Ms. Hammes noted that Medtronic indicates no part of the purchase is for speculation or land
• holding. The draft contract is relevant only to Phase 1. There is no enforceable obligation
regarding sale or assignment for Phases 2 and 3. She asked if the Council has considered
subdividing Phase 1 construction, holding any balance of the Bridges property as a public asset,
contingent upon Medtronic's first right of refusal for future development phases.
Councilmember Thomas explained that Phases 2 and 3, as far as projected development, is going
up, not out, so it would have the same footprint. Because of that, there is no way to subdivide
out properties for future phases.
Mayor Marty stated it was his understanding that Medtronic wanted the whole deal.
City Attorney Riggs stated it is diff cult to deal with "what ifs" down the road. This
development contract deals with Phase 1 construction of approximately an 8,200 square foot
footprint of development. The contract defines the development property and the EDA has to
consent to any assignments or sales so the City does have that control right now.
Joan Dofney, 7801 Gloria Circle, stated this is the second year that City Administrator Ulrich has
worked in Mounds View. She asked City staff if they live in Mounds View. All staff members
present indicated they do not.
Ms. Dofney asked if any of the Medtronic representatives in attendance live in Mounds View.
• She stated the Council has been voted in to represent her and those who signed the petition. She
stated all would agree this is a large multi-million dollar deal with a health provider for people
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 11
around the world. She asked each Councilmember if any had negotiated a deal of this
magnitude. All Councilmembers, Director Ericson, .and Finance Director Beer indicated they
had not. Ms. Dofney asked City Administrator Ulrich and City Attorney Riggs if they had
negotiated a deal of this magnitude. Both indicated they had not.
Ms. Dofney agreed this is a big deal. She stated she knows all care about the City as does she, a
32-year resident. She stated this is a tough situation and asked if Medtronic would be willing to
renegotiate because of resident's concern and good questions. Ms. Dofney stated that most
believe in the "golden rule" but commented that most know that "those who have the gold rule."
She stated she knows Medtronic has a lot of money and asked if the City is getting the best deal.
She stated she hates to leave this burden up to the Council and noted there are many educated
and knowledgeable people who want to assure we get the best deal and jobs.
Mayor Marty stated a Mounds View Medtronic employee is in attendance tonight.
John Kopis, 2222 County Highway 10, stated his business has sold carpet to people who bought
a home in Mounds View which is beneficial to him. He stated he talked to many businesses in
Mounds View and every single person he spoke with is excited that Medtronic is coming to
Mounds View. He emphasized that that the business community really supports it. Mr. Kopis
stated he does not have a home in Mounds View but does have a building as big as 10 houses,
pays a lot of taxes, and works 60-70 hours a week so he can pay his taxes. He stated he wants the
Council to know this is a good thing for the City of Mounds View and while nothing is perfect,
• and 25 years may be a bit too long, it is a good thing. He stated it is important to have Medtronic
in Mounds View and he would be proud to say they are where he has a business. Mr. Kopis
stated almost every week or day someone comes in for donations and he has donated money for
fireworks. He stated he resents it when you have been asked to make a donation and are then
criticized for it.
Mayor Marty stated he knows John Kopis works 60-70 hours a week.
Jon McKusick, 8465 Eastwood Road, asked if they are paying interest to other TIF districts.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman answered in the affirmative.
Ms. Haake reviewed the Light Industrial zoning language on that property and indicated that it
applies if Medtronic is going to have 50% of the principal building devoted to office or storage or
warehousing of merchandise. She referenced the Planning Commission meeting minutes of
January 19, 2005 and February 2, 2005 public hearing on this particular public facility. At one
time it was zoning to Industrial I-1 and stating that the office designation most likely correlated
with the planned office complex development. She stated she goes back to what she said
previously and thinks the attorney should look at it again. She stated she thinks a zoning change
is needed so it correlates to the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Haake stated the Comprehensive Plan
amendment the City did calls for this to be an office space. That means there has to be a zoning
class of Office. Ms. Haake stated there has to be a zoning change, which would require an
• ordinance. She indicated that will then kick off, all over again, another petition.
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 12
• Ms. Haake stated residents elected the Council and it puts the Council in a tough spot. She noted
that the attorney may say if Mounds View doesn't go through with it then Medtronic will sue us.
But she thinks Medtronic cares for their public image and does not want their name "blackened."
She stated if Medtronic feels they have done the right thing by Mounds View and been a
wonderful neighbor, then residents will know that. She stated they are just asking for a vote and
more information. They believe the City needs to go through the contract more thoroughly
because residents do not believe all of the terms are fair to the City. They want to be of help to
the Council and future generations. She stated that Medtronic is a great company and she would
agree with $235,000 an acre and an 8-year TIF District.
Director Ericson explained that with zoning there is often a time when you need to interpret the
Zoning Code and he stands by the fact that an office type of use is a consistent use within the I-1
zoning district. Otherwise the City will need to kick out a number of its office uses within the
City. He stated that the project planned will have to go through a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) on the site which, in essence, is a rezoning consistent with the anticipated use of 820,000
square feet of office.
Brian Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, asked if there has been any language added or stricken
from the final terms of the contract since the July 11 version. City Attorney Riggs stated not as
to terms decided by the Council but as to semantics and to make all provisions work together.
He stated he could outline those semantic changes, if desired.
• Mr. Amundsen asked if all changes were purely semantically. City Attorney Riggs answered in
the affirmative and stated the contract is consistent with what the EDA and Council adopted. If
there is to be a change in terms, an amendment would be needed and it would have to come back.
Mr. Amundsen asked about the status of the street project and whether any projects would be
occurring in 2006. He stated he feels some obligation to come back to his neighbors, maybe in
the form of a petition, about street improvements. He asked if the City is still moving forward
with Option 3.
Public Works Director Lee advised that at this point the City is not planning a street project in
2006 because there is no time to put together the plans and specifications and go through the
public hearing. The City does have plans for the area that Mr. Amundsen lives in and the City
could go with that since a public hearing was held for that area. Staff is now evaluating the
streets and updating the pavement condition index. That data will be used to determine which
area to next consider.
Councilmember Thomas stated this issue was discussed at a Council worksession as well as what
streets really need to be done. She explained this involves building a project from scratch and it
needs to be defended what project should be done first.
Mary Scotch, 7806 Gloria Circle, stated she knows Councilmember Gunn worked very hard on
• the Festival in the Park but she wants to address the fact of looking at the deal because the
bottom line is that the golf course is the only asset residents have. She stated she has been asking
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 13
. for eight years to have someone address Spring Lake. She asked what is the bottom factor, and
whether the $5 million the City is getting is going to improve the highway corridor for the next
five to six years, or whether the City will have to wait for the TIF to come in.
Mayor Many stated he still questions where the $5 million will come from because the golf
course owes $4.2 million and is selling for $8.65 million so the City does not have a full $5
million left. Also, the money going to MnDOT will not benefit the City to spend. Mayor Marty
reviewed a calculation he made and stated it equals $148,000 a year (without interest or
investment). He stated the City could invest that money.
Ms. Scotch stated Medtronic wants to come to Mounds View and she would like to see them in
Mounds View but just wants the best deal. She stated that a lot of residents think this deal is
done but she feels there are other ways this can be addressed.
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated a lot of comments have been made but there is also a
silent majority. He noted the City took a survey and even if the petition had 2,000 signatures, it
would be a small percentage. He stated he also went to homes and heard the opposite. He noted
that senior citizens don't come to the meeting or speak out but they are worried about a small
majority taking over. Mr. Jahnke stated the Council, attorney, and Ehlers studied this deal. He
stated he thinks all have looked at it closely and he gives them all credit. He stated this is a big
project and it is not easy to sit on the Council and take the criticism. However, when you look at
the petition it is a minority, not a majority. He stated they are not speaking for the residents of
• Mounds View and he will speak for himself. Mr. Jahnke stated the survey is what spoke for the
residents. He noted this minority group is now asking for another two weeks but it is only a ploy
to delay this project that is very important for the future of Mounds View. Mr. Jahnke stated the
.Council has done an excellent job and the lawyers can be depended on to decipher the contract
and assure it is done correctly. He stated you could pick on small issues in the contract for the
next five years and while it isn't a perfect world, he thinks the Council did a perfect job.
Bill Schweigert, South Gray Cloud Trail, stated he does not live in Mounds View but has 130
acres and wonders if there is an amount of money that would kill the opposition, maybe an extra
fifty percent. He stated everyone likes Medtronic and it will be a "feather in the City's cap" to
have them in Mounds View but there is a question of fairness and some people think this is not a
fair deal. He stated what makes this deal seductive is the number of jobs and economic boost.
However, bringing in the jobs will also bring in school-aged children who will have to be
educated. He pointed out that if the City's portion of property tax is $43,000, and if the
Medtronic units cost $25,000 each, selling two units a year would be enough to pay their
property tax bill. He stated Medtronic is a $4 billion company, which is equivalent to 4,000 one
million dollar bills. They are going to count out ten of them for the City. He stated this is like a
man buying a used car who can easily pay another $1,000 but enjoys the game of negotiation. He
stated the car buyer may walk out, but he thinks Medtronic would be a fool to walk out of this
area.
• Naja Werner, 50 year resident of Mounds View, stated she has spoken to a lot of people about
the Medtronic deal and is getting opinions contrary to those presenting the petition. She stated
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 14
she is finding most favor having Medtronic here and believe it is the best thing to happen to
Mounds View. Ms. Werner stated she agrees. She noted that this golf course has existed for ten
years, has lost money constantly, and there is now a $4 million debt. The golf course borrows
money from the City and is not making any money. She stated Medtronic will allow the City to
pay off the debt on the golf course, the City will not have to pay golf course staff salaries, the
City is getting some money from the sale that can be used for other purposes, and the school
district and park fund are also getting money. Ms. Werner stated she believes the Council has
done a tremendous job, Councilmember Gunn did a commendable job on the Festival in the
Park, and Ms. Haake owes her an apology. She concluded by saying Mounds View is the City of
Trees and home to Medtronic.
Stan Meyer, 2812 Sherwood Road, stated people talk about taking sides and that is why they
want it on a referendum, so everyone can have a vote and have their say. He stated if the Council
is sure of themselves, why not put it up to a vote. In regard to new jobs, he stated he heard
Councilmember Thomas say it was not producing any new net jobs for residents of Mounds
View. He stated residents of Mounds View are who to jobs are for, not residents of New
Brighton or someplace else. Otherwise, it does not help Mounds View. He stated Medtronic. has
been throwing around numbers of people to be hired at Medtronic and people will believe what
they want but that is disingenuous and putting something out there that does no good.
Valerie Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, stated this should not be a decisive issue but has
become just that. She applauded that people are encouraged to come and express diverse
• opinions. She stated all what is best for the City and she supports this going to a vote of the
citizens because then we will know that the City is 100% behind the project. Ms. Amundsen
stated this 72 acres is a "jewel" and one of the last treasures of undeveloped land in Mounds
View. She stated there is a lot of talk about the Vikings coming into Blaine and asked what will
happen with the value of this land if that project happens. Ms. Amundsen stated she believes the
value will skyrocket and prospective offers will "come out of the woodwork." She stated she
views herself to be part stockholder in that land along with the other 12,500 residents. She stated
if someone asked if she wanted to sell her stock in the land fora $2 dividend for all future
possibilities the land holds, she would be viewed as crazy. She stated she may support an 8-year
TIF District. She views herself as a stakeholder of the City and while Medtronic is a great
company, this project should not be built on the backs of the citizens of Mounds View.
