The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packets - 2006/04/10SIGN IN SHEET Date: L PRINT NAME SIGNATURE y C1 8 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA NEW BRIGHTON CITY HALL Monday, April 10, 2006 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, Thomas 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC INPUT: Citizens may speak to issues not on tonight's agenda. Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the minutes. Also, please limit your comments to three minutes. 6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. 7:05 PM PUBLIC HEARING to Consider a Conditional Use Permit for an Environmental processing Facility at 4889 Old Highway 8. B. Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 771, an ordinance Amending Chapters 502 and 503 Regarding Liquor Licenses C. Resolution 6782 Authorization to Hire a Communications Coordinator for the Administration Department. D. Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 772, an Ordinance amending Chapter 7 of the City Charter. E. Resolution 6793 Step Increase for Deputy Chief Tom Kinney of the Mounds View Police Department. F. Resolution 6693 Transfer of Business Ownership from Elias Saman to Khalid Ahmed for a Tobacco and Gasoline Business License for the Mounds View BP located at 2155 Highway 10. G. Resolution 6792 Awarding a Firm to Conduct a Salary Compensation Study and Pay Equity Report for Mounds View City Employees. 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. Licenses for Approval B. Resolution 6788 Authorizing the Purchase of Digital Recording Equipment for the Police Department Utilizing Forfeiture Funds. C. Resolution 6791 Authorizing Mounds View City Hall to be closed on Friday, May 5, 2006, starting 12noon due to the move back to the new City Hall Facility. D. Set a Public Hearing Monday, April 24, 2006 at 7:05pm for the Second Reading of Ordinance 772, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the Mounds View City Charter. E. Resolution 6790 Approving the Contract Award for Cleaning Services for City Hall Offices and the Mounds View Police Department. F. Resolution 6781 Authorizing Execution of a Joint Cooperation Agreement between Ramsey County and the City of Mounds View for the CDBG Act. 9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. March 27, 2006 City Council Minutes B. April 3, 2006, Executive Session Minutes Mounds View City Council Meeting Monday, April 10, 2006 Page 2 11. REPORTS A. Reports of Mayor and Council B. Reports of Staff 1. Announce the 2"d Annual Town Hall Meeting for Saturday, April 29, 2006 starting at 9am. C. Reports of City Attorney 12. Next Council Work Session: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 @7pm (Special Work Session w/Charter Commission) Next Council Meeting: Monday, April 24, 2006 @7pm Item No: 7A Meeting Date: April 10, 2006 Type of Business: Public Hearing City or Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View City Council From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Environmental Processing Center at 4889 Old Highway 8; Planning Case No. CU2006-001 Introduction: The applicant, Merlin Brisbin of Star Environmental, Inc. is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for an Environmental Processing Center, which would be located at 4889 Old Highway 8. This is the site of the current Skyline Motel, which is zoned "Industrial" and encompasses three lots for a total of approximately 2.85 acres. The applicant has a signed purchase agreement with the owners of the motel. The applicant would demolish the existing building and is proposing to construct approximately an 11,200 square foot building and an external bio-filter. Discussion: Section 1116.04 of the Zoning Code conditionally allows manufacturing, compounding, processing, packaging or treatment of cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and food products and the rendering or refining of fats and oils as conditional uses in Industrial districts. The applicant is proposing to construct a 10,000 square foot environmental processing center and 1,200 square foot office and research & development, along with a small accessory building for a separate bio-filter system. The Environmental Processing Center is designed in response to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Service's need to change the way industrial and household liquid wastes are managed. This Center will include a receiving and processing facility that uses leading technology to dewater liquid waste in a clean and odor -controlled environment. The dewatering process produces a non -toxic, dry by-product ready for reuse or disposal. The filtrate water will be returned to the Metropolitan Council's collection system, aiding their downstream processing. According to numerous Environmental Protection Agency documents, utilizing recyclable components of wastewater is preferred and will significantly lower costs for local and state governments. CUP Considerations: With every Conditional Use Permit application, Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code requires that the City review and address any potential adverse effects associated with the proposed use. Potential adverse effects include, but are not limited to; relationship with the Comprehensive Plan, potential depreciation, the character of the surrounding area, traffic, adequate utilities and access roads and the demonstrated need for such a use. Each of these potential adverse effects is on the following page. Staff Report Star Environmental Page 2 Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan encourages the expansion of existing businesses and introduction of new businesses within Mounds View. 4889 Old Highway 8 and all the surrounding properties are designated as industrial on the Future Land Use Map and the proposed processing center would not be inconsistent with the Comp Plan. Depreciation: The proposed processing center would be a new, attractive, well built facility that would be an improvement over the existing building on the site. The applicant will have invested over $5 million into this project when completed. This site is in an industrial area and the proposed use may be more in line for the area than the current use of a motel. The motel has generated over 100 police calls in the past two years, so the removal of this use would improve the safety of the entire area, including the residential neighborhood that is located north of this site. With this new business, the value of the property is projected to significantly increase. Consequently, depreciation of the subject property or the surrounding properties is not a concern. The motel has been identified on the City's target acquisition list for redevelopment properties. The Character of the Surrounding Area: The proposed business would be located on Old Highway 8 on the edge of the Mounds View Industrial Park. The Townsedge Terrace Manufactured Home Park is located north of the site, separated by a narrow buffer of vegetation and wetlands. The proposed processing center would not necessarily be out of place for this industrial area, and the size and particularly the shape of the property would accommodate the proposal. However, the proximity of the residential neighborhood to the north should be kept in mind. All other properties to the south and west of the subject property are zoned industrial. There is nothing to the east across the street since 35W/Highway 10 run next to Old Highway 8 in this area. Traffic: The applicant expects up to 3-4 trucks per hour from 7am — 7pm, Monday through Friday, and from 8am-3pm on Saturday (36-48 trucks per weekday, 21-28 trucks on Saturday) coming in to the processing center. October is the busiest month for emptying septic tanks, so at this time the applicant estimates that the truck traffic could increase during October to about 7 trucks per hour (84 trucks per day). The applicant plans to encourage his truck drivers to work with customers to help eliminate the large rush during one month every year. Traffic counts on Old Highway 8 are 6,800 vehicles per day, so even at the peak traffic time in October this business would increase traffic on Old Highway 8 by approximately 2.4 percent (this includes 2 trlpS per truck - a trip in and a trip out). The trucks that come to this business would drive completely into the building to unload and the property would be set up for truck staging on -site. Each truck takes 10-12 minutes to discharge, so there would not be trucks waiting for long periods of time outside. This area already has high truck traffic due to the existing businesses in the industrial park. Adequate utilities and access roads are available: The Metropolitan Council and Mounds View Public Works department has determined the water and sewer lines that currently serve the property has adequate capacity to provide for this improvement. The site has good access to nearby highways and freeways. Staff Report Star Environmental Page 3 The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use: The applicant has owned and operated the "Sewerman" business for 29 years and has been researching the need for this type of processing center in Minnesota for seven years. The Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) has been operating sites for septage discharging in the metro area and will be closing the four locations in the north metro area by 2009 due to spending over $1 million so far on repairs and flushing of their sewer pipes. When septage is put directly into the sewer lines at these disposal sites, solids build up in the pipes and causes deterioration and loss of capacity throughout the whole north metro wastewater system. MCES decided to open up the pre-treatment, solids removal process to private businesses in order to reduce MCES's costs for water treatment. There is great potential for the environmental processing industry and Star Environmental would also include a research & development division. It is proposed that this would be a state of the art facility, and would be the first one in Minnesota and the first of this exact model in the United States. Public Input: The City Council meeting on Monday, April 10, 2006 has been published as a public hearing. In addition, on March 30, 2006 staff and the applicant held a neighborhood meeting for the Townsedge Terrace Manufactured Home Park residents in order to inform them about the proposed business. About 28 residents attended and the Star Environmental representatives did a power point presentation about the facility. Most residents in attendance expressed opposition to the proposed use, and many good questions were asked and suggestions made. Summary: Merlin Brisbin is requesting approval to locate an environmental processing business in Mounds View at 4889 Old Highway 8 and has a purchase agreement with the owners of the property. The Zoning Code does conditionally allow for this type of use in an industrially zoned district. Recommendations: After taking testimony from staff and the applicant, the City Council can take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the conditional use permit. Resolution 6789 (Option A) is attached if the City Council selects this option. 