Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 2005/12/12PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL ~D CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RO RAMSEY COUNTY MINNESOTA ~~ ~ 0~ ~,9 ~~ Regular Meeting December 12, 2005 New Brighton City Hall 803 Old Highway 8, New Brighton, MN 55112 7:30 P.M. 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, and Thomas NOT PRESENT: None. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Monday, December 12, 2005 City Council Agenda MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Flaherty. To Approve the Monday, December 12, 2005 agenda as presented. Ayes -5 5. PUBLIC INPUT None. 6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUISESS None. 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS Nays - 0 Motion carried. A. 7:05 p.m. Public Hearing 1. Continued Public Hearing from December 5, 2005, Truth in Tazation Mayor Marty noted this public hearing was continued from the December 5, 2005 Truth in Taxation meeting. Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 2 • 1 Finance Director Beer stated everything was presented at the December 5, 2005 Truth in 2 Taxation meeting and offered to answer questions. 3 4 Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, thanked staff and indicated he recognizes how good they 5 have been in getting information to residents. He stated he has always gone through the 6 Administrator to request information and was not disappointed because the information was 7 complete and always prompt. He thanked City Administrator Ulrich as well. 8 9 Mr. McCarty questioned the revenue source for the temporary building inspector, software, 1o vehicle, and computer, all related to Medtronic at a cost of over $140,000. He stated there is no 11 increase in building permit and license fees in 2006 over 2005. Mr. McCarty stated he could not 12 follow the revenue stream for those expenditures. 13 14 Finance Director Beer .explained that the permit money. generated from the Medtronic project 15 will be deposited in the levy reduction fund and amounts equivalent to those expenses transferred 16 to the General Fund to cover those costs. 17 18 Mr. McCarty asked if those fees will be paid before this position starts. Finance Director Beer 19 answered in the affirmative, noting they will be paid for when Medtronic pulls the permit. 20 21 Mr. McCarty asked how long will it will take to cover those expenses. Community Development 22 Director Ericson stated the first permit fee will cover all of those expenses. • 23 24 Mr. McCarty asked when the Golf Course fund will be closed. Finance Director Beer stated it 25 will be done within a week. 26 27 There being no further public input, Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 7:34 p.m: 28 29 2. Resolution 6687 Adopting the 2006 Property Tag Levy 30 31 MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Thomas. To adopt Resolution 6687 Adopting the 2006 Property 32 Tax Levy. 33 34 Mayor Marty read the resolution in full and stated this is a zero percent increase levy. Last year. 35 the levy was for $3,838,334 and it is exactly the same for 2006. 36 37 In response to Councilmember Flaherty's question about The Bridges, Finance Director Beer 3s stated it would probably decrease that number so $134,000 would be the maximum and was the 39 best figure available at the time the budget was put together. 40 41 Community Development Director Ericson stated the agenda item will further clarify the cost for 42 plan review. 43 44 Councilmember Flaherty stated the original figure is $68,000 for plan review and now the • 45 Council is considering $34,000. Director Ericson stated that provides for flexibility should Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 3 • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 • 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 • 45 additional plan review be necessary. But, staff will be presenting later this evening that we don't believe that will be the case. Mayor Marty asked if the park dedication fee is due when the building permit is pulled. Director Ericson answered in the affirmative. Councilmember Flaherty asked if it will reduce the levy. Finance Director Beer stated it will not because the cost for the temporary inspector is directly off set by permit revenue. Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 3. Resolution 6688 Adopting the 2006 Budgets for All Funds MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Stigney. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6688 Adopting the 2006 Budgets for All Funds. Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 4. Public Hearing to Consider Resolution 6682 Adopting the 2006 Fee Schedule Assistant to the City Administrator Crane stated this action will adopt the 2006 fee schedule, which was reviewed at the December 6, 2005 Work Session. She noted the changes are highlighted and advised that no additional changes were made since it was reviewed at the Work Session. Staff recommends the public hearing be held and the draft resolution adopted. Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. There being no public hearing, Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. Mayor Marty explained that staff reviewed the fee schedule and recommended adjustments in select areas where they felt increases were due and warranted. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Flaherty. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6682 Adopting the 2006 Fee Schedule. Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. Mayor Marty thanked staff for their work to review the fee schedule and bring this matter before the Council B. 7:10 pm: Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6683, a Resolution Authorizing Amendments to the City's Wetland Zoning District Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 4 1 2 Community Development Director Ericson explained that last year the Council authorized SEH 3 to do a wetland delineation survey of the Spring Creek wetland basin. He reviewed the location 4 of the subject wetland and explained this delineation was authorized because the official wetland 5 zoning maps were created in the 1980s but were not based on a delineation. Those maps were 6 based on aerial flights, photography, and elevations. The maps were not field verified and were 7 meant to be a tool to assist the City to regulate the wetland buffer. He explained the way the 8 Code is written, the delineation goes back to the official City maps, which have not been updated 9 as the wetland information has been updated. Director Ericson noted there may be a discrepancy l0 between what the official City maps show and the true official footprint of the wetland. SEH has 11 delineated the true boundary of the wetland and that boundary was pulled in from what is shown 12 on the official City wetland zoning maps. 13 14 Director Ericson displayed a map of the Spring Creek wetland basin showing the new wetland 15 delineation and buffer map. He noted this will, in most cases, pull the wetland line farther away 16 from resident's homes and yards. Director Ericson stated the Council is being asked to adopt a 17 resolution to identify a true delineation of where the wetland is and confirms the location. 18 19 Director Ericson explained that a resident may or may not need a wetland buffer permit if they 20 want to remodel their house or redo their driveway. If the project is within the wetland buffer, 21 then an additional $25 permit is needed. However, staff knew that in some cases the wetland 22 was not impacted and the permit was not needed. • 23 24 Director Ericson stated this action would hold the public hearing, adopt the new wetland 25 delineation, and then the City's official zoning maps will be updated. This same process will be 26 used for all wetland areas in Mounds View and will give residents a better idea of where 27 wetlands are located. Director Ericson advised that if requested, the City can print out a map of 28 the resident's property before and after the wetland delineation. In most cases, it will show less 29 of an impact on resident's properties. 