Bill Werner, 2765 Sherwood Road, said Ms. Amundsen said she would agree if it was an 8 year
TIF District but he would suggest that it be kept longer than 8 years if it will be worth more. He
stated his. question is where will we be if we do or don't do the deal. He stated if the City does
not do the deal there will be no money for anything, including streets. If the deal is not done, the
golf course still will not make any money even if the billboards do bring in $250,000. Mr.
Werner stated this is an opportunity to clear off that mess.
Mr. Werner stated his opinion that the $2 million community center was built for $6.2 million
and now people who made those past decision are asking, "what should we do now." He stated
the Medtronic deal will allow the City to pay off its debts and the Council is now supporting the
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 15
• residents of the City, not like past Councils. Mr. Werner stated that he does not care how long
the TIF District lasts and thinks the Council should go for the deal and pay off the debts.
Jan Brink, 7800 Gloria Circle, stated there is a misconception. She stated those in opposition to
the Medtronic deal have conceded that they have Lost the golf course and know it is gone and
done but they want a referendum because they oppose the specific terms of the contract. She
stated they feel the residents are not getting a fair deal and she is asking the Council to have the
integrity to allow residents to have that vote.
Mayor Marty called a recess at 9:49 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:01 p.m.
Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated the golf course has been in the "red" for years acid
the Councils. have taken care of that in the form of the billboard contract. He suggested that the
golf course will be in the black by 2012 in terms of outstanding bonds, by 2017 on interfund
loans, and in the "black" eight years before the TIF District expires. Then, at that point, it will be
valued at $48 million. He stated it is not a "big looser," but just needs a little time.
Mr. Werner stated that is an expensive golf course because it will be sitting there, it hasn't made
any money, and will keep borrowing money.
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated the billboard money is Mounds View money and the
golf course should stand on its own. He stated that is why eleven golf courses were closed this
• past year. Mr. Jahnke pointed out that only 20% of the citizens golf and 80% are from outside of
Mounds View and say, "good old Mounds View, they don't know what is going on."
Mary Kay Walsh, 8345 Pleasant View Drive, stated whether the golf course makes money is not
important because it adds oxygen and is an amenity to the City. She noted that Medtronic will
use $11 million of Mounds View TIF money and use it to buy property in Blaine for a parking
lot. She stated more issues should be addressed and it should go to a referendum. She stated she
hopes more information will come out because if the City does not get enough money for the
property, it will not be a good deal.
Mayor Marty stated the total amount is $14.8 million and of that some goes to roads,
infrastructure, water, sewer, and other qualified costs. The total amount to Blaine is just over $2
million, not $11 million.
Connie Hammes, 5511 Quincy, stated when she took the petition around people were concerned
about the extra traffic on the roads and asked if they will be improved. She pointed out that
Medtronic will also add traffic to 35W which is already a bottleneck so traffic will be cutting
through City streets. In addition, it will bring forward more police calls. She reviewed that
Councilmember Stigney had said at a meeting a year and a half ago that hiring two officers was
not in purview of the Council because it cost $147,000. Ms. Hammes noted this is a lot more
than that and encouraged the Council to let Medtronic stand on their own.
•
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 16
• 7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS
This Agenda Item was considered after Agenda Item 8, Council Business.
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. 7:05 p.m.: Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6590 Approving a
PUD Amendment for SYSCO Minnesota to Expand Their Facility at 2400
Co. Road J
B. 7:10 p.m.: Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6591 Approving
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the SYSCO Minnesota Facility
Expansion
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 10:08 p.m.
Community Development Director Ericson explained that the project was approved in 1989 and,
at that time, Outlot A of 46 acres was passed to the City for open space and envisioned for trails
or public amenity. A small triangle of Land was used to develop the golf course. SYSCO is now
asking for 3 acres back to allow for 100 new employees to be added to their workforce, the
addition of 100 vehicle parking stalls, 50 truck parking stalls, incorporate the relocation of a
drive access from County Road J, and provide greater maneuverability for trucks. He explained
that the SYSCO project is a PUD approved in 1989 for the use it is currently operating. No
change in land use is being proposed. It will remain as a food distribution company. Director
Ericson advised that SYSCO is currently short on vehicle and truck parking areas. The
additional axea allows for parking a truck once instead of moving one out to bring in another.
Director Ericson advised that in addition, a Comprehensive Plan amendment is needed since it is
a passive open area and SYSCO is guided as a Heavy Industrial use. He explained that by
attaching that 3 acre sliver of property to the SYSCO property, it makes sense to rezone it to
Heavy Industrial. The Planning Commission reviewed the request, recommends approval, and
found that the Comprehensive Plan amendment would be consistent.
Director Ericson stated the City is the adjacent property owner and staff believes there would be
no adverse effects. The property in question is currently tax exempt and this would bring it back
onto the tax rolls and allow SYSCO to maintain its operation in Mounds View. The
Comprehensive Plan land use amendment vacation will be sent to the Metropolitan Council and
adjoining property owners. Director Ericson recapped that staff and the Planning Commission
believe the Comprehensive Plan amendment should be approved and will help SYSCO address
their future and current needs as a business. He noted there are two draft resolutions for the
Council's consideration and that representatives of SYSCO are in attendance to answer questions
the Council may have.
. Phil Seipp, President of SYSCO Minnesota, stated he would be happy to answer questions of the
Council or audience.
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 17
• Councilmember Stigney asked how much additional taxes will be realized. Director Ericson
stated staff has not done that analysis but could determine that number if desired by the Council.
Councilmember Stigney noted they are asking for $250,000 of TIF and asked whether it will
bring additional tax base to the City. He asked what is the benefit of the City and stated he
believes cutting down the trees will be an adverse effect on the City.
Director Ericson stated there are impacts as a result of the land transfer and the relocation of the
storm water management plan would result in some trees coming out. He explained there is also
about one acre of designated wetland that would need to be mitigated. The Rice Creek
Watershed District and the DNR have indicated they would prefer to not have that mitigation
occur adjacent to the site and risk losing all the trees. They suggested the mitigation occur
somewhere else where trees would not be mitigated. Director Ericson advised that every single
significant tree to be removed, 77 of them, will be replaced but not on a one-to-one basis. He
stated there will be added value but staff does not know what that dollar amount will be. He
stated there is currently no obligations on the site and sufficient funds will be available to make
the TIF payments.
Councilmember Stigney stated he would like to know the timeframe to pay back the $250,000 for
putting in the driveway and parking spaces. He stated that he does not believe it is a good trade
off to replace mature tall trees, 100 feet or more, with small trees. Economic Development
Coordinator Backman stated the project is approximately is $1.2 million, should add about
$15,000 in property taxes each year, and generate over $300,000 a year in TIF increment. He
advised that the trees are primarily cottonwoods, not hardwoods, so there are some options to
have good replacement trees.
Councilmember Thomas noted it is also adding jobs.
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 10:20 p.m.
Councilmember Stigney stated it is proposed they will generate 100 jobs in the next five years
but nothing is in the documentation. Director Ericson stated it is a condition of the TIF financing
that 20 jobs per year must be added over each of 5 years. If that does not occur, a portion of the
TIF would have to be paid back to the City.
Councilmember Stigney asked if the City gets information each year on the jobs created.
Director Ericson answered in the affirmative.
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Thomas. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6590
Approving a Planned Unit Development and Development Agreement Amendment for SYSCO
Minnesota; Planning Case PA 2005-0002.
• Mayor Marty referenced Page 5, Community Profile and Background, Consistency with Council
Policy, and asked whether wetland credits will be purchased off site to lessen impact to the
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 18
• wooded area. He stated he would like ponding to be created somewhere on the SYSCO Outlot
A.
Councilmember Thomas noted that Outlot A is owned by the City, not SYSCO.
Mayor Marty stated he does not want the wetland credits purchased from Blaine or another city.
Mayor Marty read a section of the agreement related to costs of preparing and reviewing the
wetland permit and that all attorney fees will be paid by SYSCO. He referenced Page 11,
subsection M, indicating: "The Developer shall allow for a gravel access drive to be constructed
adjacent to the relocated stormwater pond to provide access to billboards on City land and shall
agree to provide reasonable site access to billboard leaseholders, their agents and representatives
for periodic maintenance and ad copy updates." He asked if this would be a new gravel access
road.
Director Ericson stated it would be a new access and tie with another project. He stated staff is
looking at a relocated billboard on the SYSCO property and this access would be one means to
accomplish that.
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Stigney) Motion carried.
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Flaherty. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6591
• Approving the Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Passive Open Space (OSP) to Heavy
Industrial (HI) on Three Acres of SYSCO Outlot A to be transferred from the City to SYSCO
Minnesota; Planning Case CP2005-0001.
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Stigney) Motion carried.
C. 7:15 p.m.: Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6592 Approving
the General Concept Plan of the Medtronic Planned Unit Development
Mayor Marty opened the Public Hearing at 10:26 p.m.
Community Development Director Ericson reviewed that on June 27, 2005, the City Council and
Economic Development Authority (EDA) authorized an agreement with Medtronic, Inc. to
redevelop the Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course. Subsequently, the Council adopted
Ordinance 760, an ordinance approving the transfer of land from the City of Mounds View to the
Mounds View EDA and then subsequently to Medtronic.
Director Ericson explained that the general concept plan is the first step to consider. He noted
Phase 1 will involve two buildings on the western side of the site. The two buildings will each
be approximately eight stories in height with approximately 50,000 square feet of space on each
level and connected by a lower level commons. He stated there is a phasing schedule for the
• building and parking. Phase 1 will have 820,000 square feet of office space, 3,000 parking stalls
with 2,100 being structured stalls and 900 being surface stalls. Phase 2 is one additional building
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 19
• of 380,000 more square feet of office space and 1,400 more structured parking stalls by adding
two more levels onto the Phase 1 parking structure so it would equal five levels of parking.
Phase 3 finishes the project with the fourth building, of 300,000 more square feet of office space,
additional atrium space, and 1,600 structured parking stalls in a four-level ramp that would be
located in Blaine. While the ramp is being constructed, a number of surface. stalls will be
displaced so there will be surface stalls on the other side of the ramp. Then, once the ramp is
completed, that area will be returned to green space.
Director Ericson stated there would be a total of four buildings total that are connected by an
atrium space, a parking ramp in Mounds View and in Phase 3 a parking ramp in the City of
Blaine. He stated that this is a significant project and at 1,500,000 square feet it will be the
single largest building in Mounds View and the largest for Medtronic in the world.
Director Ericson advised that the City of Blaine would like to see the plans and have a
presentation before their Council. Blaine staff indicates they fully support the project and
anticipate that the Council will be supportive of the project moving forward.
Director Ericson stated the Planning Commission conducted an informal review of this project
on July 20, 2005 and there was no opposition at that point. He stated that he is unsure whether
the project at that meeting was being reviewed as an eight-story building. At the August 3, 2005
meeting, the Planning Commission voted on the general concept plan and the motion failed on a
3/3 tied vote. However they did not subsequently make a resolution of denial. Subsequently
• they reviewed this and have no opinion, neither recommending approval or denial. The Planning
Commission is concerned with the height of the 8-story building and had not yet received
documentation from the FAA about that height. However, staff has now received a response
from the FAA indicating the building height is not a concern. But the FAA did not address the
height of the crane during construction.
Director Ericson stated there are other steps with the PUD but this is the first step and gives the
City the opportunity to review what Medtronic is thinking. This general concept plan does not
address sizes or setbacks or elevations of the building. However, once the Council reviews and
holds the public hearing, then Medtronic would come back with the site plan that contains those
details.