2. Deny the conditional use permit. Resolution 6789 (Option B) is attached if the City Council selects this option. 3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Council can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of 60-day requirements, the Council would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Staff Report Star Environmental Page 4 Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Application 2. Letter of Approval & Support from the Metropolitan Council 3. Zoning Map 4. Aerial View 5. Comp Plan Future Land Use Map 6. Photographic Documentation 7. Planning Commission Resolution 828-06 8. City Council Resolution 6789, Options A & B 9. Site plans — separate attachment COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 00MO PLANNING APPLICATION UI 24o1 County Road jar Mounds View, MN 55112 `N 4 (763) 717-4020 t�'xr + Parw-rs ; Fax (651) 765-1660 please Type or Print Information - cornpiete Both Sides oaf This Form Applicant Information Name of +4pptir�n# � r, � v{ �-� t �� 1 � r�[ephone- Adddressl�;#' Fax df/ �f E-mail interest in Property (check apprwtat3e box) 0 Cwner of property 0 cant mct for Deed owner 0 Lessee, Gperator, Manac er 0 Agreement to PLirchase ,-[;V other (expia'In) ni 4 oyL A bsr-- --3 - l � Appllcants azzIst provide E: vidence ufrnterestI" PrWetf'at fire time Of�rPP11cafior►, andif you are not the Owner of the ProPcrtY, y0a must a ether provide a letter ofpsnn,"fan frvn" the owtre► giirirrg consentto the flingoFthisapvlIC060rr arthePrape�rfYow —mu stslr�n this eppllcation for it to Ge acreptsed. Property Descriptlion/Proposaf Address or General Location legal Descrlpttan' Properly IdentiFicatian E 2-- # of Acres ; . r Current Zaning---- Tvcm of Aipplication (Pleaw chack the appropr#ate lsoXes)'- Page 1 of 2 F(z 1 6 D 3a4)� Q—�c D 0 I' App icati n fees are non-refundable, fundalble, Present Use of Pmp" Prop" Clawificatia '. Abstrad 0 � omens Owaiption of PropoSal (attach adpUnral suppo?ting doc #nentatllon 1f n smary) ftLILUgal ,4pOlkadon (rras are pUUALMai • upAt:snk, are mqa%bla forag wiz to a! rwatic aoolc n fee ra,r;ed by ifs, C1;y It ; p ssl t1 dP :hCS applfr Ei r.. Sum mxt6is furs are to bo MA _�wm r Lm.'WfA of & akxrwd , (rpm tN CIty Gk POW* Vww. fa+,o,_s, ft�z may InJuder txA shall rent he hr.dted Wm pri4tgcopy , elf Eme, and leas for plaanlnp cJ nsuitari% AtG3mvis an t ertgnee.°s, In vorm cases, a deposit my W m;;uA Wn advance to cover Gray anrt:lnaad a,ccQz 0Vj amdiiiW with Vs applt't;pt#x (y S 4e0i; is requrrm, rre apoicant 5heAt errain respa slk far 61 ressonadie kmcurrtd Coate M wP34_; of t,t app!lrat m fwaw deptIt amomt) ACKUMLEi?aE'tiiAT I wt wd all tlfft Inrorrra#ran i S . �h r�� .kl Appkirctk�r 9-rid fu'ly WkTAKWtAI am •e5x-10Ie fcr A-9gy Incu the (tinted to the Pjaa5airq Ql vil540r9 Aorl, ipGl ' Cake BY MY (OUR) SIGNATU ONTHIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE am or Mai KNOW EDOF'r THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUV AND ACCURATIE. Name of Applf in (typed prl! d) Nwn of Property owner' ed�p .tad 1 a- I �` Si;riature qf Property Owner Phone Numter of L ner ...._. yak*.k��."+k;�r�■*x�n}�*�N:rtt+a� Ss�+k�Rn*rk#�++s*sw�rsk�k�l�;krkr��kx�dr#l��:��r�� Ik�Ac�lakikrt*�k*r�a��w��#+k*��t;le�*tab*:k FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Pa S Of Sij'wMW* Wday I/ k. Plarwing Case Nulsj roes PWd: Park Other: Tom.l. JAt rAunt Deft of rice: 120-day 11mlt; igried to: Page 2 of'2 Check erelr Letter of Approval & Support from the Metropolitan Council Metropolitan Council Entviron men ttl Services February 24, 2006 Jim Hess Public Works Department City of Mounds View 2410 Hwy. 10 Mounds View, Ill 55112-1429 Dear Mr. Hess; Linder the Metropolitan Council plan 1'er the cull cction and treatment of septage in the metropolitan area the Council is props ~sing to limit the number of discharge points within the metropolitan disposal system wht- (e septage will be allow to be directly discharged. In lieu of direct connections to the sysl em the Council is encouraging the creation of private businesses to provide for the pretreatment of the septage. The pretreatment would separate the solids front the liquid. Tli,, Solids being treated and disposed of and the liquids being reintroduced in 10 the stu)1tary sew(:r system for final treatment. The Council staff has received an engE iIr)F from a proposed business owner that would like to locate a septage pre-treatment tiicility within[ the city of Mounds View. It is our understanding that this business woulc discharge• approximately 30 MGY to the system and have a maximum peak flow of 300 gpan Thu interceptor system, lift station L35 and associated forcemain that provides se) ices to thi It portion of the City where this facility is to be located has adequate capacity io provide flor this improvement- The Council has a proposed interceptor project scheduled to rebabil irate L35 and replace the existing dual forcemains between 2011 -2020. Base!I can the C.luncils growth projections for the City, the Council has projected the 2030 waste -water flows from the City to be approximately 1.47 mgd- There is sufficient capacity ,vithin the metropolitan disposal system to provide for this type of business to locate within the City without any restrictions is your projected growth. If you have any questions in this rega) d please call,. S' e ale - Donald 5. Bluhm Manager of Municipal Services www.melrceouucll.wg Idetm Info Line 602.19$6 230 F-uA Fifth Street • St. Paul, Mbmtesutn 551, -1"56 • [{ ; •3) 602 1005 • Pax 607-1 I.q5 . Try 291-OU04 Attk ,Fc nunuyf oplNer Zoning Map Aerial View South side of motel w MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 828-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSING CENTER AT 4889 OLD HIGHWAY 8; PLANNING CASE NO. CU2006-001 WHEREAS, Merlin Brisbin, Star Environmental, Inc. has applied for a conditional use permit to allow for an environmental processing center; and, WHEREAS, the three subject properties, located at 4889 Old Highway 8, are zoned 1-1, Industrial, and are legally described as follows: See Exhibit A WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows manufacturing, compounding, processing, packaging or treatment of cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and food products and the rendering or refining of fats and oils as a conditional use in Industrial districts; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: Resolution 828-06 Page 2 1. Staff Report 2. Application 3. Letter of Approval & Support from the Metropolitan Council 4. Zoning Map 5. Aerial View 6. Comp Plan Future Land Use Map 7. Photographic Documentation 8. Resolution 828-06 9. Flyer about an Environmental Processing Center business 10. Proposed Site Plans NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact related to the conditional use permit request: 1. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Plan encourages new business in Mounds View. 2. The proposed environmental processing center would not be out of place given the character and geography of the surrounding area involved and the size of the subject property which is able to accommodate the facility. 3. The proposed Environmental Processing Center would not depreciate the surrounding area. 4. The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed business. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the 11,200 square foot environmental processing center, with conditions as follows: 1. The applicant shall consolidate parcels, if such action is required by the City Attorney. 2. The applicant shall apply for a Development Review prior to construction of the facility. 3. The applicant shall adhere at all times to Section 607 of the City Code in regards to nuisances; particularly regarding Noise, Section 607.08, and Odor, Section 607.03. If, in the opinion of the City Council, odor at the facility becomes a problem, summary abatement proceedings may be initiated. 4. The Conditional Use Permit may be reviewed on an annual basis. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 151h day of March, 2006. Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: James Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) Resolution 828-06 Page 3 EXHIBIT A PARCEL 1: All that part of the South 175 feet of the North'/4 of the Southeast'/4 of the Northeast'/4 of Section 17, Township 30, North, Range 23 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota, lying Northeasterly of a line run from a point on the North line of said North '/2, 558.78 feet West from the Northeast corner there to a point on the South line of said North '/2, 504.33 feet West of the South corner thereof and lying Southwesterly of a line run from a point on the North line of said North '/2, 385 feet West from the Northeast corner thereof to a point on the South line of said North '/2, 250 feet West from the Southeast corner thereof, said line being the Southwesterly right-of-way line of S.T.H. #8, except therefore all that part of the Northeasterly 130 feet measured at right angles from said right-of-way line thereof lying North of the South 75 feet of said North '/2 and except therefrom the South 30 feet of the said North'/2, subject to S.T.H. #8. PARCEL 2: A strip of land 130 feet wide measured at right angles Southwesterly of and adjacent to, a line running Southeasterly from a point on the North line of the Southeast'/4 of the Northeast'/4 of Section 17, Township 30, Range 23, and 385 feet from the East line of said Section 17, to a point on the South line of the North'/2 of the Southeast'/4 of the Northeast'/4 of said Section 17 and 250 feet from the East line of said Section 17, and measuring 132.94 feet on the North line of said Southeast'/4 of Northeast'/4 and 132.92 feet on the South line of said North'/2 of the Southeast'/4 of the Northeast'/4 excepting the North 75 feet and the South 75 feet of said tract, containing a total of 1.56 acres, more or less. PARCEL 3: All that part of the North'/2 of the Southeast'/4 of the Northeast'/4 of Section 17, Township 30 North, Range 23 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota, lying Northeasterly of a line run from a point on the