30 31 Director Ericson stated there is now better electronic data and the maps are in digital form so it 32 will be easier to manage the wetland, print maps, and make amendments when necessary. He 33 stated this is the first time the City has taken formal action to approve a new wetland delineation 34 and offered to answer questions of the residents. 35 36 Mayor Many asked staff to display the pre-delineation zoning map and the new wetland zoning 37 map. He noted that the old map shows the wetland impacted just about every property and that 38 their homes were either within the wetland or buffer zone. This action will identify the actual 39 location of the wetland. Mayor Marty noted that since the 1980s, the wetland areas may have 4o receded somewhat and this could be a classic case of that happening. 41 42 Mayor Marty asked residents if they would like to speak to this issue. 43 44 Gene Anderson, 2948 Wooddale Drive, stated that in April of this year the City Engineer spent .45 considerable money doing surveys and looking at the wetland in terms of developing a holding Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 5 • 1 pond. He stated that money is now gone and if the holding pond had been done, this wetland 2 delineation would not be necessary since the pond would have been eight feet deep. Mr. 3 Anderson asked what is the status of that project. He stated that the new buffer zone runs 4 through his swimming pool but it was not an issue when the .pool was installed. He noted it 5 appears with his property the wetland line expanded, is more of an impact, and has decreased the 6 value of his property. 7 8 Director Ericson stated he cannot speak to the holding pond issue because it and the wetland 9 delineations are completely independent from each other. to 11 Mr. Anderson asked if the additional water holding properties were needed for a road 12 improvement project. 13 14 Mayor Marty stated whether or not the pond went in would not have change where the wetland is 15 located. Public Works Director Lee stated that is correct, the delineation has no bearing on the 16 location of the regional pond. He explained that the pond was a requirement of the street projects 17 and the requirement for water treatment by the Rice Creek Watershed District. Since that project 18 did not go forward, the pond is on hold. 19 20 Councilmember Thomas stated back in April or May the City did receive the report and it will be 21 useful to the City for three to four years so the money is not "gone." 22 23 Richard Comben, 2832 Woodcrest Drive, stated he is glad this issue came up and asked if the 24 determination of the wetland is done through soil testing. Director Ericson explained the 25 delineation of wetlands includes a very involved process by soil and water hydrologists. They 26 look at the type of soils present, the type of vegetation that exists, the presence of water, if there 27 is not water there could still be wetland vegetation, and subsurface soil modeling that determines 28 how the wetland delineation is projected. In the 1980s that process was not used. 29 30 Mr. Comben stated he has lived there since 1972 and depending on the year or decade, the 31 wetland area goes back and forth. He wondered how realistic the shaded area on the map and 32 buffer really are. He stated the buffer goes right up to his garage and he is suspicious why the 33 City is paying attention to this matter today. He asked if there is a building project that needs 34 more runoff area. Mr. Comben stated he would feel better if the City put a 100-foot radius 35 around every wetland and sinkhole so everyone can share in this "pain." 36 37 Director Ericson explained that by Code, the purpose of the buffer adopted in the 1980s gave the 38 City the opportunity to review what is happening adjacent to a wetland. However, the 100-foot 39 buffer is not a "magic number" for a buffer. He explained that the City requires a 100-foot 40 setback and in some cases it creates no impact because of the distinct change in elevation. 41 Director Ericson explained that the City had several property owners ask why they had to get a 42 wetland buffer permit to redo their driveway or garage so the City went forward with this 43 delineation project. He noted that in the case of the Comben property, the line was pulled back, 44 as occurred with most properties. • 45 Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 6 1 Director Ericson stated in the 1980s the City realized that the wetlands were an important feature 2 for recharging the aquafore and filtering out chemicals. 3 4 Mr. Comben asked if the rules against .his property are the same as the rules against all 5 properties. Director Ericson stated that is the case for all properties in the wetland buffer. 6 7 Mr. Comben asked about a storm water pond, noting it will soon have cattails growing and then 8 all. of the homes around it will be within the wetland buffer. Director Ericson explained that 9 storm water management ponds are not considered wetlands but if wetland vegetation grows, the to Rice Creek Watershed District may consider it to be a wetland. 11 12 Mr. Comben stated there is a property on the north side of Woodcrest that is sinking as well as 13 Silver Lake Road. He suggested Woodcrest Drive be blocked off and the wetland area expanded. 14 He stated his opinion that something special had to be done with the Silver Lake Road project so 15 he would suggested it be allowed to sink and become wetland. 16 17 Public Works Director Lee explained that. Ramsey County changed the grades for Silver Lake 18 Road so the grades of Woodcrest Drive will have to be changed to match them. 19 20 Councilmember Thomas noted the wetland buffer area decreased and did not increase, so before 21 the new delineation the buffer line may have gone into Mr. Comben's garage. She noted that 22 most cities do not have updated wetland delineations and this is Mounds View's attempt to get • 23 that process started. 24 25 Mayor Marty stated the City ordered another wetland delineation by Ardan Park and LaPort 26 Meadows and that will be following this same process. He noted that the pond project 27 mentioned earlier was put on hold and this is a separate process to determine the accurate 28 wetland boundaries and buffer zone. 29 30 Mr. Comben asked if the pond would drain the wetlands and result in .less wetland area. Public 31 Works Director Lee explained that the pond would not be located in the wetland but would be 32 located upland and not drain the wetland. 33 34 Mayor Marry closed the public hearing at 8:09 p.m. 35 36 Mayor Marty thanked Director Ericson and staff for bringing this matter forward. He explained 37 that the City's zoning snaps will be changed so, as residents do home projects, they will find this 38 to be advantageous. Currently, the City's records would have impacted almost every home in 39 this area but with the new wetland delineation the buffer area has been pulled back. Prior to the 4o new delineation, all properties would have needed a buffer permit to redo their driveway. Now 41 only one property would be effected if they want to redo their driveway. 42 43 MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To waive the reading and adopt Resoluticn 6683, a 44 Resolution Authorizing Amendments to the City's Wetland Zoning District. • 45 Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 7 • 1 Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 2 3 C. 7:15 pm: Public Hearing to Consider a Rezoning of the Property Located at 4 2617 County Road I from R-1, Single Family, to R-2, Single and Two Family 5 Residential 6 7 Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:11 p.m. 8 9 Planning Associate Heller presented the request to rezone 2617 County Road I from R-1, Single l0 .Family, to R-2, Single and Two Family Residential. She explained the applicant did an addition 11 to her home and then staff received a call to do a rental housing inspection. Staff became aware 12 of a change of intent in how Ms. Colleen planned to use the addition so she was informed of the 13 need to apply for a rezoning. 14 15 Planning Associate Heller explained the addition included a full kitchen with full-sized 16 appliances. She noted the rezoning to R-2 would be not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan 17 but may not necessarily be inappropriate since there is commercial property across the street and 18 there are other R-2 properties in the near vicinity of Ms. Colleen's property. The Planning 19 Commission held a public hearing and they did recommend approval of this rezoning. 