Director Ericson recapped that Phase 1 is for 820,000 square feet of office space in two
buildings, connecting atrium area, 2,100 structured parking stalls and 900 surface parking stalls..
Mayor Marty asked representatives of Medtronic if they have comments.
Barbara Haake, 3024 County Road I, stated the PUD is going to require a Zoning Code change
and asked when that is planned to occur.
Director Ericson explained that typically with a PUD, they get through the general concept plan
• and general development plan and then consider first reading of an ordinance to approve the
PUD. On second reading, the ordinance would effectuate the rezoning. Director Ericson
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 20
• explained there is some flexibility as to when it will occur but it will occur as a result of the PUD
application since it is a rezoning from the Industrial zoning to a PUD. In doing a PUD, it gives
the City greater flexibility in how it is developed, greater density, and preservation of wetlands
and additional open spaces.
Ms. Haake asked if the PUD allows more building stories. Director Ericson stated that is correct.
Ms. Haake asked if the PUD has to be done before any site work or removal of trees. Director
Ericson stated it will be done before "shovels are out there."
Ms. Haake stated it will be a zoning ordinance change and residents can have a referendum on a
rezoning.
City Attorney Riggs advised there was a case in the Minnesota Court of Appeals in 2002
regarding a Best Buy project in Richfield called "Nordmarken versus the City of Richfield." The
Court of Appeals has stated, this is the basic holding, that the referendum would be in conflict
with State law; that State Law preempted the Charter with respect to land use issues. City
Attorney Riggs stated that is the State law on the books and it is very recent. In response to Ms.
Haake's question, City Attorney Riggs stated the answer would be likely no. That would not be
subject to referendum and courts have ruled on it very recently, within the last three years.
Ms. Haake stated there is another case study called "Denny versus Duluth" and in that case it
• does state that any zoning change has got to be done by ordinance and it is a legislative act.
City Attorney Riggs clarified that is not what Nordmarken found.
Ms. Haake stated it is and there has to be research on that and she would be happy to hear what
that research found. She stated it is her understanding that would be open to referendum as far as
she understands with court cases.
Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated yes it has been his experience in 15 years of
elected office that all zoning changes were done by ordinance and in some cases, down zoning
for example, needs afour-fifths votes. He stated the Denny versus Duluth case was a Supreme
Court decision, not Court of Appeals, in 1968. In that case zoning was determined to be a
legislative police power act and will be subject to referendum under the City Charter. He stated
the information that residents have been receiving has been very confusing and he doesn't want
to go down that road so far that it can't be stopped. He stated he had attended a Rotary meeting
where Medtronic presented that the City would get $169,000 a year in all fees, $43,000 a year in
real estate taxes, and $46,000 a year in administrative fees. However, if this is TIF related it
cannot be used in the general fund. He noted there is an $80,000 franchise fee, which the City
has been trying to get rid of and to put the fee on property tax. He suggested Medtronic check
with the business community who has been against that type of fee for a long time. He stated
there are still many issues with this contract and he is open to a discussion with Mr. McCombs.
• Ken Glidden, 5240 Edgewood Drive, stated he does not know what the commitment step
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 21
• involves by taking action on this resolution but believes it is premature. He stated if it is in the
early stage planning, that is reasonable but if it commits the City to anything it seems premature
to him. He stated what most concerns him is the implied suggestion that there is some way to
avoid allowing the citizens of Mounds View to have any say in this rezoning. He asked why the
City would take any steps to do that as the City Attorney has suggested, that there may be a court
case that disallows a referendum. He stated that seems odd to him.
Cam Obert, 8315 Greenwood Drive, stated it seems like the "cart is ahead of the horse" and
asked if another agenda item tonight relates to citizen input. He stated he talked to many in the
north side neighborhoods about this topic and all want to know what is going on with the streets.
He suggested it is hard to repair the streets if you change an 8 year TIF into 25 years so you
cannot draw any money out of it. He stated this whole deal should be tabled and the Council
should first decide if they should proceed. He stated it seems everyone wants to push the
concerns "under the rug" and he would like the questions answered.
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated the City has studied the general concept plan and
should approve it and not waste any more time. He stated the plan looks good and if the building
is too high, sink it into the ground a little ways.
Jan Brink, 7800 Gloria Circle, asked staff to point out the location of the golf course features.
Director Ericson complied with the request and explained the proposal is to sell alI of the golf
course and driving range. He also noted the location of the parcel that the City owns that is
• located in the City of Blaine and proposed for parking area.
Ms. Brink asked if the plan is to keep the golf course and build around it. Director Ericson stated
the golf course would go away and this project would be built on the developed part of the City-
owned golf course.
Brian Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, asked why the pond is in a triangle. Director Ericson
stated it is how the pond was originally created.
Mr. Amundsen asked where the trail system would be located. Director Ericson stated it has
been discussed internally but not discussed with Medtronic because it is up to the City where the
trail system would be located.
Councilmember Thomas noted that the golf course area by the wetland pond would also be torn
up so the pond could be expanded.
Director Ericson advised of the impact to wetlands and location of Judicial Ditch #1 that will be
shifted closer to the periphery of the property line. He stated Medtronic is designing it to be
more of a meandering stream and amenity to the Rice Creek Watershed District. Because that
would be relocated, it is considered to be a wetland that needs to be mitigated. He noted the
location on the site where the wetland would be expanded to compensate for the relocated
• judicial ditch. Director Ericson stated Medtronic has indicated they do not envision it to be a
manicured high-maintenance lawn area but, rather, a natural grass or wildflower area.
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 22
An audience member asked about the locations of the phases. Director Ericson used a site map
to identify the location of the buildings in Phases 1, 2 and 3, the parking ramp, and surface
parking areas.
Mr. McCarty asked if there will be additional business subsidies for Phases 2 and 3. Director
Ericson stated the business subsidies being considered relate to Phase 1.
Mr. McCarty asked if it is a "given" and that opportunity is preserved to allow for additional
business subsidies for future phases. Director Ericson stated the contract under consideration
relates only to Phase 1 and does not tie this or future Councils to subsequent TIF or subsidy for
this project.
City Attorney Riggs explained the current contract only covers Phase 1 and the financing for
Phase L Any other financing request would have to stand on its own and be compliant with
State law.
Mr. McCarty stated the current contract indicates that future subsidies will not be unreasonably
withheld for Phases 2 and 3. He asked if this Council is signing the contract with that proviso
included.
City Attorney Riggs stated the Council will not bind itself at this point in time and any request
made would have to follow the same process with a public hearing and the butlfor test would be
implicated. He stated that is the general concept that is being considered.
Mr. McCarty asked if the commitments of this Council cannot be held to future Councils.
Mayor Marty stated if Phase 1 is approved and Medtronic comes in, then the City will want
Phases 2 and 3 to also be constructed on Mounds View property to capture all the taxes
potentially available at some date and time.
Mr. McCarty asked how that effects the decertification possibilities in the future if one business
subsidy is being piling on top of another. Mayor Marty explained that they would not tie together
and could run currently.
Mr. McCarty stated the 25 year term that citizens are being told of could be something much
different.
Mayor Many explained that Phase 1 stands on its own and when paid off, that District would be
decertified. If they create Phase 2, that has the potential to stand on its own unless they do
Phases 2 and 3 together.
Mr. McCarty stated the contract refers to additional future business subsidies and he believes that
• Medtronic will be back in 2012 saying they want another business subsidy, which means another
TIF extension.
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 23
• Mr. Inman stated this plan says when this obligation is exhausted there will be additional
increments that will have to be returned. There is nothing in the plan that requires Phases 2 and 3
and there would have to be another process.
Councilmember Thomas stated the limit on Phase 1 is the cap, irregardless of future Councils
approving another TIF Districts anywhere else in the City.
Mr. McCarty stated it is in the contract that when Phases 2 and 3 are ready to go, business
subsidies will be revisited. The contract sunsets at completion of Phase 1 and, at the same time,
there is a proviso in the contract that references future business subsidies in Phases 2 and 3. He
stated he understands what Councilmember Thomas is saying, that the Council can say "no" to
that, but asked if they would say no since it is not the end to it but the beginning.
Stan Meyer, 2812 Sherwood, stated this is just the basic concept and not a legally binding
document. Councilmember Thomas stated that is correct.
Mr. Meyer stated anything on the plan can be changed and this is just a "pipe dream." He stated
that it has gone back and forth that Medtronic could keep the golf course for themselves.
Councilmember Thomas stated the golf course is written out of the contract.
. Mr. Meyer asked who disposes of the greens, noting they are valuable. City Attorney Riggs
stated the City has control of the assets and has a year to deal with the assets from the signing of
the contract.
Mr. Meyer stated he thinks the greens are very valuable. City Attorney Riggs stated if the value
is over $50,000 the City would have to accept bids.
Ms. Haake asked City Attorney Riggs if the contract is such that there is absolutely no chance for
a golf course. She noted the location of Phase 1 buildings and stated there is nothing to preclude
Medtronic from moving the location of the buildings and parking, and coming back to the City to
keep the golf course. She stated it is their property and there is no guarantee in the contract that
they will even do Phases 2 and 3. She asked City Attorney Riggs if Medtronic could keep the
golf course.
City Attorney Riggs stated the development property has been def ned as depicted and it is
defined as the development of Phase 1. Any changes for Phase 2 or 3 would have to come into
play and a definitional change made to allow that. Right now it does not say "and a golf course,"
it says an 820,000 square foot development with office with accessory uses.
Ms. Haake stated this is just a concept plan and they could still relocate Phase 1 and legally keep
the golf course if they wanted. City Attorney Riggs answered no, that could not happen as the
• contract is currently written. He suggested that Medtronic be asked that question and noted a
restrictive covenant could be included if that's the concern.
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 24
• Rodger McCombs stated Medtronic has addressed this several times. He stated that Medtronic is
not interested in golf courses but in the development of life saving products. He stated they will
not have a golf course.
Mr. Jahnke stated SYSCO got TIF and are now adding on and getting another round of TIF
financing. He stated he does not understand why it is a question with Medtronic because there is
nothing wrong with it and was "played out in real" tonight with SYSCO.
Mr. McGarry stated there is a big difference between a $235,000 TIF project and one that is about
$32 million.
Mayor Marty closed the Public Hearing at 11:06 p.m.
Councilmember Thomas stated the only outstanding question related to the FAA and that
information has now been received by staff.
Mayor Marty stated previously the plan was for six stories and asked when the eight-story
building was approved. Director Ericson stated the request was sent out three to four weeks ago
to get authorization from the FAA. The FAA has provided assurance that the eight-story
buildings at a specified height of 140 feet was acceptable as of today.
• Mayor Marty asked what was the original height. Director Ericson stated he does not know what
the FAA originally approved.
Chris Garda, RLK Kuusisto, LTD stated it was originally approved at 85 feet.
Mayor Marty noted the height also includes air conditioning units.
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Stigney. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6592
Approving the Medtronic Planned Unit Development (PUD) General Concept Plan; Planning
Case No. PD2005-002.
Councilmember Stigney questioned the first WHEREAS and if it should be changed from 72
acres to 72.2 acres. Director Ericson stated staff would make that correction.
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Marry) Motion carried.
Director Ericson stated that more detailed plans of the development will be submitted the first
week in September and reviewed by the Planning Commission for their recommendation.
Mayor Marty commented that aneight-story building height will be of more benefit to Mounds
View than asix-story height in relation to limiting air traffic.