North line of said North '/2, 558.76 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof to a point on the South line of said North '/2, 504.33 feet West of the Southeast corner thereof and lying Southwesterly of a line run from a point on the North line of said North '/2, 385 feet West from the Northeast corner thereof to a point on the South line of said North '/2, 250 feet West from the Southeast corner thereof, said line being the Southwesterly right-of-way line of S.T.H. #8, except therefrom all that part lying in the South 175 feet of said North '/2 and also excepting therefrom all that part of the Northeasterly 130 feet measured at right angles to said right-of-way line, lying South of the North 75 feet of said North'/2, subject to S.T.H. #8. RESOLUTION NO. 6789 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSING CENTER AT 4889 OLD HIGHWAY 8; PLANNING CASE NO. CU2006-001 WHEREAS, Merlin Brisbin, Star Environmental, Inc. has applied for a conditional use permit to allow for an environmental processing center; and, WHEREAS, the three subject properties, located at 4889 Old Highway 8, are zoned 1-1, Industrial, and are legally described as follows: See Exhibit A WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows manufacturing, compounding, processing, packaging or treatment of cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and food products and the rendering or refining of fats and oils as a conditional use in Industrial districts; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Staff Report 2. Application 3. Letter of Approval & Support from the Metropolitan Council 4. Zoning Map 5. Aerial View 6. Comp Plan Future Land Use Map 7. Photographic Documentation 8. Planning Commission Resolution 828-06 9. Flyer about an Environmental Processing Center business 10. Proposed Site Plans WHEREAS, the Planning Commission supported the request by adopting Resolution 828-06, which recommends approval of the conditional use permit, and, WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on April 10, 2006. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council makes the following findings of fact related to the conditional use permit request: 1. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Plan encourages new business in Mounds View and the site is designated industrial in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed environmental processing center would not be out of place given the character and geography of the surrounding area, the location on Old Highway 8, other industrial uses, and the size of the subject property which is able to accommodate the facility. 3. Given the proposed investment into the facility, it is not anticipated that proposed Environmental Processing Center would depreciate the surrounding area. 4. The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed business. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council approves the conditional use permit for the 11,200 square foot environmental processing center, with conditions as follows: The applicant shall consolidate parcels, if such action is required by the City Attorney. Consolidation shall occur by plat. 2. The applicant shall apply for a Development Review prior to construction of the facility. 3. The processing center hours of operation are limited to between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm, with an exception for customer emergency situations. 4. The applicant shall adhere at all times to Section 607 of the City Code in regards to nuisances; particularly regarding Noise, Section 607.08, and Odor, Section 607.03. If, in the opinion of the City Council, odor at the facility becomes a problem, summary abatement proceedings may be initiated. 5. Regular odor testing by a qualified "odor testing company" to be done on site at a schedule to be determined by the city. 6. An Odor Mitigation analysis will be required from a qualified company who specializes in "odor", prior to construction. 7. Exterior storage of any product or materials associated with this business is prohibited. 8. Vehicles associated with this business shall be prohibited from parking or idling on Old Highway 8. 9. The applicant shall submit an on -site spill response and containment plan as part of the Development Review. 10. The Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed one year after certificate of occupancy has been granted. 11.All vehicles accessing the site shall be in good repair and shall not leak product. 12. The applicant shall maintain and provide, if requested, detailed records of the vehicles accessing the facility and volume of product processed. 13. Discharge into the sanitary system shall be metered and separate payment made to the City of Mounds View on a quarterly basis based on discharged volume. 14.The facility shall be operated in accordance with all applicable local, state, regional and Federal rules and regulations. Adopted this 101" day of April, 2006. Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk/Administrator (SEAL) i::�:u:11r_1 PARCEL 1: All that part of the South 175 feet of the North'/4 of the Southeast'/4 of the Northeast'/4 of Section 17, Township 30, North, Range 23 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota, lying Northeasterly of a line run from a point on the North line of said North '/2, 558.78 feet West from the Northeast corner there to a point on the South line of said North '/2, 504.33 feet West of the South corner thereof and lying Southwesterly of a line run from a point on the North line of said North '/2, 385 feet West from the Northeast corner thereof to a point on the South line of said North '/2, 250 feet West from the Southeast corner thereof, said line being the Southwesterly right-of-way line of S.T.H. #8, except therefore all that part of the Northeasterly 130 feet measured at right angles from said right-of-way line thereof lying North of the South 75 feet of said North '/2 and except therefrom the South 30 feet of the said North'/2, subject to S.T.H. #8. PARCEL 2: A strip of land 130 feet wide measured at right angles Southwesterly of and adjacent to, a line running Southeasterly from a point on the North line of the Southeast'/4 of the Northeast'/4 of Section 17, Township 30, Range 23, and 385 feet from the East line of said Section 17, to a point on the South line of the North'/2 of the Southeast'/4 of the Northeast'/4 of said Section 17 and 250 feet from the East line of said Section 17, and measuring 132.94 feet on the North line of said Southeast'/4 of Northeast'/4 and 132.92 feet on the South line of said North'/2 of the Southeast'/4 of the Northeast'/4 excepting the North 75 feet and the South 75 feet of said tract, containing a total of 1.56 acres, more or less. PARCEL 3: All that part of the North'/2 of the Southeast'/4 of the Northeast'/4 of Section 17, Township 30 North, Range 23 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota, lying Northeasterly of a line run from a point on the North line of said North '/2, 558.76 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof to a point on the South line of said North '/2, 504.33 feet West of the Southeast corner thereof and lying Southwesterly of a line run from a point on the North line of said North '/2, 385 feet West from the Northeast corner thereof to a point on the South line of said North '/2, 250 feet West from the Southeast corner thereof, said line being the Southwesterly right-of-way line of S.T.H. #8, except therefrom all that part lying in the South 175 feet of said North '/2 and also excepting therefrom all that part of the Northeasterly 130 feet measured at right angles to said right-of-way line, lying South of the North 75 feet of said North'/2, subject to S.T.H. #8. RESOLUTION NO. 6789 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSING CENTER AT 4889 OLD HIGHWAY 8; PLANNING CASE NO. CU2006-001 WHEREAS, Merlin Brisbin, Star Environmental, Inc. has applied for a conditional use permit to allow for an environmental processing center; and, WHEREAS, the three subject properties, located at 4889 Old Highway 8, are zoned 1-1, Industrial, and are legally described as follows: See Exhibit A WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows manufacturing, compounding, processing, packaging or treatment of cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and food products and the rendering or refining of fats and oils as a conditional use in Industrial districts; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Staff Report 2. Application 3. Letter of Approval & Support from the Metropolitan Council 4. Zoning Map 5. Aerial View 6. Comp Plan Future Land Use Map 7. Photographic Documentation 8. Planning Commission Resolution 828-06 9. Flyer about an Environmental Processing Center business 10. Proposed Site Plans WHEREAS, the Planning Commission supported the request by adopting Resolution 828-06, which recommends approval of the conditional use permit, and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on April 10, 2006. WHEREAS, a neighborhood meeting was held on March 30, 2006, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council makes the following findings of fact related to the conditional use permit request: The proposed environmental processing center would be a heavy industrial business and an incompatible use immediately adjacent to a large residential neighborhood. 2. The proposed use is not consistent with the Comp Plan Future Land Use Map for this site which allows for light industrial uses only. 3. The proposed environmental processing center would increase the amount of truck traffic on an already heavily traveled roadway. 4. There is great uncertainty about the amount of odor that the proposed environmental processing center may emit, and the ability to control the odor, and the impacts to the adjacent residential neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council, based upon the above findings of fact and its review of the documentation presented, denies the conditional use permit for the proposed environmental processing center at 4889 Old Highway 8. Adopted this loth day of April, 2006. Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk/Administrator (SEAL) i::�:u:11r_1 PARCEL 1: All that part of the South 175 feet of the North'/4 of the Southeast'/4 of the Northeast'/4 of Section 17, Township 30, North, Range 23 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota, lying Northeasterly of a line run from a point on the North line of said North '/2, 558.78 feet West from the Northeast corner there to a point on the South line of said North '/2, 504.33 feet West of the South corner thereof and lying Southwesterly of a line run from a point on the North line of said North '/2, 385 feet West from the Northeast corner thereof to a point on the South line of said North '/2, 250 feet West from the Southeast corner thereof, said line being the Southwesterly right-of-way line of S.T.H. #8, except therefore all that part of the Northeasterly 130 feet measured at right angles from said right-of-way line thereof lying North of the South 75 feet of said North '/2 and except therefrom the South 30 feet of the said North'/2, subject to S.T.H. #8. PARCEL 2: A strip of land 130 feet wide measured at right angles Southwesterly of and adjacent to, a line running Southeasterly from a point on the North line of the Southeast'/4 of the Northeast'/4 of Section 17, Township 30, Range 23, and 385 feet from the East line of said Section 17, to a point on the South line of the North'/2 of the Southeast'/4 of the Northeast'/4 of said Section 17 and 250 feet from the East line of said Section 17, and measuring 132.94 feet on the North line of said Southeast'/4 of Northeast'/4 and 132.92 feet on the South line of said North'/2 of the Southeast'/4 of the Northeast'/4 excepting the North 75 feet and the South 75 feet of said tract, containing a total of 1.56 acres, more or less. PARCEL 3: All that part of the North'/2 of the Southeast'/4 of the Northeast'/4 of Section 17, Township 30 North, Range 23 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota, lying Northeasterly of a line run from a point on the North line of said North '/2, 558.76 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof to a point on the South line of said North '/2, 504.33 feet West of the Southeast corner thereof and lying Southwesterly of a line run from a point on the North line of said North '/2, 385 feet West from the Northeast corner thereof to a point on the South line of said North '/2, 250 feet West from the Southeast corner thereof, said line being the Southwesterly right-of-way line of S.T.H. #8, except therefrom all that part lying in the South 175 feet of said North '/2 and also excepting therefrom all that part of the Northeasterly 130 feet measured at right angles to said right-of-way line, lying South of the North 75 feet of said North'/2, subject to S.T.H. #8. Item No. 7B Meeting Date: April 10, 2006 Type of Business: Council Business City Administrator Review City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 771 Amending Chapters 502 and 503 of the City Code Relating to Liquor Licenses Discussion: Based on direction provided at the December 6, 2005 and April 3, 2006 Council worksessions, staff has prepared an ordinance that amends the liquor licensing provisions of the City Code in Chapters 502 and 503. The amendments change the code to require that a public hearing be conducted for every new, transferred or renewed license. This change is recommended based on feedback from residents who would have wanted to provide input during license renewals however were not notified of the public hearing. The Council agreed and indicated that the Code should be amended accordingly. Also based on direction provided at the same worksessions, the other change contemplated by Ordinance 771 would be to allow our liquor license facilities to offer outdoor seating in association with their establishment. The Code would need to be amended to allow for the outdoor sale and consumption of alcohol in those establishments. The new language states the following: Outdoor Consumption Endorsement. A special endorsement may be issued by the City to the holder of a regular on -sale liquor or on -sale wine license to allow sales and consumption of liquor or wine outdoors when the outside service area is immediately adjacent to and contiguous with the licensed premises. The licensee shall make application for the special endorsement to the City and provide site plans which illustrate the proposed outdoor service area. The special endorsement may be issued by the City Council to the licensee by resolution after a public hearing on the special endorsement is held. The designated outside service area shall not reduce the number of off-street parking spaces which would be required if the licensed premises together with the outside service area were to be newly constructed in conformity with the City's zoning code. The City may also require improvements to the outside service area prior to issuing the special endorsement, including but not limited to, safety barriers or other enclosures to be placed around the perimeter of the outside service area in order to protect patrons from any hazards, including vehicular traffic. Ordinance 771 Page 2 Our City Attorney has reviewed the proposed changes and supports the ordinance as presented. The underlined text represents a change from the version presented at the April 3rd meeting by deleting the reference to fees and replacing it with a reference to site plans. The outdoor consumption endorsement would be considered by the City Council with any new, transferred or renewed license. The applicant would submit along with the other required information a site plan which would indicate the outdoor area to be utilized for dining or serving alcohol. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council review the attached ordinance which amends Chapters 502 and 503 relating to public hearings and outdoor consumption. Respectfully submitted, Jew, James Ericson Community Development Director 763-717-4021 Attachment: 1. Ordinance 771 ORDINANCE SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 771 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF MOUNDS VIEW BY AMENDING CHAPTERS 502 and 503 RELATING TO LIQUOR LICENSES On April 24, 2006, the Mounds View City Council adopted an ordinance which amends Chapters 502 and 503 of the City Code relating to Liquor Licenses. The changes to the City's Liquor License regulations were adopted to require that all liquor license transfers or renewals would be subject to a public hearing with notice published ten days in advance of the hearing. The other change is to allow outdoor consumption and sale of alcohol in association with a licensed premises. Such outdoor area would be immediately adjacent to the premises and would not take up any required parking spaces among other design and safety requirements. The full and complete text of this ordinance along with a supplemental map is on file at the office of the Clerk Administrator and is posted in its entirety on the City's website, located at www.ci.mounds-view.mn.us/ords/771.pdf. Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk -Administrator ORDINANCE NO. 771 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 500, CHAPTERS 501 AND 502 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 502.03, 502.08, 502.11, 503.03 AND 503.08 RELATING TO LIQUOR LICENSING THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 502.03 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to "License Classifications" is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined: 502.03: LICENSE CLASSIFICATIONS: Subd. 8. Outdoor Consumption Endorsement. A special endorsement may be issued by the City to the holder of a regular on -sale liquor or on -sale wine license to allow sales and consumption of liquor or wine outdoors when the outside service area is immediately ad'lacent to and contiguous with the licensed premises. The licensee shall make application for the special endorsement to the City and provide site plans which illustrate the proposed outdoor service area. The special endorsement may be issued by the City Council to the licensee by resolution after a public hearing on the special endorsement is held. The designated outside service area shall not reduce the number of off-street parking spaces which would be required if the licensed premises together with the outside service area were to be newly constructed in conformity with the City's zoning code. The City may also require improvements to the outside service area prior to issuing the special endorsement, including but not limited to, safety barriers or other enclosures to be placed around the perimeter of the outside service area in order to protect patrons from anv hazards, includina vehicular traffic. SECTION 2. Section 502.08 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to "License Hearing" is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and the deletion of the sken language as follows: 502.08: LICENSE HEARING: No issuance of a new license, transfer of an existing license, renewal of an existing license, issuance of temporary special event or banquet licenses, or special outdoor consumption endorsements for the sale of intoxicating liquor on -sale or off -sale, club, Sunday sales or on -sale wine shall be hereafter granted by the Council until a public hearing has been conducted by the Council after published notice in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days in advance of the hearing. ReRe als of exiStiRg Ordinance 771 Page 2 SECTION 3. Section 502.11 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to "Conduct of Business, Conditions of License" is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined: 502.11: CONDUCT OF BUSINESS; CONDITIONS OF LICENSE: Subd. 8. Consumption in Parking Lots: No person may loiter or consume or have in their possession any bottle or receptacle containing intoxicating or nonintoxicating liquors on any premises licensed for the on -sale or off -sale of intoxicating liquors while outside of the building or structure located on the licensed premises, including but not limited to parking lots, driveways and landscaped areas, as well as steps, passageways or vestibules located outside of said building or structure, except as provided by Sections 502.03, Subdivision 8 and 503.03, Subdivision 1 (c). Any person in violation of this subdivision shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. SECTION 4. Section 503.03, Subd. 1 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to "License Classifications" is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined: 503.03: LICENSE CLASSIFICATIONS: c. Outdoor Consumption Endorsement. A special endorsement may be issued the City to the holder of an on -sale license to allow sales and consumption of 3.2 percent malt liquor outdoors when the outside service area is immediately adjacent to and contiguous with the licensed premises. The licensee shall make application for the special endorsement to the City and pay the annual fee for said endorsement. The special endorsement may be issued by the City Council to the licensee by resolution after a public hearing on the special endorsement is held. The designated outdoor service area shall