20 21 Joanne Colleen offered to answer questions and explained this evolved into something it was not 22 originally intended to be. She explained that her older sister and her husband wanted to live • 23 there and will then take care of the yard. The space is under 700 square feet. Ms. Colleen 24 explained that when her older sister and husband retire, they plan to be in Florida for half of the 25 year. 26 27 There being no additional public input, Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. 28 29 Councilmember Flaherty asked how this request evolved from an addition to a rental unit. 30 31 Ms. Colleen stated the space was added above the garage so her. son, his wife, and two children 32 could be up there since her house is small. Originally it was created as a recreational area of 7.5 33 feet by 18 feet plus akitchenette/bar area and two small bedrooms (10 feet by 12 feet and 8 feet 34 by 12 feet) plus a bathroom. The addition was competed in July of 2004 and the refrigerator and 35 sink were installed because there was supposed to be a 6-foot bar. Then the bar did not fit so a 36 small counter was installed with two stools. The counter was affixed to the floor so it would not 37 tip over. Ms. Colleen stated a stove was added as well as some upper cupboards. Then her son 38 got a job offer at the end of December so they only lived there four months. Her son's family 39 moved out in February of 2005. Ms. Colleen stated by May, she thought maybe she could rent it 40 out to someone. 41 42 MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6695, A 43 Resolution of the City Council to deny the request to rezone 2617 County Road I from R-1, 44 Single Family Residential, to R-2, Single and Two Family Residential; Planning Case No. ZCOS- .45 002. Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 8 1 2 Councilmember Stigney stated if the property is zoned R-2 it should have separate driveways and 3 garages. Also, this request for rezoning is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan so he 4 supports denial 5 6 Councilmember Flaherty asked if this is a typical R-2 use in Mounds View. Planning Associate 7 Heller stated it can be a separate dwelling created within the home and used for rental but in most 8 cases it is a twinhome type of situation. 9 1 o Councilmember Flaherty stated he also felt an R-2 use would be more typical to a twinhome than 11 an addition over a garage. He stated he does not know, however, if this addition constitutes an 12 R-2 dwelling. 13 14 Councilmember Thomas asked if the City has an option to consider other than to rezone, such as 15 a rental agreement. Director Ericson stated there is a little gray area with this case. He noted that 16 .the City encourages property owners to expanded their homes to include additional living space 17 because it is considered an amenity. The point at which it became a question, was when the City 18 was notified it had potential for renting out and the inspector was going to look at the property. 19 That elevated it to the R-2 designation. He explained that property owners can rent out a room or 20 part of the basement but the moment it is a distinct and separate living space with separate 21 access, it is a separate unit and not contemplated in the R-1 zoning district. 22 • 23 Councilmember Thomas stated the "mother-in-law" use is allowed based on shared living space 24 and since this addition does not have a separate driveway and garage, she considers it to have 25 shared living space. She noted that having a separate door does not define a separate facility and 26 neither does having a separate refrigerator or stove. Otherwise, any bedroom with a separate sink 27 or microwave would be considered a separate living space if it had a patio door. Councilmember 28 Thomas stated she does not know how this application rises to the level of a zoning change. 29 30 Director Ericson stated the shared space, according to Code and conventional review of matters 31 such as zoning, is shared .living space, not a shared garage or driveway.. In this case, there is no 32 shared living space. He noted there is a connection between the addition and primary home but 33 the door can be locked and there could be no shared space if they so choose. If the property 34 owner is seeking housing inspection and certification for, perhaps, Section 8 housing, then the 35 inspector must verify Code compliance. That elevates it to a different zoning classification. 36 37 Councilmember Flaherty stated he is not .convinced this is an R-2 dwelling and he agrees with 38 Councilmember Thomas that this is no more than a "mother-in-law" apartment. He stated he 39 thinks the City can satisfy Ms. Colleen's needs without a rezoning. 40 41 Councilmember Stigney stated his understanding that once it is rezoned to R-2, it will always be 42 rental. property. He explained he is concerned about creating R-2 property without a separate 43 driveway and garage to house two families. • 44 Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 9 1 Councilmember Thomas stated she does not think rezoning is the proper solution and encouraged • 2 staff to see if an adaptation to the Code is an option. She suggested the Council discuss this 3 matter at a Work Session to see what can be done. Councilmember Thomas noted Ms. Colleen 4 was being "above board" in notifying the City that she was going to be accepting rent for this 5 space. Councilmember Thomas stated she does not think rezoning is the answer because it 6 expands authorization well beyond where the applicant wants to be. 7 8 Councilmember Gunn asked what happens if the rezoning is denied. Director Ericson stated in 9 the correspondence with Ms. Colleen, she was provided with two options: 1) rezoning; or, 2) to 1 o remove the kitchen facility. Director Ericson stated there is a gray area in the difference between 11 a "bar" and a "kitchen." He stated the City would indicate the kitchen facility needs to be 12 removed; .the full sized refrigerator, stove, and sinks. He stated that the property owner was 13 presented with those two options. 14 15 Mayor Marty stated he can see both sides of this issue and after hearing the applicant's story 16 about how this evolved, can picture how that could have happened. However, with a rezoning it 17 is as Councilmember Stigney said, once it is rezoned to R-2 it will be constituted rental property. 18 At the present time, he concurs with Councilmember Stigney to approve the resolution to deny 19 the rezoning and then the Council can have more discussion on this issue. He noted if the stove 20 is removed then there could be a shared kitchen area and it would be more like renting out a 21 room. 22 • 23 Ms. Colleen stated her other option was to remove the cupboards, the stove, and the sink. She 24 stated her willingness to remove the stove but explained that the sink was installed and inspected 25 for the wet bar. She stated she did not think there was a problem with installing cupboards in 26 this location since other houses have cupboards in many locations, such as the garage or 27 bedroom. She explained that she refinanced her home three times and sold her river place to 28 build this addition. 29 3o Mayor Marty stated his house has a downstairs bar with cupboards and a refrigerator. He stated 31 he supports .the resolution for denial and asked. the applicant to work with staff to make a few 32 minor adjustments, such as taking out the stove to keep the property in compliance. He noted the 33 renter could still use the space, share the main kitchen, and still do the yard work for Ms. 34 Colleen. 35 36 Councilmember Thomas asked if it is enough to take out the stove. Director Ericson stated there 37 is enough of a change so it is additional living space. However, if the stove and refrigerator are 38 removed, the appearance of the kitchen would be removed and it would better satisfy the Code. 39 He stated staff can work with Ms. Colleen to make modifications short of removing the sink. 40 However, if this space is advertised for rent to anon-family member, then staff would have 41 .objection. He explained the concern to not have other properties start renting out to non-family 42 members or many college students. 