• D. 7:20 p.m.: Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6594A, a
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 25
. Resolution Approving the Removal of Certain Parcels from the EDA's Tag
Increment Financing District No. 3 and Resolution 6594B Approving the Tag
Increment Financing Plan Establishing Tag Increment Finance (TIF) District
No. 5, aSpecial-Legislation Economic Development District, within the
Redevelopment Project Area
Mayor Marty opened the Public Hearing at 11:10 p.m.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman reviewed that on June 27, 2005, the Mounds
View EDA and City Council adopted resolutions approving the sale of land comprising the
Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course. They also approved the Medtronic Development
proposal. In order to facilitate this development, the City sought passage of special TIF
legislation during the 2005 legislative session. The Minnesota Legislature approved the Public
Finance Bill which included the City's legislation that allows it to create a 25 year Economic
Development TIF District. The Boards for Ramsey County and the Mounds View School
District approved the legislation on June 28, 2005.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman explained that the proposed District encompasses
five parcels of the golf course and former SYSCO site and adjacent rights-of--way. Three parcels
will be removed from TIF District #3 to be included in the new district.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman further explained the former SYSCO land
• encompasses 46 acres and would remain with the City of Mounds View. It is proposed to be part
of the new district minus the 3 acres being deeded by the City back to SYSCO Minnesota. The
new District is being created to facilitate the development of Phase 1 for Medtronic business
campus. The development agreement has been authorized contingent upon the TIF Plan and is
likely to begin in the fall of 2005.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated the EDA and Council have determined
that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the project for certain TIF qualified costs
projects. Staff recommends the Council adopt Resolution 6594A, approving the decertification
of parcels from TIF District No. 3 in order to include them in the newly created TIF District No.
5, and Resolution 5494B, approving the TIF plan. He noted that at the EDA meeting, parcel
#0004 was not decertified so only two parcels would be decertified and put into District #5.
Brian Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, stated he understood it was pay-as-you-go and asked if
Medtronic makes the $14.8 million payment up front and then draws from it. Director Ericson
explained Medtronic is making a $100 million investment in the community and up-fronting
their development costs. There are approximately $25 million of TIF eligible expenses with this
project and there is a development agreement to provide $14.8 million in assistance, representing
they will have well in excess of $10 million beyond what is being provided in assistance.
Mr. Amundsen asked if the $14.8 million is being provided from Medtronic. Director Ericson
• explained that the $14.8 million provided to Medtronic is coming from the money they pay in
property taxes.
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 26
Mr. Amundsen asked when the City starts paying interest on the $14.8 million. Mr. Inman
explained that Medtronic is required to provide documentation that the dollars have been spent.
Once that is established, the payments will start in the first calendar year afterwards.
Mr. Amundsen asked if interest payment will be paid on the full $14.8 million. Mr. Inman
answered in the affirmative.
Mr. Amundsen noted that the first year when there is a lower properly value, the City will be
paying $750,000 of interest to Medtronic. Mr. Inman stated the City will only pay an amount
equal to 95% of the annual tax increment. So, if it takes them three years, the amount they
eventually will get will be less.
Mr. Amundsen asked where the funds come from to pay the interest. Mr. Inman stated typically
the developer carries some of that interest within their own performa or it is part of their overall
financing of the $100 million.
Mr. Amundsen asked where the funding comes from to pay the interest. Mr. Inman stated it
comes from available tax increment and if it is not available, they don't get it.
Director Ericson explained that there have been TIF accounts in the past where the developer
never received the principal back.
• Mayor Marty stated if only the interest is paid, the District could last longer. Director Ericson
stated staff and the financial advisors firmly believe this District will pay off early.
Mayor Marty noted that by Ehler's reports, the projected interest is $16,947,000 so the project
cost total with interest and all qualifying TIF expenses runs roughly $32,700,000.
Mr. Inman noted by contract the City has limited the pay-as-you-go note to $14,800,000 so these
numbers are high because they were based on a higher estimate. He explained they were trying
to give the City the most flexibility.
Mayor Marty closed the Public Hearing at 11:21 p.m.
Mayor Marty stated there was a lengthy discussion about this at the EDA meeting.
MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Thomas. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6594A
Approving the Removal of Certain Parcels from the EDA's Tax Increment Financing District
No. 3, not to include Sysco Outlot A, Pin #OS-30-23-22-0004, which would remain.
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Marty) Motion carried.
• MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Gunn. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6594B, a
Resolution Approving the Tax Increment Financing Plan Establishing Tax Increment Finance
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 27
(TIF) District No. 5, a Special-Legislation .Economic Development District, within the
Redevelopment Project Area, omitting Sysco Outlot A, Pin #OS-30-23-22-0004.
Mayor Marty again stated that this was discussed at length during the EDA meeting and
encouraged interested residents to tune in to the EDA meeting broadcast.
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Marty) Motion carried.
E. 7:25 p.m. Public Hearing 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. Transfer of Ownership is from Mounds View
Jake's Inc., to Stuart Thomas
•
Mayor Marty opened the Public Hearing at 11:25 p.m.
Administrative Assistant Crane explained that Section 502.08 of the City Code requires that a
public hearing be held prior to any intoxicating liquor license. The City of Mounds View issued
an on-sale intoxicating liquor license for Jake's Sports Cafe on June 27, 2005. Thomas Stuart
will be acquiring Jake's Sports Cafe and will be changing its name to City Tavern.
Administrative Assistant Crane advised that Thomas Stuart has submitted the City liquor license
application materials (to include the application to stay open until 2 a.m. per Ordinance 717), and
the applicable fees. She advised that the transfer of ownership has been delayed so staff is
recommending the public hearing held and continued to September 12, 2005.
Mayor Marty closed the Public Hearing at 11:26 p.m.
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Thomas. To Postpone the Public Hearing until the applicant's
report from the Minnesota Department of Criminal Apprehension and the applicant's Certificate
of Insurance is received.
Director Ericson stated he wanted to acknowledge that the City has had a wonderful relationship
with the Jacob brothers, and their facility across the street. They have been a good business
owner and worked well with staff. He stated that while the City is sorry to see them leave, they
look forward to Mr. Stuart coming to Mounds View.
Mayor Marty concurred and stated they have corrected snow storage problems, helped with
redesign of the corner for sidewalk, turn lanes, established better parking on their site, and been a
an outstanding business and neighbor to have. He stated he is sad to see them go.
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried.
•
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 28
• F. Policy for Removal of Nonconforming Street Accesses -Messiah Lutheran
Church Case
Public Works Director Lee reviewed that at the June 6, 2005, Council Work Session, staff
presented a request submitted by the Messiah Lutheran Church to have the City remove the head-
in parking lot located along the west side of Knollwood Drive, just south of County Road H2.
As part of the report, staff recommended that should the Council wish to proceed with this
request, a policy be created to allow for the City to remove nonconforming street access before
performing any work at Messiah Lutheran Church. On June 13, 2005, the Council approved
Resolution 6556, which authorized the prohibition of parking on Knollwood Drive. However
this has not resolved the problem so another letter was submitted by the Messiah Lutheran
Church requesting that the City post "No Parking" signs along both sides of Knollwood Drive
from County Road H2, south 360 feet to the south end of their property. Those signs have since
been installed.
Councilmember Flaherty suggested this decision be delayed until after the street improvement
project has been determined and approved.
Public Works Director Lee advised that the church has indicated that cars are still parking head-
in and backing onto Knollwood Drive. He stated from a legal standpoint, is it in the City's best
interest to remove this non-conforming parking area that is within the City's right-of--way.
• Councilmember Thomas noted that there is a significant safety concern and asked about the
investment of the City's time and money.
Public Works Director Lee estimated $1,600 to $1,800. He advised there are limited sight
distances and a crosswalk is located near by.
Mayor Marty stated that he understands there is a safety issue involved but the street
improvement may not occur for several years. He stated maybe the City should take out the
asphalt and put in black dirt and seed instead of sodding since the street may be redone.
Councilmember Thomas asked if the church is only asking to have the asphalt removed. Public
Works Director Lee stated that is correct and noted the policy, as prepared, would indicate it
would also be sodded. However, that can be taken out. He stated if approved, the $1,600 would
be funded by the Street Improvement Fund.
Mayor Marty stated the franchise fee this year has resulted in at least that much money.
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Stigney. To direct staff to remove the asphalt area and .let the
church take it from there and to table consideration of the draft a policy until the street
reconstruction issue is again discussed.
• Councilmember Flaherty noted that it is illegal for cars to park in this location. Public Works
Director Lee clarif ed that the "No Parking" signs are in the parallel area and the area of concern
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 29
is off the street where they park head-in.
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Flaherty) Motion carried.
G. Proposal to Stripe County Crosswalks
Mayor Marty stated he spoke with County Commissioners Tony Bennett and Jan Wiesner about
this today and mentioned that the stripes by the senior housing needs to be repainted. He
reported that Commissioner Bennett had indicated County crosswalks are on a time schedule for
painting but due to the fact that it is over due and by senior housing, those stripes could be done
relatively soon. Mayor Marty stated that he would like this item tabled until the County
addresses the other cross walks. In addition, he is concerned about the precedent that would be
set if City staff starts painting County crosswalks.
Councilmember Thomas suggested this topic be discussed again at the September 12, 2005
meeting.
City Administrator Ulrich reported that he spoke with Commissioner Bennett's assistant who
indicated it has been referred to the County Public Works Department. He stated staff will put it
on the September 12, 2005 meeting agenda for an update.
H. Resolution 6601 Awarding a Construction Contract for the Emergency
• Vehicle Preemption (EVP) Installation Project
Public Works Director Lee advised that two bids were received and the low bid is from Eagan
Companies, Inc. in the amount of $61,095. The City's engineering consultant had estimated
$40,000 and submitted a note of explanation of why, in their opinion, their estimate was off from
the quote received.
Public Works Director Lee stated he is presenting three options for the Council's consideration:
Award the bid to Egan Companies in the amount of $61,095, reject bids and direct staff to re-bid
the project, or reject the bids and cancel the project.
Mayor Marty stated that today he spoke at length with Public Works Director Lee on this subject.
He said he had asked who did the job at Rockford and also asked about Ramsey County's
preferred contractors.
Public Works Director Lee stated Ramsey County reviewed the proposed contractors and
developed a list of acceptable contractors for EVP systems. Option 2, to reject and re-bid, could
result in getting a bid from a contractor that is not acceptable with Ramsey County and would
involve showing justification of why that contractor should be considered. The. City's
engineering consultant analyzed the costs to reject and re-bid, and determined there is a
possibility of getting a bid of maybe 10% ($6,000) less. The estimated cost to re-bid is about
• $2,000. Another consideration is a legal issue should the bids be rejected and there happens to
be an incident at one of these intersections; would the City have more liability because it decided
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 30
• not to proceed.
Mayor Many questioned the City's liability should a squad car hit a vehicle while responding to
an emergency. City Attorney Riggs stated there are statutory immunity provisions and also for
budgetary considerations such as cost benefit.
Councilmember Thomas asked if there should be a legal limitation on the bid that it has to be a
Ramsey County approved contractor.
Mayor Marty stated that is just a preference of Ramsey County. He advised that the County
estimated $10,000 to $12,000 per intersection.
Public Works Director Lee stated that is correct and Ramsey County reviewed the quotes of
$8,000 per intersection and felt they were very reasonable.