not reduce the number of off-street parking spaces which would be required if the licensed premises together with the outside service area were to be newly constructed in conformity with the City's zoning code. The City may also require improvements to the outside service area prior to issuing the special endorsement, including, but not limited to, safety barriers or other enclosures to be placed around the perimeter of the outside service area in order to protect patrons from anv hazards, includina vehicular traffic. SECTION 5. Section 503.08 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to "Investigation of Application; Hearing; Issuance or Denial" is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and the deletion of the skee language as follows: 503.08: INVESTIGATION OF APPLICATION; HEARING; ISSUANCE OR DENIAL. The Council shall investigate all facts set out in the application. rriien to any person to he heard for or against the granting of the license. No issuance of a new license, transfer of an existing license, renewal of an existing license, issuance of temporary special event or festival in the park license or special outdoor Ordinance 771 Page 3 consumption endorsement for the sale of 3.2 percent malt liquor on -sale or off -sale shall be hereafter granted by the Council until a public hearing has been conducted by the Council after published notice in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days in advance of the hearing. After such investigation and hearing, the Council shall grant or refuse the application, in its discretion. SECTION 6. This ordinance is effective 30 days after its publication. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 10th day of April, 2006. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 24th day of April, 2006. Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Item No: 7C Meeting Date: April 10, 2606 Type of Business: CB Administrator Review: City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Desaree Crane, Assistant to the City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6782, Authorization to Hire a Communications Coordinator for the Administration Department Introduction: At the February 13, 2006, City Council Meeting, the City Council authorized staff to advertise for the Communications Coordinator Position with the passing of Resolution 6729. This position would be a full time exempt position, and will be a union position under the AFSCME Union Contract. This new position was established to assist in city communications to include cable television support, web page updates and the city newsletter to name a few. Discussion: We received twenty applications for this position, and of those, seven were interviewed. The City had an interview panel which consisted of myself, Kurt Ulrich (Mounds View City Administrator), Jim Ericson (Mounds View Community Development Director), and Jerry Skelly (Mounds View Cable Committee Chairperson). The panel agreed upon a top choice to fill the position, Kimberly Blackford. Ms. Blackford has a background with cable casting City Council Meetings with Brooklyn Park and the City of Crystal. She was also a Videographer with Legal Video that consisted of video taping legal depositions. All candidates that were interviewed were required to submit a video tape and take a test on their editing skills. The panel felt that Ms. Blackford did very well and had great organizational and attention to detail skills. Although she has very little experience in web designing or website maintenance, Jim Ericson (who is currently updating the website for the City), feels that Ms. Blackford would be able to learn quickly. Personal and employment references were all found to be positive. Ms. Blackford's driver's license check came back satisfactory, and staff is waiting for the criminal background check from the Minnesota Department of Criminal Apprehension. Ms Blackford's employment would be contingent on a satisfactory criminal background check. The hourly wage scale for this position as negotiated by the City and the union is as follows: Step 1: $17.78/hr Step 2: $18.89/hr Step 3: $20.00/hr Step 4: $21.11/hr Step 5: $22.22/hr Following our standard personnel policy practice, Ms. Blackford would begin employment at Step 1, with an increase to Step 2 after six months of employment. Step 3 would occur after 12 months of employment with Steps 4 and 5 due 12 months thereafter, respectively. It has further been noted to Ms. Blackford that her employment would be contingent upon City Council authorization and satisfactory criminal background checks. Recommendation: Staff is requesting Council authorization of the hire of Kimberly Blackford to the position of Communications Coordinator in the Administration Department under the terms and conditions stated in the attached Resolution 6782. Respectfully submitted, Desaree M. Crane RESOLUTION NO. 6782 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE HIRE OF KIMBERLY BLACKFORD TO THE POSITION OF FULL-TIME COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATOR WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has given direction to advertise for the position of full-time Communications Coordinator within the Administration Department; and, WHEREAS, the position was posted and the City received twenty applications; and, WHEREAS, Kimberly Blackford possesses the necessary background, training and skills to perform the duties assigned to this full-time exempt position; and, WHEREAS, Ms. Blackford shall be compensated at the rate of $17.78 per hour, Step 1 of the negotiated wage schedule; and, WHEREAS, Ms. Blackford's employment shall begin on or after April 17, 2006. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does hereby approve the hire of Kimberly Blackford to the position of full-time Communications Coordinator within the Administration Department, subject to a satisfactory criminal background checks. Adopted this 10th day of April , 2006. Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (seal) Charter Commission Chair Jonathan J Thomas 763-784-5205 Vice Chair 2nd Vice Chair Jean Miller 763-786-3959 Secretary Brian Amundsen 763-786-5699 Bill Doty 763-786-3421 Matthew Eenigenburg 763-783-7216 William Mori 763-784-3645 Barbara Thomas 763-780-6226 William Werner Sr 763-784-3603 Resolution No. 2005-02 Mounds View Charter Commission Dated Feb 10, 2005 Whereas, the Mounds View Charter Commission is reviewing the lists of past requests for housekeeping and clarification updates to sections of the Mounds View Charter that have caused confusion or seem to be semantically incorrect. The Mounds View Charter Commission acting under Minnesota Statute 410.12 Subdivision 7, recommends the following amendments by the addition of the bold and double underlined language and by the deletion of the bold and drinker, language. The Mounds View Charter Commission requests the City Council adopt by ordinance those items it is in unanimous agreement with. We also request a response within 60 days with recommendations for modifications to any item that the City Council deems not acceptable as presented. Objectives: 1) In 7.04 update language to reference Minnesota Statutes requirements and incorporate recommendations of League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) "Model Charter". Section should additionally address inputs from Charlie Hansen, Finance Director, City of Mounds View and provide calendar or time line for the City's tax and budget process which can be understood by the public. 2) In 7.05 update publication methods to include City's web site. 3) In 7.06. subd. 01 Change September requirement for public hearing to be a simple reference requiring compliance with the Minnesota Statutes pertaining to Truth in Taxation for timing but retain the requirement to hold a public meeting even if Minnesota Statutes would not require it. Also remove the word "monthly" as it is not consistent with other references to "regular council meetings." Address ambiguity of "object level" etc. per Charlie Hansen's Memo of November 13, 2002 4) In 7.06. subd. 02 Change to "two week" time line to be something more easily complied with and in compliance with Minnesota Statutes. Add usage of City's web site for publishing purposes. 5) In 7.06. subd. 03 incorporate recommendation from LMC to have a fall back budget in cases of delay in approval of budget by new fiscal year starting. 6) In 7.07 incorporate the management method and procedures of the Mounds View Purchasing Manual for accountability of managing department budget expenditures 7) In 7.08 clarify that Section 7.12 does not conflict with budget alterations and who may approve alterations at which budget levels. 8) In 7.10 incorporate the Minnesota Statutes reference as originally prescribed by charter and update for City web site notification. 9) In 7.12. incorporate LMC recommendation for emergency debt limits and Delete redundant Subdivision 2. The nine sections recommended for consideration with this resolution are attached by section and recommended for adoption individually or as a group at the discretion of the Mounds City Council. Intended final language attached for ease of readability. Respectfully submitted, Jonathan J Thomas, Chair Brian Amundsen, Secretary Item No: 07D Meeting Date: April 10, 2006 Type of Business: CB Administrator Review: City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Desaree Crane, Assistant to the City Administrator Item Title/Subject: First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 772, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the Mounds View City Charter Relating to Taxation and Finances Introduction: On March 10, 2005, the Mounds View Charter Commission adopted Resolution 2005-02 (attached) which put forward suggested amendments to the Charter in Chapter 7 relating to "Taxation and Finances." These amendments were also discussed at the April 3, 2006, Work Session between the Mounds View Charter Chairperson, Jonathan Thomas, and the Mounds View City Council. Discussion: The intent of the Charter Commission with this resolution is to clarify language in the charter relating to the Taxation and Finances in Chapter 7 of the Mounds View City Charter. Consistent with state law, the ordinance would go into effect 90 days after unanimously being adopted by the City Council. The ordinance requires a public hearing, which will be scheduled for Monday, April 24, 2006 at 7:05pm. Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council introduce and accept the first reading of Ordinance 772. Also attached is the summary of the Ordinance. If this Ordinance were to be approved at the April 24, 2006 City Council Meeting, then only the summary would be published. Respectfully submitted, Desaree Crane Attachments: 1. Charter Commission Resolution 2005-02 2. Ordinance 772 ORDINANCE NO. 772 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CHARTER BY AMENDING CHAPTER 7 OF THE CHARTER RELATING TO TAXATION AND FINANCES THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Mounds View, pursuant to the recommendation of the City of Mounds View City Charter Commission, has hereby determined that Chapter 7 of the Charter of the City of Mounds View relating to "Taxation and Finances" be amended by the addition of the bold and underlined language and by the deletion of the bold and stricken as follows: CHAPTER TAXATION AND FINANCES Section 7.01 Council to Control Finances. (no changes) Section 7.02 Fiscal Year. (no changes) Section 7.03 System of Taxation. (no changes) Section 7.04. Submission of Budget. Subdivision 1. Annually, on or before the 15Lh calendar day of September of each year or as specified by MN Statute 275.065, as amended, the Clerk -Administrator shall submit to the Council the budget estimates for funds levying property taxes for the ensuing fiscal year and an accompanying summary message in accordance with a budget calendar to be established by resolution. The final budget shall provide a complete financial plan for all City funds and activities for the ensuing fiscal year and except as required by state law or this Charter, shall be in such form as the Council may require. It shall include a summary and show in detail all estimated income and all proposed expenditures, including debt service and comparative figures for the current fiscal year, actual and estimated, and the preceding year. In addition to showing proposed expenditures for current operations, it shall show proposed capital expenditures to be made during the year and the proposed method of financing each such capital expenditure. The total proposed operating budget to be provided from the property tax shall not exceed the amounts authorized by state law and this Charter. Consistent with these provisions, the budget shall contain such information and be in the form prescribed by ordinance and by state law. the City Council. Subdivision 2. For each utility -enterprise operated by the City, its proposed and final budget shall show income, expenditure, and anticipated net surplus or deficit ad -with the proposed disposition method_ of disposition.; and subsidiary budgets for each s! I ..... Subdivision 3. The Clerk -Administrator's message shall explain the budget, both in fiscal terms and in terms of the work programs, linking programs to goals of the City and community priorities. It shall outline the proposed financial policies and programs of the City for the ensuing fiscal year and the impact of those policies and programs compared to the City's current five-year plan, as adopted by the City Council. It shall describe the important features of the budget, indicate any major changes in financial policies, expenditures, and revenues together with the reasons for such changes. It shall summarize the City's debt position for each fund, including factors affecting the ability to raise resources through debt issues, and include such other material as the Clerk - Administrator deems desirable or as reauested by the Citv Council Subdivision 04. Budget Planning Guideline The purpose of this section is to provide the public with general time table for the annual budget process. The dates are guidelines and subject to change by the City Council and MN Statute 275.065, as amended. Activity Estimated Time Period Five -Year Plan: Development Jan. 1 to May 1 Five -Year Plan: Public Review May 1 to May 20 Five -Year Plan: Council Approval May 20 to June 1 Annual Budget Calendar: Adopted by Council June 1 Five -Year Plan: Published to Public June 1 to Aug. 1 Annual Budget: Public Input to Department June 1 to Sept 1 Annual Budget: Clerk -Administrator Develops Summary and Estimate Proposal for Council Aug. 1 to Sept. 15 Annual Budget: Estimates Submitted to Council Sept. 15 Annual Budget: Proposal and Tax Levy Estimates Council Adoption Sept. 15 Annual Budget: Council Review and Amend Sept. 15 to Nov 23 Annual Budget and Tax Levy: Proposal Published to Public Sept. 15 to Dec. 1 Annual Budget and Tax Levy: Public Review Sept.. 15 to Dec. 20 Annual Budget: Public Hearing Advertised Nov. Annual Budget and Tax Levy: Initial Public Hearing Nov. 29 to Dec. 20 Annual Budget and Tax Levy: Council Adoption Dec. 5 to Dec. 20 Annual Budget and Tax Levy: Final Council Budget Summary Published to Public Dec. 20 to Feb. 1 Section 7.05UmigTenmFive-Year Financial Plan. Subdivision 1. The City Council shall have prepared a long-terrx►five-year financial plan commencing in4hewith the ensuing calendar year.1980. The City Council shall hold a public hearing on the long term financial plan and adopt it by ordinance, with or without amendment, by June 1st of each year. The financial plan shall consist of at least the following four elements as specified in subdivisions 2-5 which follow: Subdivision 2. The Public Service Element pPrograrn. TheProgram shall contain be a continuing five-year plan for all public services, estimating future needs for the public health, safety and welfare of the City. It shall measure the objectives and needs for each City department, the standard of services desired, and the impact of each such service on the annual operating budget. Subdivision 3. The Capital Improvement Element. This program shall contain ^^"�ovprojects and faGilities that are or will be needded by the City in Garrying out the an i. I I program of publin s ,:Ges. it shall inGlude a list of all capital improvements proposed to be undertaken during the next five fiscal years, with appropriate supporting information as to the necessity for such improvements; cost estimate, method of financing and recommended time schedule for each such improvement; and the estimated annual cost of operating and maintaining the facilities to be constructed or acquired. This information shall be revised and extended each year for capital improvements still pending or in process. Subdivision 4. A Five -Year '' Long -Term Revenue Element. This program shall contain Gonsist of a tentative revenue policy that whiEh describes five-year long-term plans for financing public services and capital improvements. Subdivision 5. The Capital Budget Element. This program shall be a summary on the basis of a five-year period of the capital or money requirements for the above -described programs. It shall list a priority for each anticipated investment in community facilities and balance this with a consideration of the availability of necessary revenues. Subdivision 6. A summary of the long-termfive year financial plan shall be published before August Vt each year in the official City newspaper, the City newsletter, and, if available, the City web site. City, newsletter nnua y Section 7.06. -Council Action on Bud Subdivision 1. The Council shall annually adopt a budget calendar by June 1st. The calendar will establish the time line for development and submission of the budget and allow for public review and comment in accordance with this Charter, the City Council, and MN Statute 275.065, as amended. The budget shall be considered at the first regular monthly meeting of the Council in September and at subsequent meetings until a budget is adopted for the ensuing year. The budqet calendar will provide a 30-day period for public review and input to the annual budget prior to final approval by the City Council. The meetings shall be so conducted as to give interested citizens a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Council may revise the proposed budget but no amendment to the budget shall increase the authorized expenditures to an amount greater than the sum of estimated income: and reserves. The Council shall adopt the budget by a resolution that shall set forth the total for each budgeted fund and each department_ with S„^h segregation as to as to „h,eGts and purposes of expenditures The budget shall indicate the sums to be raised and from what sources and the sums to be spent and for what purpose as the Council deems necessary for establishing- doses of -the budget Eentrol. The Council shall also adopt a resolution levying the amount of taxes provided in the budget, and the Clerk -Administrator shall certify the tax resolution to the County Auditor in accordance with state law. Adoption of the budget resolution shall constitute appropriations at the beginning of the fiscal year of the sums fixed in the resolution of the several purposes named. Subdivision 2. At leach two weeks hAs specified by MN Statute 275.065, as amended, before the budget is adopted for the ensuing fiscal year a public hearing notice and summary of the proposed budget will be published a summary shall he given -, in the official City newspaper, the City Newsletter, and, if available, the City web site^ draft form,-. Such summary bete set firth in language designed to cshould be readily understandableood by the layperson, and shouldshaIf provide appropriate supporting information as to the necessity for any increase in the budget over the total for the current fiscal year.Failure to provide the specified summary will not invalidate the budget. The final budget will be published in accordance with Minnesota Statutes on Truth in Taxation or no later than 60 days after adoption by the Council in the official City newspaper, the City newsletter and, if available, the City web site. Subdivision 3. If the Council fails to adopt the budget by the beginning of the next fiscal year, the preceding months fiscal year budget shall go into effect for up to thirty- one (31) days or until the Council adopts a budget. Section 7.07. Enforcement of the Budget. The Clerk -Administrator may designate department heads or other staff who may assist with each fund or department in the annual budget. It shall be the duty of the Clerk - Administrator to strictly enforce the detail provisions of the budget. The City Council shall _ strictly enforce strictly the provisions of the budget. ltThe City Council shall not authorize any payment or the incurring of any obligation by the City, unless an appropriation has been made in the budget resolution, and there is a sufficient unexpended balance after deducting the total past expenditures and encumbrances against the appropriation._No officer or employee of the City shall place any order or make any purchase unless eXGept for a purpose an the amount is authorized in the budget resolution: and in compliance with; the purchasing policies of the City as established by the