43 44 Director Ericson stated that staff will. continue to work with Ms. Colleen to satisfy her needs if .45 the Council moves forward with the denial of the rezoning. Mounds View City Council December 12,2005 Regular Meeting Page 10 • i 2 Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 3 4 D. 7:20 pm: Public Hearing to Consider Abating Nuisance Conditions and Non- 5 Compliant Code Items at 2390 County Road 10, Property Known and 6 Operated as Premium Stop Fuel Station 7 8 Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:35 p.m. 9 to Housing/Code Enforcement Inspector Anderson explained that on September 21, 2005, the City 11 of Mounds View was subjected to high winds and damaging conditions. The canopy at 2390 12 County Road 10 sustained damage and was noticeably listing. Staff directed the property 13 owner/operator to make corrective actions or provide, in lieu of that, an engineering report. Mr. 14 Bteibet took corrective action in removing the canopy from the post and putting it into the shared 15 parking area with the former Donut Connection. The canopy has now been in that location since 16 mid-October. Housing/Code Enforcement Inspector Anderson explained that additionally the car 17 wash on that property, which is non-operational, .sustained damage to the front window. It was 18 blown inside the building so the building is open to access through that space. The business was 19 issued a notice of violation on November 28, 2005 to CHO Investments in care of Michael 20 Cleary and to Khaldon Bteibet. Notice was delivered personally and mailed by first class mail. 21 He explained that because of the background of continued repairs not completed in a timely 22 manner, the owner was notified it would be before the City Council to request abatement. • 23 Housing/Code Enforcement Inspector Anderson stated staff recommends approval of Resolution 24 698, ordering the abatement of nuisance conditions existing at 2390 County Road 10, operated as 25 Premium Stop Fuel Station, in the City of Mounds View. 26 27 Khaldon Bteibet, representing Premium Stop at 2390 County Road 10, commented that this place 28 has been a nightmare for him. He explained that he came into this place hoping it would be his 29 dream business. He got into this business through Mr. Alsade who is the subleasee from Oasis 3o Market. Up until this point, neither Mr. Alsade nor Oasis Market has given him a lease to the 31 property. Mr. Bteibet stated he has requested a lease many times and has talked to Dan Price, the 32 Director of Oasis Market, to request repairs and the lease because there are people interested in 33 leasing it or buying his business. Mr. Bteibet stated he told Mr. Price that he has had it, lost a lot 34 of money, and cannot afford to do any of the improvements plus he does not have a lease to the 35 property so he would be making the improvements to property owned by Mr. Alsade or Oasis 36 Market. 37 38 Mr. Bteibet advised that the car wash is owned by another business, Noostar. Noostar decided 39 they would not let him use the car wash so he has also lost business on the car wash business. 40 Then the canopy became damaged so he called Oasis Market and told them it was a serious 41 matter. Mr. Price showed up and took down the canopy.. Mr. Bteibet explained that Mr. Price 42 promised the canopy would be taken care of this week so that is what he told Mounds View. He 43 stated he has made many phone calls to Oasis Market. 44 • 45 Mr. Bteibet explained that Mr. Alsade is not in the. country now so he called him and begged him Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 11 • 1 to talk to Oasis Market. Mr. Bteibet stated he has lost a lot of money but is willing to walk away 2 if he is not liable for anything. However, he thinks he is liable to the company and now has three 3 City offences on his record. But, he is not the person who can decide what to do. 4 5 Mr. Bteibet stated that he paid his. bills but then in May decided that if they are not going to do 6 anything, he will stop paying the rent. He advised that Oasis Market didn't even come to collect 7 the rent. Mr. Bteibet stated this is the situation he is in. He was hoping to see this become a 8 great business and came into the place to make money. He stated he tried his best to work on it 9 but things worked against him. 10 11 Councilmember Thomas explained that the abatement would be charged to CHO Investments, 12 the property owner. Director Ericson stated that is correct and if the Council authorized the 13 abatement, the City would hire the people necessary to make the corrections, and provide the 14 invoice to Mr. Bteibet and CHO Investments. Since CHO Investments is the property owner of 15 record, they would be responsible for the cost. If that cost is not paid within a certain period of 16 time, it would be assessed against the property taxes and not effect Mr. Bteibet. 17 18 Mayor Marty asked what is Mr. Bteibet's liability if he is not the owner and he does not have a 19 lease. He stated it seems that Mr. Bteibet could lock the door and walk away. 20 21 Mr. Bteibet stated when he came to the business he applied for the proper licenses but Oasis 22 Market failed to take care of the paper work. He stated he called Dan Price so many times that 23 Mr. Hies said, "I didn't even lease you anything." Mr. Bteibet said he told Mr. Hies that he had 24 cashed all of the rent checks and then Mr. Hies said he has 100 other stores, .the company is 25 going out of business, going bankrupt, and is having financial problems so Mr. Bteibet is not his 26 top priority. 27 28 Mayor Marty asked if the license is in Mr. Bteibet's name. Director Ericson stated it is. Mayor 29 Marty asked if Mr. Bteibet can pull his licenses. Director Ericson stated he can lock the door at 30 any time. 31 32 Councilmember Flaherty asked Mr. Bteibet if he wants to walk away. Mr. Bteibet stated he 33 would love to get some money out of it because he has put in almost three years, lost his life 34 savings, and would come out of it with nothing. He stated he has received some interest from 35 people who want to take over his business but they want a proper lease from Oasis Market or the 36 landlord himself. Mr. Bteibet stated the interested party offered to pay for the inventory, which 37 he would like to get money from. 38 39 Councilmember Flaherty asked if the City should do the abatement and .charge CHO 40 Investments, which would result in a lien on the property. Director Ericson stated that is correct. 41 42 Councilmember Thomas stated that would be the best action since it .would take care of a 43 problem that Mr. Bteibet cannot resolve and maybe, during that time, the other problem will be 44 resolved. She stated she sees no other action that can occur to resolve the issues. • 45 Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 12 • 1 Mayor Marty noted that once the abatement work is done, the property will be in better shape and 2 more marketable. 3 4 Mr. Bteibet stated the property owner was very upset that the canopy was down and would be 5 taken away. 6 7 Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. s 9 MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Gunn. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6698, a to Resolution Ordering the Abatement of Nuisance Conditions Existing at 2390 County Road 10, 11 Operated as Premium Stop Fuel Station, in the City of Mounds View. 12 13 Mr. Bteibet stated he was in court for the nuisance and signage offences but the City prosecutor 14 was not there so it will be back on the court calendar on January 6, 2006. 