Councilmember Gunn referenced the Bonestroo letter and noted the factors stated by the
consulting engineer are that the Highway 10 intersections in Mounds View are larger than in
Rockford, they are overloaded with conduits so wire will have to be pulled, higher traffic
volumes on Highway 10 factored more heavily in the cost because it will result in more extensive
measures to keep traffic safety effectively controlled, and EVP systems increased in cost by $300
to $400 per system.
• City Attorney Riggs stated that staff poses this as a quote process because it was not advertised
as a bid. However, the cost is over $50,000 so the safest course is to put it out for bid.
MOTION/SECOND. Marty/Stigney. To direct staff to bid for the Emergency Vehicle
Preemption (EVP) Installation Project.
Councilmember Thomas asked if the bid document should include the requirement that the
bidder be a Ramsey County approved vendor. Then the bid would automatically be approved by
Ramsey County. She noted that is no more of a limit than if Ramsey County were doing it
themselves.
Mayor Marty noted if a low bid comes in from a contractor that Ramsey County has had
problems with, the City is not obligated to take that bid.
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried.
I. Resolution 6604 Requesting that Ramsey County Install a Signalized
Intersection at Silver Lake Road and County Road H
Mayor Marty stated he talked with County Commissioners Jan Wiessner and Tony Bennett about
this issue. Commissioner Wiessner indicated she knew someone who served on the school
. crossing guard committee and would check into getting crossing guards since this location is
about two blocks from Sunnyside School. He stated he had explained the traffic counts and that
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 31
it warranted a stoplight. Commissioner Wiesner indicated that since school starts in several
weeks, she would get right on it. Mayor Marty stated Commissioner Bennett explained it was
removed from the budget because of cuts. He stated he spoke with both Commissioners about
putting the signals in with TIF pool funds, noting an expenditure is needed for TIF funds. He
stated Ramsey County could then reimburse Mounds View in the next several years.
Mayor Marty stated it would be good to send them this resolution since they have a meeting
tomorrow night. He stated he also talked with the New Brighton Mayor who indicated they
would send a letter since they share County Road H.
MOTION/SECOND. Marty/Thomas. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6604
Requesting that Ramsey County Install a Signalized Intersection at Silver Lake Road and County
Road H.
Councilmember Thomas noted this is only to request the signal.
Mayor Marty stated this will bring it into the County's "radar screen" and asked City
Administrator Ulrich to contact Commissioner Wiesner or Bennett to see if a resolution and
agreement can be reached with Ramsey County.
Public Works Director Lee stated in discussion with Ramsey County staff it was decided that
they would be the lead agency and do construction administration but Mounds View would do
• the financing. Mayor Marry stated that is correct.
Mayor Marty stated he also talked with them about possible assistance with the trailway along
Silver Lake Road and Commissioner Bennett said Congressman Oberstar got federal funding of
$25 million for trailways. Public Works Director Lee will look into that since Mounds View
may qualify for matching trailways.
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried.
J. Consider Response to Innovative Images Letter of August 8, 2005
City Administrator Ulrich reported that in March of 2001, Mr. Linke requested an answer from
the City Council by September 5, 2005. He explained the City Attorney has indicated the
Council can discuss this matter in executive session since it deals with a threatened law suit.
Robert Alsop, attorney with Kennedy & Graven, stated they looked at whether this is the type of
issue that can go to closed session. He stated courts will generally look at competing principles,
attorney client privilege, and the open meeting law. In reviewing this case and the issues before
the Council, it was determined it is the type of issue that can go to closed session. Mr. Alsop
stated the discussion would be limited to the litigation, settlement demand, and acts of the
Council in the past.
• Mayor Marty stated litigation has not been filed.
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 32
• Mr. Alsop stated this deals with issues that must be discussed confidentially to protect the rights
of the City and it also deals with past acts of the Council and the Ciry's liability based on those
past acts.
City Attorney Riggs suggested Consent Agenda 9.F.1. tem be pulled for a separate action.
K Resolution 6605 Adopting an Amended Contract with Canyon Grille for the
Lease of Space at the Mounds View Community Center
City Administrator Ulrich explained that with the proposed remodeling project at City Hall it is
recommended that the City administrative staff, with the exception of the Police Department that
will relocate to the Ramsey County Sheriff's facility in Arden Hills, be relocated to the Mounds
View Community Center, utilizing space currently occupied by the YMCA and Canyon Grille.
The YMCA contracts with the City to provide recreational services. The Canyon Grille leases
space from the City comprising of the event center, former community school classrooms, offices
and common area.
City Administrator Ulrich advised that the total amount of space required for City operations at
the Community Center is about 4,700 square feet, including common space. Of the total, about
72% is space currently leased to Canyon Grille. The City would need to lease the space back
from Canyon Grille at a rate to be determined.
• City Administrator Ulrich stated since Canyon Grille is paying rent, it would be in the form of a
lease concession. Canyon Grille agreed to pay the contract amount for July and August in the
amount of $5,000. He explained that it went from $3,000 the first part of the year to $5,000 on
July 1, 2005. The proposal is for the City to give a lease concession of the entire $5,000 amount.
That would equal about $12 per square foot. Other space staff inquired about at local shopping
centers and the educational building across the road, were quoted at $14.50 per square foot plus
utilities. He explained that the advantage of using the Community Center is that the City is
already paying the utility costs and the building is wired for computer use with the exception of a
T-1 high speed line.
City Administrator Ulrich noted he had provided the Council with the financials for Canyon
Grille and letter outlining their rental rates. He reviewed the rate schedule for the ballroom of
$22,969 for seven months plus $3,000 per month for the office space or a total of $43,000 for
seven months. At $5,000 per month, it would equal $35,000 over that period of time. The
$35,000 cost could be taken from the special projects funds, which is part of the City Hall
remodeling expenses.
City Administrator Ulrich recommended the Council accept this proposal. He stated it may seem
high to some Councilmembers but Canyon Grille is looking for some business assistance and this
may be the beginning of looking at that contract since this model may not work for the City in
• the long term. He explained that Canyon Grille needs additional time to get their business on its
feet and if they don't get that additional time to do so, and may cancel the contract.
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 33
• City Administrator Ulrich recommended that the Ciry Council consider Resolution bb05
Adopting an Amended Contract with Canyon Grille for the Lease of Space at the Mounds View
Community Center contingent upon the Council awarding bids for remodeling the City Hall.
Councilmember Flaherty stated this is a lease back to the City so it is not for zero, it is for $5,000
a month. He stated he supports staff's recommendation.
Councilmember Thomas stated that prior to considering this matter, she had asked for a rent
comparison, which she thinks is favorable. She stated she was hopeful in discussion with Mr.
Dodds that they would have an indication if their business would be viable in seven month's time
period. For the record, he said he should have an indication at the end of that time. With that
assurance, she stated she can support staff's recommendation.
Councilmember Stigney stated he believes this is the "beginning of the end" of the banquet
operation being handled by Canyon Grille. He stated his concern with this recommendation and
asked if the City can give them 100 days notice and then the City has it.
City Administrator Ulrich stated the downside with that option is that the City would lose a
caterer who has provided a good service and if the City wants to give them any opportunity of
success. It would also throw the City into the scenario of trying to cover events that are already
booked. Financially, the City would be zeroed out anyway but there would be some obligation
• for future events and the City would have to arrange for a caterer to come in for scheduled
events.
Councilmember Stigney pointed out that Canyon Grille would also pay zero dollars for seven
months but get to use the facility for weekends to do their business. He stated he does not
support that proposal.
Mayor Marty stated rents are paid by the day care and Chamber of Commerce, and the City
would be paying more rent than any of them. He asked why the City should pay more for their
own building, even if it is cheaper than other space checked. He stated it is only $1 a square foot
more but it makes more sense for the City to be across the street.
Councilmember Gunn stated she will support this recommendation because when City staff is
there using all the resources it will be less desirable to rent out.
Councilmember Stigney stated Canyon Grille will have the full use of the space every weekend.
MOTION/SECOND. Flaherty/Gunn. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6605 Adopting
an Amended Contract with Canyon Grille for the Lease of Space at the Mounds View
Community Center.
• Councilmember Thomas stated it is somewhat attractive to use vacant space but the cost to the
City would be substantial to cover the scheduled events and there would also be less income into
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 34
• the Community Enterprise Fund. She noted there had been discussion with him at the work
session and whether we were at that stage. The Council had decided to give him a chance and
see where we are at in a couple months.
Councilmember Stigney stated this thing will never work so why not give him 100 or 120 days
notice.
Councilmember Gunn stated she prefers to give Mr. Dodds a chance
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Stigney) Motion carried.
L. Resolution 6606 Resolution Supporting the Improvements to Springbrook
Nature Center Associated with the SPRING (Sanctuary Protection &
Renewal into the Nezt Generation) Project and Supporting the Request to
the State of Minnesota for Financial Assistance
Administrative Assistant Crane advised that the voters in the City of Fridley approved a
$275,000 referendum in November of 2004 to continue programming and City-paid staff at
Springbrook Nature Center. The Springbrook Nature Center is a 127-acre park City of Fridley
park that provides year-round opportunities to experience and learn about nature and is an
environmental education center that serves school groups, community organizations and families.
She advised that the Mayor of Fridley is asking neighboring communities to support the
• foundation in achieving a State grant by submitting a resolution of support. The Springbrook
Nature Center is now making a request fora $2.5 million matching State grant. The Springbrook
Nature Center Foundation has initiated a fundraising campaign to complete this matching grant
to reach their $5 million goal for capital improvements at Springbrook Nature Center.
Mayor Marty noted this does not cost Mounds View anything and has been a hard fought fight by
area residents. He stated Mounds View residents have also supported it with signs in their lawns.
MOTION/SECOND. Marty/Thomas. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6606
Supporting the Improvements to Springbrook Nature Center Associated with the SPRING
(Sanctuary Protection & Renewal into the Next Generation) Project and Supporting the Request
to the State of Minnesota for Financial Assistance.
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried.
M. Resolution 6585 Approving a Severance Package for Regular Full-time Golf
Course Employees
City Administrator Ulrich reviewed that this item was previously reviewed by the City Council at
the July 5th work session and the August 8th regular session. He stated a question was asked
about the flex time balances. He noted the severance provision proposed and sick leave, as
• outlined in the severance policy, that flex time be allowed to play itself out for each employee
and that be their termination date so they will be able to use the flex time. He also propose a
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 35
severance benefit of one weeks pay for each year of service for the three employees involved,
which is standard severance for full time employees. He stated the most-cost case for each
employee, which will probably not be the case, would work out to $54,000. He noted that
amount was in the Medtronic performa.
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Marty. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6585 Approving
A Severance Package For Regular Full-Time Golf Course Employees.
City Attorney Riggs suggested adding the following:
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that severance benefits only occur if the Bridges closes in 2005.
The Council agreed to make this revision.
MOTION/ Stigney. To amend Resolution 6585 to indicate: "flex time payout would be
concurrent with the date of closing and done in cash."
Motion died for lack of a second.
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Stigney) Motion carried.
N. Resolution 6608 Approving the Sufficiency of Petition in Opposition
• Ordinance 760 (Ordinance Authorizing Disposal by Sale of Real Property
Owned by the City of Mounds View to the Mounds View Economic
Development Authority)
City Administrator Ulrich advised that staff received a petition on Monday, August 15, 2005,
against Ordinance 760, authorizing disposal of the Bridges. He stated the Council adopted
Ordinance 760, which will be effective August 19, 2005. He advised that the petition names
were put in a data base to determine eligible signatures. Staff also checked each signature on the
Ramsey County Registered Voter Master List, which contains all registered voters in Mounds
View. Staff then checked all determined Non-Registered voters on the Minnesota Statewide
Voter Registration System. He stated there were some issues with legibility and three people
looked at those signatures to determine how they fit into the eligibility list.