15 16 Mayor Marty noted Mr. Bteibet is not the owner or leaseholder so he questioned why Mr. Bteibet 17 would be responsible in court since he has no vested interest. Director Ericson explained that I8 originally when the notices began, the notice was sent to Mr. Bteibet. The City sent three or four 19 notices and the City Building Official and Housing Inspector all attempted to contact Mr. Bteibet 20 to make the corrections. Director Ericson advised that the City did not issue a court citation 21 without first attempting those contacts. At no point after sending the multiple letters did Mr. 22 Bteibet contact the City. • 23 24 Director Ericson explained that. the City may not have issued the court citations if Mr. Bteibet 25 had indicated what the situation was. One notice was for a sign that Mr. Bteibet installed himself 26 and, as the business owner of Premium Stop, he was the responsible party. Director Ericson 27 stated staff can talked to the prosecuting attorney. to see what should be done on this property. 28 He noted that if Mr. Bteibet had talked to the City after receiving the notice of violation, maybe 29 Mr. Bteibet would not have received the court citation. 30 31 Mr. Bteibet explained that he left the country at the end of June and came back in September. 32 One or two letters was received during that time. Then when he came back, he saw the pictures, 33 took down the sign, and thought that solved the problem. Then the City notified him about the 34 U-Haul sign, which he removed. Mr. Bteibet stated he was also willing to take down the 35 Premium Stop signs. 36 37 Director Ericson stated if the Council wishes, staff will talk to the prosecuting attorney. He 38 explained that if the Council provides direction that it wants to drop those charges or reissue 39 citations in name of CHO Investments, staff can drop all charges against Mr. Bteibet. However, 4o staff needs Council authorization because staff has already initiated the process. 41 42 Councilmember Thomas stated that is a separate issue from what is being considered tonight. 43 She stated she would like more information about those issues before taking action on that 44 matter. She noted it is a short time between now and January 6 so she is unsure if that can occur • 45 before then. Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005 Regular Meeting. Page 13 1 • 2 Councilmember Gunn concurred and stated she would also like more information. 3 4 Director Ericson stated the City can request a continuance beyond January 6, 2006 so the Council 5 has time to address the issues. 6 7 City Attorney Riggs explained that whether there is a written lease or not, Mr. Bteibet has a lease 8 so the citation is in order. He agreed the Council could receive additional information and 9 request the Court continue that matter to another date. 10 11 Mayor Marty asked staff to make that request of the court. 12 13 Mayor Marty stated he stopped by the station to ask why the grass was not being mowed but Mr. 14 Bteibet was not at the station. He asked Mr. Bteibet to meet with staff to sort out the issues. 15 16 Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 17 18 E. Resolution 6691, Resolution in Support of Blaine Council Acceptance of Bid 19 Package #2 Recommendations for the SBM Fire Station 20 21 Fire Chief Zikmund stated this is a continuation for the Fire Department project best described as 22 the second half of the second bid package that equals about 90% of the total bid package. The • 23 contracts were let in October, opened November 28, and evaluated but there was not enough time 24 to interview all the pertinent bidders. Fire Chief Zikmund reviewed the contracts that are 25 included in this bid package for a total amount of $3,313.034. He stated that on January 9, 2006 26 he will return with the second half of Bid Package #2. Then in March and April of 2006 they 27 will be requesting action on the furniture, appliances, etc. 28 29 Fire Chief Zikmund noted the bids came in approximately 4% less than the estimate. A meeting 3o was held on December 1St to evaluate the bids and alternates and two alternates are being 31 included: 1) a bi-fold door upgrade; and, 2) a geothermal system that takes advantage of the 32 earth's constant heat. Fire Chief Zikmund stated the Spring Lake Park City Council took 33 supportive action. 34 35 Fire Chief Zikmund reported that all footings are in and backfilled, construction will move 36 materials on site, and scaffold will be erected after Christmas with the project being finished in 37 July. 38 39 Mayor Marty stated he is happy to see this come back 4% under the cost estimate,. which is not 40 usually the case when you start ordering materials. He stated he sees no problems with this 41 request. 42 43 Councilmember Flaherty stated his agreement. • 44 Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005. Regular Meeting Page 14 1 MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Flaherty. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6691, a • 2 Resolution in Support of Blaine Council Acceptance of Bid Package. #2 Recommendations for 3 the SBM Fire Station. 4 5 Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 6 7 F. Resolution 6700 Waiving the Public Improvement Hearing, Holding a Public 8 Information Meeting, Ordering the Project, Approving a Contract to 9 Demolish the Existing Building at Random Park and Authorizing the 10 Preparation of Plans and Specifications for the Random Park Building 11 Replacement Project 12 13 Public Works Director Lee stated this project was discussed last week to relocate the former golf 14 course club house to Random Park. At that meeting, there was general consensus to move 15 forward since it will save the City about $100,000 over constructing a new building of a 16 comparable size and replace the building seven years sooner than scheduled in the current CIP. 17 Staff prepared a resolution with the first action being to award the demolition contract. 18 19 Public Works Director Lee reported that one quote was received in amount of $12,800, which is 20 close to the engineer's estimate of $12,000. Staff reviewed. the quotes from the Groveland Park 21 building line items of $18,200 and felt this was a good quote. If awarded, Jay. Brothers would 22 start as soon as Monday, December 19, and it is estimated that it would take two weeks. They .23 would remove the foundation and handicapped ramp, remove and cap the utilities, private 24 utilities would be disconnected, the site graded off, thermo blankets put in place for two months, 25 and then a separate contractor could do excavation and construction. 26 27 Public Works Director Lee discussed the project schedule, which will be very tight. He 28 explained there are four options to move the club house. After discussing the options with 29 moving contractors, staff felt the most feasible option was to move the club house to Random 3o Park and placed it on cribbing which would be fenced. Then a separate contractor would do the 31 foundation and site work, connect utilities, and then .lower the building on the foundation. 32 33 Public Works Director Lee reviewed the approximate project schedule, noting the project will be 34 back for final specification approval on January 9, and the bid awarded on February 13. The club 35 house will be moved the last week of February, and the project completed in June of 2006. He 36 noted there was discussion at the last meeting about financing the project from TIF, if an eligible 37 expense, and the rest being funded 50/50 between the Park Dedication Account and the Special 38 Project Fund. Based on that, the City would not be required to hold a formal public hearing. 39 Staff recommends the Council waive the formal public hearing but schedule an informal public 4o informational meeting. He advised that staff did notify people living within 500 feet of Random 41 Park as well as frequent users of the building so he would recommend the public be allowed to 42 .speak tonight. 43 r ~, Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 15 1 Public Works Director Lee stated if the Council determines to move forward, they would order 2 the project and order plans and specifications. The .resolution would authorize that action and 3 award the contract to Jay Brothers. 4 5 Mayor Marty asked the public if anyone would like to speak to this issue. 6 7 No one responded. 8 9 Councilmember Gunn asked if it is known to a certainty that this building can be moved. Public to Works Director Lee advised that four contractors were contacted and they felt there would be no 11 big problems with moving the building. He advised that the issue of overhead utilities will need 12 to be addressed. Four quotes were received from moving contractors who looked at the building 13 and reviewed the route to be taken. 