City Administrator Ulrich reported that 12 signatures could not be determined due to legibility
issues for both the signature and printed name. The petition contained 1,193 signatures, 17 were
determined invalid because residence could not be determined, 214 signatures were non-
registered voters, and 34 signatures were duplicates. The total number of registered voter
signatures is 945. City Administrator Ulrich advised the petition needed 989 signatures to
receive a ruling of sufficiency in accordance with Section 5.03 of the City Charter. The Charter
requires the number of signers be at least 15% for initiative and referendum and for recall, at
least 25% of the total number of electors who cast their votes for president at the. last presidential
• election. The last presidential election was in 2004 and 6,597 residents cast their vote.
City Administrator Ulrich advised that the City Attorney brought up an argument any person
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 36
• eligible to vote may be a valid signer of the petition and not need to be registered. However, the
City's Charter specifically says "registered voter." Such validation would require additional
review and each of the 214 apparent non-registered voters would have to be determined eligible
to vote.
City Administrator Ulrich read the rules for eligibility for voting and stated the City Attorney
also issued an opinion dated August 11 that transfer of land as proposed is an administrative
function and, therefore, not subject to a petition for referendum. The recommendation is that
Council consider and adopt the second version of Resolution 6608 determining sufficiency of
referendum petition pursuant to City Charter; finding the referendum question invalid; and
declaring that such question shall not be certified for a special election. He stated it indicates that
the petition committee would be notified of the insufficiencies of the petition and that the
Council would move forward based on this recommendation.
City Administrator Ulrich stated it is also recommended that following this action, Council adopt
Resolution 6581 providing for the transfer of land by resolution.
City Attorney Riggs explained that subsequent to conversation with City Administrator Ulrich
when he was preparing the memorandum, he did further review of the question of registered
voters versus eligible voters. He advised that case law in Minnesota is not directly on point but
other jurisdictions are on point where it is a requirement of using the actual term "registered
voter" at the time the petition is signed. Minnesota case law can be read consistent with that and
• appears to be the logical reading. He stated he has been in discussion with a number of people to
review this issue and that is why the second version of the resolution is being recommended for
adoption.
Mayor Marty asked if the committee is notified if the petition is insufficient and given a period of
time to correct the insufficiency. City Attorney Riggs stated that is correct and a period of 30
days is allowed. He pointed out that it does not call into question the validity of the question but
would go to the question of the validity of the petition.
Councilmember Gunn suggested, for the aid of the audience members, that City Charter section
5.02 be read. The Council agreed so Councilmember Gunn read that section aloud.
Councilmember Stigney stated it has always been his view and indicated in past legal discussions
that the Charter can go beyond what is in State Statute.
City Attorney Riggs stated in some cases it certainly can but in this situation, with the case law
that Minnesota has, the only thing close to interpreting that is what City Administrator Ulrich
was discussing. He advised that the Charter clearly says "registered voter." As the Charter is
written, that is consistent with what other States have done where they have had to look
specifically at that term "registered voter." Based on the interpretation for the one specific case
in Minnesota, they gave effect to a different term and said it wasn't a registered voter so that
• wasn't required. However, our case is very different because the Charter specifically says
"registered voter."
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 37
• Councilmember Thomas noted the most recent resolution is not about "registered voters" and
addresses that this is not a referendum issue.
City Administrator Ulrich clarified that the most recent resolution finds the referendum question
invalid and the petition itself would be disposed of according to the provisions of the Charter,
which has the Council. reporting back to the petition committee of the insufficiencies of the
petition.
City Attorney Riggs stated that is correct.
Mayor Marty noted the most recent resolution says the referendum question is not valid and
would not certify the question for election. He asked when the most recent resolution was
deemed listed as invalid. City Attorney Riggs stated that has not changed since August 11. He
stated this has been reviewed for many hours today, is a minor revision to the resolution
contained in the meeting packet, and returns the petition to the committee for action.
Councilmember Flaherty stated it returns the petition back to the committee for 30 days. City
Attorney Riggs answered in the affirmative.
Councilmember Thomas stated it gives it back to them but there is no chance of action because
the referendum question is not valid. City Attorney Riggs stated that is correct.
• Barbara Haake, 3024 County Road I, asked if the City Charter supersedes the State law related to
"registered" or "non-registered" voters. She stated that the Charter states "registered voters" but
there is some State law that indicates it could be "non-registered" as long as they are eligible and
can vote on election day.
City Attorney Riggs corrected that there is no State law, there is a case that deals with another
Charter that uses a very different term.
Ms. Haake stated there is a case out there that could be quoted and say someone eligible to vote
would be accepted.
City Attorney Riggs stated that is correct in that case, but they were not calling it a registered
voters.
Ms. Haake stated that if the Charter says "registered voters" and is tighter than even the Supreme
Court decision, then why wouldn't it apply also under 12.05 that an ordinance has to be instituted
to sell public land.
City Attorney Riggs stated the case does not say it supercedes. He is saying it has not been
addressed and when the Court interpreted that term that existed, they said that isn't a "registered
voter." However the Charter clearly says "registered voter." He explained different scenarios
• where the Charter supercedes and explained that the Charter is only as good as the Legislature
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 38
• allows it as well as courts interpret it.
Ms. Haake stated she understands interpretations can be different and strongly urged the Council
to allow a referendum to go ahead. She stated they operated in good faith as to what the Charter
said and regulation and law. She suggested the Council represents the citizens and they made a
good faith effort to follow the Charter. Ms. Haake stated she even offered to look at the names
staff felt were illegible because she collected many of them. She stated she thinks Medtronic will
not appreciate the adverse publicity that may be coming because they want to be good neighbors.
She noted the petition only asked for the right to vote and is not against anything. Ms. Haake
that while she cares about the details, many people have stated they just want Medtronic and
don't really care about the details so the vote may come to naught in November.
Ms. Haake noted the City still has to do a PUD by ordinance and this could start all over again
but having a vote in November would get to the bottom line. She appealed to the Council that it
is important to them. Ms. Haake stated that City Attorney Riggs also recommended that
Medtronic might sue but she does not think they want that kind of "black mark" against them
because it is a David and Goliath issue and she wants "little David to have a chance to make a
vote."
City Attorney Riggs corrected that he did not recommend that Medtronic sue but indicated it was
an option as with any other tax payer. As to the PUD issue, he explained that case cited from
1968 be shepardized because the State Legislature adopted the Municipal Land Planning Act in
• the 1970's which changed the law substantially and that is what the newer case interprets.
Ken Glidden, 5240 Edgewood Drive, stated the Council is talking about ways to circumvent the
Charter, which is an open vote. He stated that each resident could say it is a good deal for the
City or it is not. He asked why the City Attorney, who is a City employee, is spending time
searching case law to circumvent that from happening. Mr. Glidden asked what they are doing
and if they are afraid of a no vote. He pointed out that the vote could just as likely be a yes. He
stated the citizens of this City are asking for an opportunity to vote, want to understand the deal,
weigh it, and vote. He stated that is all they are looking for. He stated that staff may find a case
law to circumvent that, but what would that do. He urged the Council to let the residents of
Mounds View vote.
Mr. Glidden stated he understands the committee gets the opportunity to correct the insufficiency
and he would welcome the opportunity to do that.
Councilmember Gunn stated a lot of people are talking about complying with the Charter and
that is why she read this section aloud. It states that the signatures must be registered voters and
even with taking out only the duplicates and invalids, the number is down to 979 valid
signatures. She stated the recommended action follows the City Charter.
Mr. McCarty stated they are not arguing that the petition is sufficient or unregistered voters are
• not qualified to sign the petition because the Charter is very clear on that issue. He stated that 30
years ago he called two of his friends and asked if they would help him circulate a petition to
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 39
. have a Charter Commission appointed. He stated that petition resulted in creating the Charter
Commission under the guidance of then Judge Rolland Hashee who was Chief Judge at the time.
He stated that 15 people came forward and they worked hard, along with the League of
Minnesota Cities, and many others, and adopted the Charter on December 7, 1979. Since that
time, the Charter has served the City very well. He stated he understands, if challenged, perhaps
they wouldn't win but that would only delay it until the zoning code change.
Mr. McGarry stated he disagrees with the City Attorney's opinion that a Supreme Court decision
would have been preempted by a lower court or any case law. He stated his concern about the
matter of selling land as being an administrative action. He asked if the installation of utilities is
an administrative action, noting they probably are since they are not a police or legislative action.
He stated the Council can order a storm water project and the Charter says citizens have a right to
petition against it. For 30 years the Council has honored those petitions and it's been to the
City's advantage because it has brought them all to the table and a compromise was found. He
stated that regardless of the legal issues, the Charter gives them a point to jump off and find some
common ground.
Mr. McCarty stated if the Council wants to "gut the Charter," this is the way to do it. He stated
the committee does not have money to fight this in court but he would lead a charge to raise the
money and go to court if denied the right to petition about an ordinance change. He stated he
thinks the Council, if they like a compromise position, has the option in the Charter to call an
advisory election. Then the question will be settled once and for all.
• Mr. McCarty asked whether the 400 people contacted by Decision Resources are the leading
indicator, or were the 1,200 people contacted by the petition committee. He stated that will not
be known unless it is opened to a referendum vote. He stated that all Councilmembers said give
us your ideas and let us know what you think. With the community center, it was settled with the
advisory election. He asked for the opportunity to debate the facts and then go to the polls and
get it over with.
Dan Hall, 2200 Highway 10, stated he thinks that Mr. McCarty has confused the issues because
as Councilmember Gunn read the Charter it is clear, black and white. But, Mr. McCarty is
saying that if you now follow the Charter it wrecks the Charter. Mr. Hall stated he is sorry to
hear that the City Attorney, who is paid a tremendous amount of money, has been wrong all
along, that Ehlers who has been paid $40,000 by the City is wrong, and the Council is wrong. He
stated that the group against the selling of the golf course to Medtronic is so vehement that they
will stop at nothing. Mr. Hall stated the Council has done their job for the City, done extensive
study and reseaxch, followed the Laws, and it is spelled out that you cannot form a petition against
it. In addition, the petition is not sufficient and still Mr. McCarty threatens to sue the City to get
enough money to block the PUD.
Mr. Hall stated this is not a conservative group looking out for what is best for City; they now
have a driven agenda. He stated he does not know what their goal is but they have spent money
• to do it. He asked if they block Medtronic, what do they want, to bankrupt Mounds View. Mr.
Hall stated the Council has done their work and the majority has voted on everything in the right
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 40
way. If the Council does not continue to follow the rules, they will become party to the
bankrupting of Mounds View.
Councilmember Gunn asked what is the difference between resolution (2) and the most recent
one. City Attorney Riggs answered that the title is clarified but the rest is fairly consistent.
Jan Brink, 7800 Gloria, stated she will speak loudly because some cannot understand what they
are saying. She stated they oppose the proposed contract by Medtronic because of what they are
willing to pay and that TIF is not in the best interest of Mounds View. They feel there can be a
better deal for Mounds View. Ms. Brink asked for the integrity of the Council to let the citizens
vote.
Stan Meyer, 2812 Sherwood, asked who determined that the 200 signatures were not registered
voters. He stated he knows that the 30 signatures he got were registered voters. City
Administrator Ulrich stated he is charged with making that determination and has detailed notes
on which signatures are not valid.
Mr. Meyer asked how that can be challenged. City Administrator Ulrich stated there is a 30-day
window to challenge the determination.