14 15 Councilmember Gunn stated Mr. Sonterre called her and expressed concerns regarding an old 16 building versus a new building that has warrantees. His concern was that this is an older building 17 plus it is being moved and stressed, so something may happen to the building in five to ten years 18 when there are no warrantees. 19 20 Public Works Director Lee stated those issues were addressed last week and need to be weighed 21 against a $100,000 savings and being able to replace the Random Park building seven years 22 sooner. 23 24 Councilmember Gunn stated that the Random Park building would not be replaced now. Public 25 Works Director Lee stated that is correct and it would not have otherwise occurred for seven 26 years. 27 28 Councilmember Thomas noted that buildings are moved all of the time and it will be inspected 29 when the building is placed on the foundation. She stated entire businesses are developed doing 30 this type of work, which is why the City received four quotes. Councilmember Thomas noted 31 this is not a temporary building, it is a permanent building and built under Building Codes so it 32 will be a nice permanent building at Random Park once it is in place. She stated she wished 33 there were better cost comparisons for constructing a new building at Random Park but it is not 34 to the point where that can be determined. She noted that this is an asset that is available for the 35 City to use today, one she would not like to loose. 36 37 Councilmember Flaherty agreed this asset needs to be used. He stated the demolition is 38 scheduled on December 19 but then it is 60 days until the move occurs. He asked if the facility 39 could be left available for the month of January. Public Works Director Lee stated staff did look 40 at that because there were issues about people using the building. However, there is already a 41 foot of frost and what wily help this project is to remove the building and get thermal blankets 42 down before the frost goes deeper. He reported that staff has been able to relocate all users of the 43 Random Park building to other facilities. 44 • 45 Councilmember Thomas asked whether the summer programs will occur within. this building. Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 16 i • 2 Councilmember Gunn stated she thinks the summer schedule starts July 1St 3 4 MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Stigney. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6700 5 Waiving the Public Improvement Hearing, Holding a Public Information Meeting, Ordering the 6 Project, Approving a Contract to Demolish the Existing Building at Random Park and 7 Authorizing the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for .the Random Park Building 8 Replacement Project adding to #4 that the bid is awarded to Jay Brothers. 9 10 Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 11 12 G. Resolution 6693, Approving a Transfer of Business License Ownership from 13 Elias Samara to Khalid Ahmed for a Tobacco and Gasoline License for the 14 Mounds View BP, located at 2155 Highway 10 is 16 Assistant to the City Administrator Crane stated this is a transfer of ownership for a tobacco and 17 gasoline license from Mr. Samara to Mr. Ahmed for the Mounds View BP. She reported the 18 applicant has submitted all the needed documents and the Fire Marshal recently inspected the 19 building but it did not do very we1L She explained that this information came to light after the 20 staff report was prepared. The Council can consider approval pending satisfactory reinspection 21 or take action to postpone to January 9, 2006. 22 • 23 Building Official Osmonson explained this situation is similar to that of the Premium Stop in 24 working with Oasis Market and trying to get the violations corrected. She advised that one of the 25 problems is that the propane exchange station is located by the window and needs to be 26 relocated. Then, screening needs to be built around the exchange station once it is correctly 27 located. Also, the junction box is open and needs to be closed. She explained that these issues 28 need to be abated prior to the transfer being considered. 29 3o Assistant to the City Administrator Crane stated she is not aware of the lease situation. 31 32 .Building Official Osmonson explained that they are operating under the other license but have 33 existing violations that staff has had trouble getting abated. This request presents the opportunity 34 to get them addressed. 35 36 Councilmember Thomas asked if it is better for the Council to consider approval pending a 37 satisfactory inspection and compliance. Assistant to the City Administrator Crane stated it 38 comes down to staff having to be in contact with them every day. 39 40 Building Official Osmonson stated her agreement and that letters to the owners will still need to 41 be sent. Mayor Marty stated these people will have to fix property that belongs to someone else. 42 43 Councilmember Stigney asked if the license would be issued to the new business owner, which 44 would put pressure on them.. Assistant to the City Administrator Crane explained they will • 45 continue to operate under the old ownership. Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 17 • i 2 Councilmember Gunn asked how they can operate under the old ownership. City Attorney Riggs 3 advised that if the City has evidence that the business has actually transferred, they would need to 4 cease operations. 5 6 Councilmember Flaherty stated they will not get a license for transfer until they receive a 7 satisfactory fire inspection and correction of violations. He noted that alone should be enough 8 impetus for them to comply. 9 to Building Official Osmonson asked if staff should send them a letter stating that and indicating 11 the Council will consider the request for transfer of the business license once they receive a 12 satisfactory fire inspection. 13 14 City Administrator Ulrich noted the next Council meeting will be on January 9, 2006. 15 16 The Council directed staff to bring back this matter for action once the property receives a 17 satisfactory fire inspection. 18 19 H. Resolution 6690 Authorizing the Acceptance of a Traffic Safety Award from 20 the MN Department of Public Safety 21 22 Police Chief Sommer explained this action will accept an award from the Minnesota Department • 23 of Public Safety and a $2,000 grant, which must be used for traffic safety purposes as additional 24 funding to benefit the Mounds View Police Department. 25 26 Police Chief Sommer explained that the Police Department submitted an application for this 27 year's Safe and Sober challenge award. The application detailed the Police Department's 28 program of participation in traffic safety enforcement and education, which included the 29 Department's participation in the State-wide enforcement waves throughout the year, the 30 Department's directed traffic enforcement in problem areas, and response to complaints. of traffic 31 violators. The Department of Public Safety awards-those police and sheriff departments from 32 throughout the State whose efforts were deemed exceptional in improving traffic safety. The 33 Minnesota Department of Public Safety judged the Mounds View Police Department's efforts to 34 decrease impaired driving and increase seatbelt use to be exceptional and awarded the 35 Department with second place and amini-grant in the amount of $2,000 to be used for. traffic 36 safety purposes. The Police Department proposes the funds be used to purchase digital recording 37 equipment for the Intoxilyzer alcohol testing area and interview room for the processing of 38 driving while intoxicated offenders. He recommend approval of the resolution and acceptance of 39 the grant. 40 41 MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Gunn. To waive the reading .and adopt Resolution 6690 42 Authorizing the Acceptance of a Traffic Safety Award from the MN Department of Public 43 Safety. 44 • 45 Staff was asked to correct a typographical error in the last paragraph to indicate "Be it further Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 18 • 1 resolved," not "result." 