Mr. Meyer asked if only City Administrator Ulrich did the work. City Administrator Ulrich
explained that three staff members worked on it under his supervision. Mr. Meyer suggested that
• City Administrator Ulrich didn't do the work but signed it.
Councilmember Thomas cautioned Mr. Meyer on his statements about staff and said she knows
that City Administrator Ulrich did work on that project.
Mr. Meyer stated that it is the right thing to let this go to a referendum. He stated they could go
on and on but he doesn't want to go down that road. He stated that 1,200 people signed the
petition on some hot days and it was not a massive effort, about 30 people collecting signatures.
He stated he only got turned down four times and was able to convince many people it was the
thing to do. He stated if there is merit to this deal, it can be debated fully and put to a vote,
which gets the Council off the hook. He stated he does not accept that the Council has the kind
of power to put the City on the hook for 25 years.
Councilmember Flaherty stated as far as the Council having the power, they were put into these
seats by 100% of the residents and the petition is only 15% of the residents. He pointed out that
the other 85% of the residents who either did not sign the petition or were not contacted. He
noted that the phone survey clearly stated it but the petition committee was not satisfied with that
so they decided to bank it on the Charter. However, the question is not valid and there are not
enough signatures.
Stan Meyer stated that a phone survey "doesn't mean squat" and is completely worthless.
• Councilmember Flaherty asked why the petition is any better.
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 41
Mayor Marty stated he does not want that line of discussion to continue. He stated that he knows
City Administrator Ulrich and his staff worked very hard on certifying the signatures and if one
person couldn't read it the signature was viewed by others and cross referenced through
addresses and utility billing.
Brian Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, stated he supports a City wide referendum, whether
advisory or actual referendum, Primarily because it answers the question by the entire community
and is not on the backs of five people. The referendum will say if the City, all residents, really
favor this deal. He suggested that case Iaw is very specific to the case and cannot be applied
generally to any other case of other situations. Mr. Amundsen noted this came up with the
placement of the Ten Commandments; the cases appeared to be the same but came to two
different conclusions.
Mr. Amundsen asked whether, in fact, the ordinance has a legislative component since the
ordinance includes both the sale of property as well as approval of TIF Districts; establishment of
a taxing mechanism and taxing deferment, which was approved by legislative action by the
Legislature. He stated that sufficiency is a measure of the number of registered voters and clearly
there appears to not be a sufficient number. That is why there are additional steps allowed to
citizens in order to proceed. He stated that is how it should proceed, at this point, for the Clerk
Administrator to notify the Council and petition committee of the insufficiency and for the
committee to take action. He stated his opinion that the Council should take no action. He stated
• the Charter Commission is currently working on Chapter 5 to provide additional clarity.
Mr. McCarty stated assuming that the petition were to be valid and the Council agrees, there is an
opportunity to correct the deficiency. He agreed that no decision should be made on the number
of qualified voters that would bring this petition in as sufficient. Mr. McCarty stated that it
should be decided by all residents after full debate and the opportunity for Medtronic to put their
position forward. He stated he thinks as many voters will appear at the polls as appeared at the
Last general election. Mr. McCarty urged the Council to not "gut the Charter" and stated he can
accept stepping back to an advisory referendum to assure the details are worked out.
Jan Brink asked about the phone survey. Mayor Marty stated it was aCity-wide telephone
survey and 400 people were involved. He stated that she can get a copy of the survey if she'd
like.
Ms. Brink asked if the respondents were certified registered voters.
Councilmember Flaherty explained the survey was just one of the many tools that were used in
the Council's decision making process. Other tools included talking with Ehlers, discussion with
staff, and several meetings held to accept public input, which was the most important.
Ms. Brink stated she is concerned their opinion is more important to the Council than those who
• signed the petition.
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 42
• An audience member stated he thinks this is a "David and Goliath" situation and Mounds View
is David. He stated that Mounds View got snuckered by Medtronic and asked who did the
negotiations. He asked why this was not open to a competitive marketplace sale and why one
entity was allowed to come in and also triple the average TIF District life by throwing money at
the school district and paying for some fireworks. He stated it is a competitive marketplace but
he knows there are some golf course haters who want to get rid of it no matter what.
An audience member asked about the streets and when something will be done. He stated he is a
believer in the Council and Mayor doing their jobs but the Charter has given the opportunity and
if the Charter made a mistake the matter should be turned over to the voters and let them make
the decision. He stated Medtronic is a great company but he thinks they took advantage of
Mounds View. He urged the Mayor and Council to go into the neighborhoods and tell their
constituents about the terms of the contract. He stated he would prefer Medtronic to the golf
course but wants it done right and falling over for the first offer doesn't get it.
Joan Dofney, 7801 Gloria Circle, stated it is a great project and will cost a lot of money. She
stated she went out to get signatures on the petition and found it was an easy job. She stated she
was blown away by the number of people willing to sign and does not think there is anything to
fear to let people vote. She felt if the City could get more money from Medtronic for the City
that would be great, noting that Medtronic has a lot of money. Ms. Dofney stated if they get to
vote, a lot of people will come to the voting booth.
• Mary Kay Walsh stated if they get 30 days to remedy the petition they will do that. She thinks it
is valid to have a petition because the Charter says they can have a referendum on the sale of
land. She stated if they need more names, they will get them and asked for the opportunity to get
those names in the next 30 days.
MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Gunn. To adopt Resolution 6608 Determining the Sufficiency of
Referendum Petition Pursuant to City Charter; Finding the Referendum Question Invalid; and
Declaring that Such Question Shall Not be Certified for a Special Election.
Councilmember Stigney read the resolution in full.
Councilmember Flaherty asked the City Attorney whether the passing of the resolution allows the
petition committee to rectify the petition. City Attorney Riggs responded that they can do so to
make the petition sufficient but that does not mean the petition is valid based his legal opinion
dated August 11, 2005. Councilmember Flaherty asked if they still have recourse. City Attorney
Riggs stated they do have that option under the Charter provision.
Councilmember Thomas stated she does not want to offer false hope because there is no
recourse. She stated this is a deliberate action that she has agonized more over than the actual
sale itself. She stated she does not have to worry about the sale, she made that decision. The
difference of opinion is whether the City .got the best deal and she does feel they got a fabulous
deal and the best one this Council could negotiate.
•
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 43
• Councilmember Thomas stated she is a member of the Charter Commission, knows every word
of Chapter 5 intimately, and worked untold hours on the language to try to correct the errors that
she and Mr. McCarty know are weak spots that 30 years ago no one could have envisioned. She
stated that in another 30 years there may be problems that today the Charter Commission cannot
possibly envision in how it is worded. Councilmember Thomas explained that it comes down to
all those extra things and taken aside, it is not about "is it a good deal." Two hundred some
petitioners are not registered but she has every faith they could come up with more than enough
signatures given the opportunity.
Councilmember Thomas stated she has to decide that whether defending the Charter, which she
works on every month to be the best representation and uphold the rights of the citizens to act in
their government, is this the place that they can and/or should act. And, regardless of what we
would like to give as a power to residents, some powers are taken away by the State. She stated
she knew it would start to become a problem and had coffee with Brian Amundsen for three
hours. She explained that Mr. Amundsen sits on the Charter Commission with her and both
knew of the weakness in the Charter and whether or not this would be eligible for a referendum.
Chapter 5 does not have that language and does not address the problem of an administrative
action versus a legislative one.
Councilmember Thomas stated the Council has the City Attorney's legal opinion. She asked
what if the situation were reversed and the City had property they wanted to purchase; would the
City go through all of this. She stated the City does not. The Council does it on a regular basis
• and despite all the arguments about what is the proper properly to purchase, whatever the
dealings of the City, we know it is an administrative action done by this body with all deliberate
care and thought put in to it. However, it is the Council's responsibility to make that choice.
Councilmember Thomas stated she cannot get away from the fact that regardless of the
extraneous details that go around it, this is the sale of a property. It is the City's responsibility to
make the best judgment it can and it's a fully administrative action. She stated that she cannot
come to any other conclusion.
Councilmember Thomas stated for the record that an RFP is not the standard way for a city to
ever sell property. Especially if they want to have any choice in the development which is
Mounds View's goal, to get the best development they can get.
Councilmember Thomas stated she was not 100% sure that she had made up her mind until
listening to this discussion. She stated she thinks referendums are allowed but in this case does
not think it is allowed.
Councilmember Flaherty stated the reason he asked the attorney if there is recourse on the
petition is because he said he was all in favor of petition and it was a mechanism for citizens to
use. He stated he previously indicated that he would not stop the petition based on a legality. He
stated he disagrees with the petition because it was based on misinformation, and people who
signed were not given all the information. However, he stands by his conviction and will do
• what he said he would do.
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 44
. Councilmember Thomas stated she thinks Stan , Meyer's comments deserve to be addressed
specifically. She stated no one is trying to circumvent the process, noting there were other
options to circumvent the process but the Council has not taken those options. She stated that
she felt Stan Met'er's comments had to be answered and clarified that it is not the City Attorney's
job to find ways for the Council to circumvent the process. The City Attorney's job is to give the
Council as much information as is available and on all sides. She noted the Council could have
circumvented the process with a resolution but she was clear with staff that this issue had to be
addressed by this Council and not through a resolution, which they could have done.
Mayor Marty stated that unlike other members, he does not think this is a fabulous deal but it is a
deal and on paper. He stated he does not think it is the best deal that Mounds View could have
gotten and that Mounds View could have negotiated harder for a shorter time period and more
money. Then it would have been more workable. He stated the biggest complaint is the amount
of time, the 25 year TIF District. Mayor Marty stated he has heard about that over and over
because many residents will never see the benefit of it. He noted that staff and consultants have
said it will pay off sooner but he will believe it when he sees it. With regard to the petition
process, Mayor Marty stated the sale of the property, getting MnDOT to remove the restrictions,
and the testimony at the Capitol may not be called "administration" and he believes it was
legislation and involves a legislative act. He noted the Charter says the sale of City property is
to be done by ordinance.
Mayor Marty reviewed that last spring citizens used the Charter to circulate a petition to stop a
• street development project for this year. He stated this Council unanimously deemed the petition
valid. He asked if that is legislative or administrative.
City Attorney Riggs advised it is legislative and under a different statute.
Mayor Marty stated he has been supportive of the referendum for a long time and approached by
several developers personally indicating they were interested in the golf course property but
Medtronic got the inside track and then held the only track in the race. He stated he did feel this
should have gone to a referendum, is disappointed, and feels this is a loss to citizens.
Councilmember Stigney thanked Councilmember Thomas for the way she stated her opinions on
the issues she has been wrestling with on this issue. With regard to the Charter, Councilmember
Stigney stated he has been a member for 8 years, firmly believes in the City Charter, and watches
every meeting. He stated he discusses Charter issues with Mr. Werner, a founding father of the
City Charter, as is Duane McCarty. He stated there are problems in the Charter, as Mr. McGarry
knows.
Councilmember Stigney pointed out that the City Attorney issued an early opinion that you
cannot petition against the sale. He noted there are other problems with the Charter such as with
recall and term limits. He stated that he is supportive of giving residents rights but there are
problems with the Charter. With respect to whether the City could get a better deal, maybe but
• maybe not. He stated he couldn't disagree more with those who talk about land values being
somewhere else because it has nothing to do with the action the Council is considering.
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 45
i Councilmember Stigney noted that getting $5 million cash could add $250,000 a year for the next
20 years to offset the tax base. At that point the Medtronic's project will be over and then it will
bring in $1 million a year. He stated as much as he respects the attempt to oppose, he thinks they
are all on the "wrong page" and no one has convinced him to the contrary. He stated he asks
what could be better but no one has an answer to that so he is a Councilmember who is proud to
vote for it.
Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Marty) Motion carried.
Councilmember Gunn read into the record the e-mail statement submitted by John Murphy,
resident of Mounds View.
(1) Resolution 6581 City of Mounds View Resolution Authorizing Sale of
City of Mounds View Property to the Mounds View Economic
Development Authority
Community Development Director Ericson stated the City Attorney recommends that action be
taken on this item.
Mr. McCarty stated when we first began discussion about getting a better exchange of ideas, they
went on the long-standing precedent that they were honored by the Council and sought out
• guidance from staff to assure the petition was in the correct form. He noted. Ordinance 760
references the validity of Chapter 12.05 of the City Charter and was adopted and put in place
accordingly. He stated there are many reasons and precedents we could consider. Mr. McCarty
asked those who do not want this to go to the voters; what strikes fear in their heart to have
residents vote on this issue. He asked if we are so full of ourselves that we don't want them to
vote. He again asked what is the fear to let residents vote
Councilmember Flaherty stated it does not "strike fear in him" and he has said all along he has
no problem with the petition if that is what the people want to do, they should be able to do that.
He noted the Council just voted on the sufficiency because there were not enough signatures and
the question is invalid. He stated he asked the City Attorney if there was recourse and the answer
was yes, there is recourse. He stated he is not afraid of the resident's vote.
Mr. McCarty stated there is no recourse other than going to court.
City Attorney Riggs stated they have the ability to challenge, go to court, or come up with a
different opinion. He stated there are other ways to approach this and he is sure they have
explored those options.
Mr. McCarty stated the only recourse is to go to court and it is unseemly to him that they would
have to go to court and fight their own money with their own money. He stated the Council can
. embrace the democratic process by an advisory election and not endanger the City's position. He
stated that to just throw out a document that has been rallied around for years is just not right and
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 46
• in his opinion the Council's action just "gutted the Charter."
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated the City has adopted ordinances from time
to time when certain property has been conveyed from the City to the EDA. The City Attorney's
August 11, 2005 letter indicates that State iaw allows the City to convey property without regard
to City Charter provisions. Minnesota State Statute 471.64 authorizes the City to enter into a
contract for the sale of real properly to another political subdivision without regard to Charter
provisions. Although the City Council complied with the Charter and adopted an ordinance
authorizing the conveyance, the Statute provides authority for the Council to adopt a resolution
authorizing staff to finalize conveyance of the properly to the EDA. Staff recommends the
Council adopt the draft resolution which would convey the property known as the Bridges Golf
Course to the Mounds View EDA.
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Stigney. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6581
Authorizing Sale of City of Mounds View Property to the Mounds View Economic Development
Authority
Mayor Marty stated his belief that taking this action is a blatant way to circumvent the Charter
since the sale of land is to be done by ordinance. However, to pass a resolution conveying this
property seems like over-kill or like someone is worried about this stopping and wanting to make
sure residents don't have the opportunity to vote.
• Councilmember Gunn stated the EDA has handled all the land buying and selling and it has not
been done through the Council. She stated this is no different.
Councilmember Thomas stated she was firmly against doing this by resolution because it needed
to be done by ordinance. Now the Council has done it by ordinance so it is not circumventing
anything. She stated this vote is the hardest thing she has ever had to do in her life. She stated
she was very firm in conversations with staff that until that stand was made, this was off the
table. Now this is a matter of paperwork, involves no change, or change in the process. She
noted there have been discussions and the public has been dealt with in a way that was
honorable. Councilmember Thomas reiterated that this is just paperwork.
Mayor Marty stated he begs to differ with the opinion that this is just paperwork. He noted it was
petitioned and deemed invalid but why duplicate the process with a resolution just to ensure that
all the bases are covered. He stated that seems to him to be over kill.
Councilmember Thomas stated it probably is and she does not know that it will serve any more
benefit than action already taken but it is staff's recommendation so she will support it.
Councilmember Stigney stated he agrees with Councilmember Thomas and does not want to
leave any loopholes open that may delay this development.
• Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Marty) Motion carried.
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 47
• Ms. Hawke stated that a Councilmember remarked earlier it was known that an ordinance wasn't
the right thing. She asked why it was even allowed and for them to follow it through with what
they thought was the City Charter.
Councilmember Thomas stated that she knew this might be a problem because she was familiar
with this issue, with some of the administrative questions, so she knew this issue was going to
come up. However, she did not know what the Council was going to decide, what the City
Attorney was going to come down to, or what the final decision will come down to.
Ms. Hawke asked City Attorney Riggs why he did not advise the Council earlier about this issue.
City Attorney Riggs stated he did so on July 11.
Ms. Hawke asked why he didn't then inform all the citizens so they didn't go to all the effort.
City Attorney Riggs stated it was a preliminary opinion and was moot depending on the petition.
He stated that when the petition came out he said immediately that the question was an issue. In
addition relative to the PUD, he also cited a case and suggested they check that case. However,
Ms. Hawke referred to a different case that existed before the Legislature adopted the Municipal
Land Planning Act and Chapter 462.
Ms. Hawke stated she believes there was a disservice made to the citizens because something was
not definitely said. She said she really appreciates the petition circulators and the Council should
too. She stated it is everyone's first amendment right to vote on something and she is sorry the
• Council did not let them carry through with it. She stated the PUD is to be a zoning code
ordinance so it will come around to be another ordinance.
Ms. Hawke stated she will not spend money on court cases but will spend shoe leather. She
stated she wants to be sure we do have the right to vote and believes the City could get a better
price on the land and that the TIF District didn't have to be 25 years. However, that's opinion
and she appreciates where the Council is coming from.
Councilmember Stigney stated the TIF district with Medtronic is for 25 years and that seems to
be a big problem. However, every TIF District in Mounds View is a 25 year TIF district.
O. Resolution 6609 Approving the Hire of Heidi Heller to the Position of
Planning Associate in the Community Development Department
Community Development Director Ericson reviewed that on June 13, 2005, the City Council
authorized staff to advertise for the vacant planning associate position in the Community
Development Department. Staff received almost 50 applications, interviewed five candidates,
and made an offer of employment to Heidi Heller contingent upon Council approval and
satisfactory background checks. Ms. Heller would start at Step 1, which is $36,982 and begin
employment on August 29, 2005, pending satisfactory background check.
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Flaherty. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6609
Approving the Hire of Heidi Heller to the Position of Planning Associate in the Community
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 48
• Development Department.
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried.
P. Resolution 6610 Authorization to Advertise for the Cable Tech Position
MOTION/SECOND. Marty/Flaherty. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6610
Authorization to Advertise for the Cable Tech Position.
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried.
7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS
Mayor Marty referenced the last page, Kennedy & Graven, tracking of reimbursements from
outside parties, noting the Waldoch Minor Subdivision and Meyer/Holmberg Minor Subdivision
can be removed because they are paid off. He asked Director Ericson to call Ernie Gustafson for
the remaining $27 so it can also be closed.
Director Ericson stated if so directed he will make that telephone call, however, he does not think
Mr. Gustafson will be cooperative in making payment and recommended that amount be written
off.
Council consensus was reached to direct staff to write off the $27.
Councilmember Stigney noted the charge of $90.53 on Page 8 for freeway towing and asked if
the City will get reimbursed for that amount. Police Chief Sommer stated he does not have an
answer on that reimbursement but will find out.
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Gunn. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as Presented.
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried.
9. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Resolution 6602 Adopting the Countywide Emergency Operations Plan
B. Resolution 6607 Resolution Approving a Restaurant License for Caribou
Coffee located at 2585 Highway 10
C. Resolution 6611 Approving an Agreement with Ms. Susan Huston to Provide
Interim Cable Coordinator Services
D. Resolution 6603 Authorizing the Renewal of a Training Contract with
Century College
E.
Tnvo,+„ ~,,,..,+oa ,.+ ~~nn u;,,~„:,.,., , n ;,, ~,r,,,,,,a~ v;,,.,, This item was removed
• ~ ~oo,.,,*;~,~ co~~;~„ ; ~a;.,~oi„ ~ n„R,;,,,, +~,;n r;s., r~,,,,,.;~ ,,,oo+;,,,,.
1.
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 49
• This item was removed for a separate vote. .
2-'I'o71~z:~~ tae-.~~d~st~l~.~~,~~~~a~~.T~,. This
item was removed
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Flaherty. To Approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
Ayes-5 Nays-0
Motion carried.
F. Executive Session immediately following this City Council meeting:
1. To Discuss Threatened Lawsuit and Demand Letter of Innovative Images
Dated August 8, 2005
City Attorney Riggs acknowledged that Mr. Robert Alsop discussed this matter as Agenda Item
8J and set forth reasons for the understanding to deal with this matter in a closed session in
response to a litigation matter.
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Stigney. To Approve Holding an Executive Session immediately
following this City Council meeting to discuss Threatened Lawsuit and Demand Letter of
Innovative Images dated August 8, 2005.
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried.
• 10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. July 11, 2005 City Council Meeting Minutes
The following corrections were requested:
• Page 2, Line 13, should read: "wondering if perhaps the value statement, in its entirety, has
been set aside in our"
• Page 3, Line 23, should read: "Councilmember Thomas explained that the City did not set a
precedent. This is how a City"
• Page 11, Line 1, should read: "better deal than what was discussed in New Brighton."
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Thomas. To Approve the July 11, 2005 Special City Council
Meeting Minutes as amended.
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried.
11. REPORTS
A. Reports of Mayor and Council
• Council Member Gunn stated she will report on the Festival in the Park at the next meeting.
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 50
• B. Staff
Director Ericson advised that the third installment of the New Brighton Area Historical Society
book is available for purchase at the Mounds View City Hall and the Historical Society. He
stated it also contains a lot of interesting information and pictures about Mounds View.
Councilmember Thomas asked when the first meetings will be held at the Community Center.
City Administrator Ulrich stated it will be the first meeting in October. Councilmember Thomas
asked that the Commissions who meet in this chambers also be notified.
Councilmember Gunn stated she will present the Library Task Force report at the work session.
1. Police Department 2°d Quarter Report
Police Chief Sommer presented the 2°d Quarter Report and advised they are partnering with the
New Brighton Police Department for the Save and Sober Grant, which is currently under review.
Councilmember Flaherty referred to a resident letter commending Officer Kampa and stated it is
always nice to see that recognition.
Mayor Marty stated he is still getting calls about speeding vehicles and has been thanked when
the radar trailer is in use. He stated he is glad it also checks data and advised that Public Works
• Director Lee mentioned a speed issue on Mounds View Drive. Mr. Lee would like to see officers
make more traffic stops because he believes it is more effective than installing speed limit signs.
He asked Police Chief Sommer to pass the Council's appreciation on to the Police Officers.
Councilmember Thomas stated she has seen an officer patrolling Highway 10 on three different
occasions.
2. Work Session Agenda for Tuesday, September 6, 2005
Acknowledged.
C. Reports of City Attorney
None.
12. Nezt Council Work Session: Tuesday, September 6, 2005
Nezt Council Meeting: Monday, September 12, 2005
•
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 51
• 13. ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION
The meeting recessed to an Executive Session to discuss and consider a response to the
Innovative Images letter of August 8, 2005 at 2:13 a.m.
Transcribed and recorded by:
Carla Wirth
Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
•
•