2 3 Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 4 5 I. Resolution 6694 Authorizing an Agreement with Hagedorn-Gove Building 6 and Fire Consultants to Provide Plan Review Services Associated with the 7 Medtronic CRM Phase 1 Development 8 9 Community Development Director Ericson explained that Mounds View will require additional l0 plan review assistance with the Medtronic project because of the complexity of the plans and 11 design of the buildings. It is far and above what has been seen in Mounds View and many areas 12 of the metro area. He advised that he and Building Official Osmonson have talked about what 13 would be beneficial in providing plan review services and requested quotes from area inspection 14 and plan review firms and the State of Minnesota. He noted the rate fee schedule and advised the 15 State would charge 75% of the plan review fee or $102,000. The problem is that they cannot 16 guarantee when it would be done so it could be months since they are currently backlogged. 17 Staff then contacted private inspection firms that would require 75-80% of the plan review fee. 18 Staff also requested a quote from Gary Hagedorn and Katherine Gove .who are fully qualified to 19 do the work. 20 21 Director Ericson noted that Mr. Hagedorn and Ms. Gove provided the City with an agreement to 22 conduct the Phase 1 plan review work and plan review for mechanical, fire suppression, fire • 23 pump and standpipe, and other issues that the other entities would have an extra charge to 24 review. They would also be available for inspections and telephone consultations, and would 25 work with Building Official Osmonson as she reviews the plans. Mr. Hagedorn and Ms. Gove 26 can do the work for 25% of the plan review fee and in three weeks or less. The benefit of 27 working with these two individuals is .that they are already familiar with the City of Mounds 28 View as well as with the Fire District. Another benefit is that Building Official Osmonson can 29 also take part in the plan review and become educated in the finer points of these plans and 30 potentially take on the review of Phase 2. Staff and Building Official Osmonson recommend 31 adoption of the resolution, which would authorize the letter of understand with Gary Hagedorn 32 and Katherine Gove .for. plan review of the Phase 1 project including building review and fire 33 suppression as well. He stated this is a wonderful opportunity for Mounds View and the fees 34 would be directly relating to the plan review fees from Medtronic. 35 36 Councilmember Thomas noted that one quote is dramatically less than the others, which raises a 37 "red flag" to her. She asked what allows this contractor to do it for so much less and noted they 38 are also able to predict when their review will be done. She asked if there is confidence the work 39 will be completed at that price. 40 41 Mayor Marty noted the cost is one-third of the next closest plan review company. 42 43 Director Ericson stated that is correct and whenever the City receives bids, staff looks at that and 44 the explanation. In this case, the Iow bid is from two highly trained individuals who are certified • 45 and excited to be part of the plan review process and to work with Building Official Osmonson. Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 19 1 Thus, it is less of a "red flag" and more of a wonderful opportunity to share with these two 2 individuals. 3 4 Building Off cial Osmonson pointed out that they do not have staff or an office to support and 5 have full time jobs so they will be doing it as consultants. She stated they have 44 years of 6 related experience and she sees it as "four more eyes" to help her do the plan review. She stated 7 Medtronic is a wonderful company and she wants to make sure they get their permit value dollar 8 and the best service possible. 9 10 Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated this is talking about two individuals and asked if 11 they have errors and omissions insurance and liability insurance. He also asked if they are 12 insured should they make a bad mistake that falls back onto the City. 13 14 Building Official Osmonson stated the bottom line is that she will be doing the plan review and 15 signing the plan, and these two are consultant to see if there is something she may have missed. 16 17 Mr. McCarty asked if the City is "on the hook" for staff mistakes. Director Ericson stated the 18 City is always "on the hook" whether it is .reviewed by staff, consultants, or the State of 19 Minnesota. 20 21 Mr. McCarty stated if the consultant has errors and omissions insurance, then the City can collect 22 from them even if "on the hook." • 23 24 City Administrator Ulrich stated Mr. McCarty brings up a good point that should be discussed 25 with the League of Minnesota Cities. 26 27 City Attorney Riggs advised of the City's immunity with building inspections. He stated the City 28 will not sign a contract unless the League is comfortable with that agreement. 29 3o Mr. McGarry stated when consultants make a recommendation that the plans are acceptable then 31 it leaves the City in the "cat bird seat" in terms of responsibility regardless of what the architect 32 has done. He stated his opinion that when the City certifies the plans are good, they are "on the 33 hook." 34 35 City Attorney Riggs stated that is not entirely correct and the Legislature has said that inspection 36 .services are not individual applied to that development but applied to the public as a whole. 37 38 Mr. McCarthy stated he understands that and went through it with the golf course, but it can 39 depend on the interpretation of the judge who hears the case. 40 41 Councilmember Thomas stated she wants to assure it is an apples-to-apples comparison and a 42 service that compares to the other bids. She stated she is not sure she has that information. 43 44 Director Ericson stated it is not an apples-to-apples comparison and reflects the fact that Building • 45 Official Osmonson will be doing the plan review as well. With the other options they would take Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 20 1 the plans, walk away, and provide back to the. City the plans with their signature saying they have • 2 reviewed them. The price differential reflects the fact that Building Official Osmonson will be 3 involved in the plan review. 4 5 Councilmember Thomas stated she then feels comfortable because the price differential is not as 6 great if the cost for Building Official Osmonson's review is added to the bid price. She stated 7 that Medtronic is getting a break on the price because the City would be providing another staff 8 person for the review. Councilmember Thomas stated she would like to see references for these 9 two people on the other work they have done. to 11 Director Ericson stated staff will provide the Council with a follow up from the League of 12 Minnesota Cities on the City's exposure and will work with the City Attorney to provide 13 additional supporting information by the next Council meeting. He stated that it will make the 14 time frame tighter but not jeopardize anything. 15 16 Building Official Osmonson asked if a recommendation from the League will be enough and 17 what the Council is looking for on references. 18 19 Councilmember Thomas requested information on how the costs break down, job 20 responsibilities, liability, and League approval. 21 22 Mayor Marty stated he has talked with staff about hiring another building inspector so Building .23 Official Osmonson can be the lead inspector on the Medtronic project. He stated he wanted to 24 see about getting more training for Building Official Osmonson in this type of construction 25 before the project gets started. However, Building Official Osmonson is already scheduled for 26 some training. 27 28 Building Official Osmonson stated she does not think Medtronic will take 40 hours a week. She 29 pointed out that she is certified in Minnesota and does continuing education every year. She 3o explained that the issue is the magnitude of the project and noted this project requires special 31 inspections in structural steel and concrete. Building Official Osmonson advised of the 32 associations to which she belongs, that she has testified for Code. changes, and helped to create 33 the Code. 34 35 Mayor Many stated he wants to be sure that Building Official Osmonson is "up to speed" for this 36 project. 37 38 Building Official Osmonson stated there will be an annual school but, for the record, she wants 39 to be clear that the City wiil not be losing her for building inspections. She advised that during 4o the Medtronic project in Fridley, they were on the site 2-4 hours per day or 20 hours a week. She 41 stated it will be great to get afull-time inspector on staff to follow through on some of the 42 projects. 43 44 Mayor Marty stated that Council action will be delayed until January of 2006, when staff 45 provides additional information. Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 21 I 2 8. CONSENT AGENDA 3 4 Councilmember Stigney asked to remove Consent Agenda Item H, Resolution 6692 Severance 5 Payment for Mary Burg, Golf Course Manager. 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Z1 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 A. Resolution 6685 Approval of Office Furniture Purchase for the Police Department Renovation Project. B. Resolution 6686 Approval of the Purchase of 800 MHz Mobile Radios for Use on the Regiona1800 MHz system. C. Resolution 6689 Authorizing the City's Participation in a County Wide Hazard Mitigation Planning Process. D. Resolution 6696 Authorizing a Cost of Living Adjustment and Insurance Contribution Adjustment for the City of Mounds View Non-Union Employees. E. Resolution 6697 Setting the 2006 Meeting Dates to City Council. F. Cancellation of the Tuesday, December 27, 2005, City Council Meeting. G. Resolution Establishing a Public Hearing at 7:05 PM, Monday, February 13, 2006 to Consider the Proposed Adoption of a Modification to the Project Plan for the Mounds View Economic Development Project and the Proposed Modification to the Taz Increment Financing. Plan .for Taz Increment Financing District No. 5. ~r n~~..~„~;,... zzo~ co„~,..,,,,.o n...,,,,~„+ sue,. n,r.,..,, u,,,.,, ~..~~ ~,,,,,.~~ nT.,,,.,,,o.. ~~ z.~ao~Q~ , I. Resolution 6701 Approving Rent Abatement for Creative Kids Day Care Center. MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Gunn. To Approve the Consent Agenda A-G and I, as presented. Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. H. Resolution 6692 Severance Payment for Mary Burg, Golf Course Manager. Councilmember Stigney stated this action is to approve a severance payment of $14,036.48, which includes two years of severance pay in addition to what is normally 80 hours at $34.34 or $2,747.20. He stated he asked for this item to be pulled from the Consent Agenda because he has a problem with supporting two years of paid severance for Ms. Burg who has been unprofessional and shown inappropriate conduct. MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Flaherty. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6692, Severance Payment for Mary Burg, Golf Course Manager. Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 44 9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS • 45 Mounds View City Council December 12, 2405 Regular Meeting Page 22 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 • 45 Motion carried. Councilmember Flaherty asked about Page 9, .other professional services, The .Bridges Redevelopment, in the amount of $24,098.35. City Attorney Riggs stated that is reimbursable from Medtronic. Councilmember Flaherty asked about a charge on Page 13 for golf cart parts. City Administrator Ulrich explained that staff followed that up with the vendor and found it was for work done in July. Councilmember Flaherty asked about the Wall Street Journal subscription. City Administrator Ulrich stated the City has a subscription for that newspaper and it was ordered in the past for use by the Finance Director to keep up on interest rates. Councilmember Stigney asked if this same information can be obtained via the internet. City Administrator Ulrich stated he will check with Finance Director Beer. MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Thomas. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as Presented. Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. November 28, 2005 City Council Meeting Minutes MOTION/SECOND: Marry/Flaherty. To Approve the November 28, 2005 City Council meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. B. November 14, 2005 Executive Session Meeting Minutes MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Flaherty. To Approve the November 14, 2005 Executive Session meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. C. November 28, 2005 Executive Session Meeting Minutes MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Flaherty. To Approve the November 28, 2005 Executive Session meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes-5 Nays-0 1L REPORTS A. Reports of Mayor and Council Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 23 • 1 2 None. 3 4 B. Reports of Staff 5 6 1. County Road J Improvement Project Agreement 7 8 City Administrator Ulrich reported that a meeting was held this morning and it was discussed 9 that the original language in the grant was missing to get the money to the County at the right to time to purchase property along County Road J. There was a complicated discussion about how 11 to get that cash available. City Administrator Ulrich advised that a commitment was made by 12 Commissioner Bennett that the County would cash flow the project for land acquisition in the 13 amount of $5 million that would be paid back by grant monies once the language is worked out 14 with the Statute during the next legislative session. He explained that the cash is not available 15 now so it is hoped the County will step up to provide the funding and then the language will be 16 amended during the next session. 17 18 City Administrator Ulrich advised that this road project is on a tight time schedule so the County 19 needs to rush to get money forwarded. It is proposed to open this road in 2007 in conjunction 20 with the Medtronic project so it would condense a four year road project into two years. He 21 commented that it is very important to keep it on track and moving along. 22 23 Mayor Marry stated there were a number of minor problems and sub-issues in acquiring the 24 different properties. As far as acquiring properties, the $5 million given to the City of Mounds 25 View was to be passed on. But, the City of Mounds View cannot buy property located in Blaine 26 or Anoka County with those funds so there was discussion of a joint powers agreement 27 arrangement. Then the issue of relocation costs came up and where funds would come from 28 since it is covered by State and Federal law. Mayor Marty stated that issue v~~ill also have to go 29 back to the Legislature. 30 31 City Administrator Ulrich stated there is another $1.5 million for relocation benefits that are not 32 covered by bond money, to allow the right-of-way to be purchased by Ramsey County. A lot of 33 solutions were discussed but the most simple option would be if the County up-fronts the money 34 and allows time for the Legislature to correct the problems. 35 36 Mayor Marty stated the money needs to be 100% available to be paid out by March 20 but the 37 next Legislative session will not start until the beginning of March. 38 39 Councilmember Thomas stated she deals with this type of issue on a regular basis and the level 40 of aggregation is elevated by the shortness of time. However, it is not uncommon to have to 41 modify language to accommodate what is needed. It is an issue of finding language to allow 42 some things to occur. 43 44 C. Reports of City Attorney • 45 Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 24 None. Mayor Marry wished all a happy holiday season and safe New Year. 12. Nezt Council Work Session: Tuesday, January 3, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Nest Council Meeting: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 City Council Meeting is Canceled Negt Meeting will be on Monday, January 9, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. 13. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:04 p.m. Transcribed by: Carla Wirth Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.