City Council, the City Charter, the City Code, and Minnesota Statutes. Any obligation incurred by any person in the employ of the City for any purpose not authorized in the budget resolution, or for any amount in excess of the amount authorized, shall be a personal obligation upon the person incurring the obligation. No check shall be issued or transfer made to any account other than one owned by the City until the claim to which it relates has been supported by an itemized bill, payroll, or time sheet or other document approved and signed by the responsible City officer who vouches for its correctness and reasonableness. Section 7.08. Alterations in the Budget. After the budget resolution has been adopted, the Council may amend the budget by resolution, but shall not increase the amounts fixed in the resolution beyond the sum of estimated receipts and reserves, except to the extent that actual receipts exceed the estimate or to implement Section 7.12 herein. At anytime the Council may, by resolution approved b majority of its members, reduce the sums appropriated for any purpose by the budget - resolution, to increase reserves or authorize the transfer of sums from unencumbered balances of appropriations in the budget_ resolution to other purposes_ Section 7.09. Funds. (no changes) Section 7.10. City Indebtedness. Subdivision 1. Except as provided in Sections 7.11 and 7.12, no obligation shall be issued to pay current expenses, but the Council may issue and sell obligations for any other municipal purpose in accordance with state law and within the limitations prescribed by law. Except in the case of obligations for which an election is not required by this Chapter or by state law, no such obligations shall be issued and sold without the approval of the majority of the voters voting on the question at a general or special election. Subdivision 2. A description of each such proposed issue shall be published in the official City newspaper, the City Newsletter, and , if available, the City web site, but failure to give such description, or any defect in the description, shall not invalidate the issue. Section 7.11. 1. Anticipation Certificates. At anytime after January 1, in accordance with MN Statute 412.261, as amended, with the following restrictions; the Council may issue certificates of indebtedness in anticipation of state and federal aids and the collection of taxes levied the previous year for any fund and not yet collected. The total amount of certificates issued against any fund for any year together with interest thereon until maturity shall not exceed 90% of the total state and federal aids and current taxes due to the fund and uncollected at the time of issuance. Such certificates shall be issued on such terms and conditions as the Council may determine, but they shall become due not later than August 15t_Apr"! 1 of the year following their issuance. The proceeds of the tax levied and such state or federal aids as the governing body may have allocated for the fund against which tax anticipation certificates are issued, and the full faith and credit of the City shall be irrevocably pledged for the redemption of the certificates. Section 7.12. Emergency Debt Certificates. If in any year the receipt from taxes, availability of reserves, or other sources should for some unforeseen cause become insufficient for the ordinary expenses of the City, or if any calamity or other public emergency necessitates the making of extraordinary expenditures, the Council may by ordinance issue, on such terms and in such manner as the Council determines, emergency debt certificates not to exceed 10% of the total City budget and to run not to exceed three years. A-tTaxes sufficient to pay principal and interest on such certificates with the margin required by law shall be levied as required by law. The ordinance authorizing the issue of such emergency debt certificates shall state the nature of the emergency and be approved by at least three members of the Council. It may be passed as an emergency ordinance. A desGription of each suGh proposed Gertif"Gate shall be published in the City Newsletter, but failure to give such description, or any defect On the description, shall not invalidate the SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect 90 days after its publication in the official City newspaper. INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 10tn day of April, 2005. PUBLIC HEARING, SECOND READING AND ADOPTION by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this th day of April, 2006. Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (seal) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Scott Riggs, City Attorney ORDINANCE SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 772 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CHARTER BY AMENDING CHAPTER 7 OF THE CHARTER RELATING TO TAXATION AND FINANCES On April 24, 2006, the Mounds View City Council adopted an ordinance amending Chapter 7 of the Charter relating to Taxation and Finances The full and complete text of this ordinance is on file at the office of the Clerk Administrator and is posted in its entirety on the City's website, located at www.ci.mounds-view.mn.us/ords/772.pd. Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk -Administrator Item No: 07E Meeting Date: April 10, 2006 Type of Business: CB City Administrator Review: City of Mounds View Staff R To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Desaree Crane, Administrative Assistant Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6793 Approving a Step Increase for Deputy Chief Tom Kinney of the Mounds View Police Department Background: Deputy Chief Tom Kinney is a current employee with the City of Mounds View. His supervisor reviewed his performance as it relates to his responsibilities outlined in the job description. Discussion: It was determined that Deputy Chief Tom Kinney has more than satisfactorily performed in the capacity of his position, and therefore, a step increase wage adjustments is consistent with the Personnel Manual. Respectfully Submitted, Desaree Crane RESOLUTION 6793 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA APPROVING STEP/LONGEVITY ADJUSTMENTS WHEREAS, the following below is a regular full-time employee who is currently working for the City of Mounds View; and WHEREAS, his supervisor reviewed his performance as it relates to the responsibilities outlined in the job description; and WHEREAS, his supervisor determined that the following employee below has more than satisfactorily performed in the capacity of his position documented in his performance review on file. WHEREAS, a step increase wage adjustment is consistent with the Mounds View Personnel Manual and Labor Agreements. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does hereby approve a wage adjustment to the following indicated in the chart below. NAME CURRENT DATE OF CURRENT STEP & STEP & WAGE EFFECTIVE POSITION EMPLOYMENT/CURRENT WAGE ADJUSTMENT DATE OF POSITION ADJUSTMENT Tom Kinney Deputy Chief September 14, 2004 Step 4/$34.14 hr Step 5/$35.94 hr March 14, 2006 Adopted this 10th day of April, 2006. Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (seal) Item No. 07' 'type of Business:CB Meeting Date: April 10, 2006 Administrator Review: City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Desaree Crane, Assistant to the City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Resolution 6693 Approving a Transfer of Business License Ownership from Elias Saman to Khalid Ahmed for a Tobacco and Gasoline Business License for the Mounds View BP, Inc. located at 2155 Highway 10 Elias B.D. Saman and his business/corporation Mounds View BP, Inc., requested a transfer of ownership for their Gasoline and Tobacco License to Khalid Ahmed on December 12, 2005. At the December 12, 2005 City Council Meeting, the City Council was made aware of Fire Code Violations at the Mounds View BP property. According to the Minutes of December 12, 2006 (attached), Staff was directed to bring this matter back for action once the property receives a satisfactory fire inspection. As stated in the attached letter dated March 29, 2006, the Mounds View Fire Marshall states that the facility now meets the basic requirements of the Minnesota State Fire Code, and therefore should be recommended for their transfer of business licenses. Mr. Ahmed has submitted the appropriate application materials, fees and proof of workers compensation insurance. The Mounds View Fire Marshal has re- inspected the property, and therefore, staff recommends approval of Mr. Ahmed's Tobacco and Gasoline License. The name of the gas station will not change, and will remain Mounds View BP. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Resolution 6693, Approving a transfer of Business License Ownership from Elias Saman to Khalid Ahmed for a Tobacco and Gasoline Business License for the Mounds View BP, Inc. located at 2155 Highway 10. Respectfully Submitted, Desaree Crane 1:72671i71Iy 1LOU, IN • • • 211 IZ I ZI =Riel Approving a Transfer of Business License Ownership from Elias Saman to Khalid Ahmed for a Tobacco and Gasoline Business License for the Mounds View BP, Inc. located at 2155 Highway 10 WHEREAS, Khalid Ahmed, recently submitted an application for a gasoline and tobacco license located at 2155 Highway 10 ; and WHEREAS, Mr. Ahmed has submitted the appropriate application materials, fees, proof of workers compensation insurance, and passed a Fire Inspection; and WHEREAS, the licensing period would be April 11, 2006- June 30, 2006; MT141 WHEREAS, all City of Mounds View business licenses must be approved by the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does hereby approve a gasoline and tobacco license for Khalid Ahmed of Mounds View BP, Inc., located at 2155 Highway 10. Adopted this 10th day of April, 2006. Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (seal} Phone: (763) 717-4000 Fax: (763) 784-3462 March 29, 2006 Elias Saman 12508 Norway Circle Burnsville, MN 55337 Khalid Ahmed 13435 Northwood Lane Mequon WI 53097 Subject: 2155 Highway Ave. Dear Elias Saman and Khalid Ahmed, Thank you for your cooperation in complying with the previously issued fire orders. We have received confirmation of the electrical inspection approval from the MN State Board of Electricity. At this time your facility meets the basic requirements of the Minnesota State Fire Code and your City license will be recommended for approval. If you have any questions or if I can be of assistance, please contact me directly at 763-717-4024. Sincerely, �athi Osmonson Fire Marshal cc: Kim Sparrow, State Board of Electricity Kurt Ulrich, City of Mounds View Deseree Crane, Assistant Administrator Nyle Zikmund, Fire Chief 2401 Highway 10 - Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 Website address: hftp://www.ci.mounds-view.mn.us Equal Opportunity Employer 02k recycled paper Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 1.6 Councilmember Gunn stated she thinks the summer schedule starts July 1st MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Stigney. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6700 Waiving the Public Improvement Hearing, Holding a Public Information Meeting, Ordering the Project, Approving a Contract to Demolish the Existing Building at Random Park and Authorizing the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for the Random Park Building Replacement Project adding to #4 that the bid is awarded to Jay Brothers. Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. G. Resolution 6693, Approving a Transfer of Business License Ownership from Elias Saman to Khalid Ahmed for a Tobacco and Gasoline License for the Mounds View BP, located at 21.55 Highway 10 Assistant to the City Administrator Crane stated this is a transfer of ownership for a tobacco and gasoline license from Mr. Saman to Mr. Ahmed for the Mounds View BP. She reported the applicant has submitted all the needed documents and the Fire Marshal recently inspected the building but it did not do very well. She explained that this information came to light after the staff report was prepared. The Council can consider approval pending satisfactory reinspection or take action to postpone to January 9, 2006. Building Official Osmonson explained this situation is similar to that of the Premium Stop in working with Oasis Market and trying to get the violations corrected. She advised that one of the problems is that the propane exchange station is located by the window and needs to be relocated. Then, screening needs to be built around the exchange station once it is correctly located. Also, the junction box is open and needs to be closed. She explained that these issues need to be abated prior to the transfer being considered. Assistant to the City Administrator Crane stated she is not aware of the lease situation. Building Official Osmonson explained that they are operating under the other license but have existing violations that staff has had trouble getting abated. This request presents the opportunity to get them addressed. Councilmember Thomas asked if it is better for the Council to consider approval pending a satisfactory inspection and compliance. Assistant to the City Administrator Crane stated it comes down to staff having to be in contact with them every day. Building Official Osmonson stated her agreement and that letters to the owners will still need to be sent. Mayor Marty stated these people will have to fix property that belongs to someone else. Councilmember Stigney asked if the license would be issued to the new business owner, which would put pressure on them. Assistant to the City Administrator Crane explained they will continue to operate under the old ownership. Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 17 Councilmember Gunn asked how they can operate under the old ownership. City Attorney Riggs advised that if the City has evidence that the business has actually transferred, they would need to cease operations. Councilmember Flaherty stated they will not get a license for transfer until they receive a satisfactory fire inspection and correction of violations. He noted that alone should be enough impetus for them to comply. Building Official Osmonson asked if staff should send them a letter stating that and indicating the Council will consider the request for transfer of the business license once they receive a satisfactory fire inspection. City Administrator Ulrich noted the next Council meeting will be on January 9, 2006. The Council directed staff to bring back this matter for action once the property receives a satisfactory fire inspection. H. Resolution 6690 Authorizing the Acceptance of a Traffic Safety Award from the MN Department of Public Safety Police Chief Sommer explained this action will accept an award from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety and a $2,000 grant, which must be used for traffic safety purposes as additional funding to benefit the Mounds View Police Department. Police Chief Sommer explained that the Police Department submitted an application for this year's Safe and Sober challenge award. The application detailed the Police Department's program of participation in traffic safety enforcement and education, which included the Department's participation in the State-wide enforcement waves throughout the year, the Department's directed traffic enforcement in problem areas, and response to complaints of traffic violators. The Department of Public Safety awards those police and sheriff departments from throughout the State whose efforts were deemed exceptional in improving traffic safety. The Minnesota Department of Public Safety judged the Mounds View Police Department's efforts to decrease impaired driving and increase seatbelt use to be exceptional and awarded the Department with second place and a mini -grant in the amount of $2,000 to be used for traffic safety purposes. The Police Department proposes the funds be used to purchase digital recording equipment for the Intoxilyzer alcohol testing area and interview room for the processing of driving while intoxicated offenders. He recommend approval of the resolution and acceptance of the grant. MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Gunn. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6690 Authorizing the Acceptance of a Traffic Safety Award from the MN Department of Public Safety. Staff was asked to correct a typographical error in the last paragraph to indicate `Be it further Item No. 07G Meeting Date: April 10, 2006 Type of Busine City Administrator Review To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator Desaree Crane, Assistant to the City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6792, Awarding a Firm to Conduct a Salary Compensation and Pay Equity Report for Mounds View Employees Introduction A RFP for a Mounds View Salary Compensation Study and Pay Equity Report was authorized by the Mounds View City Council on February 13, 2006, with the passing of Resolution 6732. Staff received 4 proposals for this study. Discussion The Human Resources Committee has been pursuing a compensation study that puts into consideration population, city market value, and taxable tax capacity instead of just using Stanton 6 cities (population 10,000 — 25,000) as outlined in the Personnel Manual. The City Council also agreed to these parameters at the February 13, 2006 City Council Meeting. The RFP put these parameters as part of the compensation study. The study would encompass all positions within the City (both union and non -union). Any compensation adjustments resulting from this study could then be negotiated into new contracts and/or included in budgets for 2007. In addition to the salary compensation, the Request for Proposal also requests that a Pay Equity Report be completed. The State of Minnesota's Pay Equity Law requires that: ... "every political subdivision of this state shall establish equitable compensation relationships between female -dominated, male -dominated, and balanced classes of employees in order to eliminate sex -based wage disparities in public employment in this state." (Minn. Stat. § 471.992, subd. 1) The term "equitable compensation relationship" means that the compensation for female - dominated classes is not consistently below the compensation for male -dominated classes of comparable work value ... (Minn. Stat. §. 471.991, subd. 5). The Mounds View Pay Equity Report is due to the Department of Employee Relations by January 31, 2007. Staff received four (4) proposals, which are attached to this report. Prices range from $9,500 to $34,500. They include Laumeyer & Associates Human Resources Consulting, Springsted, Fox, Lawson & Associates, and The Waters Consulting Group, Inc. Laumeyer & Associates Laumeyer & Associates is a Human Resources Consulting firm located in Duluth, Minnesota. As stated in their RFP dated March 15, 2006, this firm incorporates a personal and interactive process with city staff, elected officials, employees and union representatives. Their process would involve personal contact with staff, employee, elected officials and union representatives to have a clear understanding of all job descriptions. According to their RFP, this personal contact would maximize both understanding and acceptance of the compensation results. Laumeyer & Associates did submit references, which include the City of Baxtor, City of Menahga (MINI), City of Little Falls (MINI), City of Cohasset (MINI), City of Hutchinson (MINI) and the City of Hector (MINI). According to their RFP, the products and services outlined in their proposal include all travel and administrative expenses. Their full cost is $9,500. This includes the Pay Equity Study and Report. However, the quoted figure is based on the use of the current HAY evaluation system. The use of a new system would be an additional $1,500. In addition, the quoted figure is based on the use of current market data. The use of customized data would be an additional $1,500.00 or $750 with utilization of city employees. The City Council has expressed pursuing a compensation study that puts into consideration population, city market value, and taxable tax capacity instead of just using Stanton 6 cities (population 10,000 — 25,000) as outlined in the Personnel Manual. This may constitute an additional $1,500 on top of their full quote of $9,500 for a total cost of $11,000. Springsted, Inc. Springsted, Inc., has done consulting work for the City in the past. They are located in St. Paul, Minnesota and have been in business for over 50 years. Their references include the City of Moorhead (MINI), City of Waite Park (MN), Pope County (MN), Yellow Medicine County (MN), City of Hagerstown (MD), Fauquier County (VA), and Onslow County (NC). Springsted would begin the compensation process by meeting with the Assistant to the City Administrator to get background, address major issues, gather current job descriptions, and review the project schedule. Springsted will also conduct employee informational meetings to introduce the study, explain study procedures and answer any questions that employee may have with the process. The cost for their study is $17,250. According to Robert Thistle, the Executive Vice President of Springsted, the cost includes the Pay Equity Study and Report. They are also additional costs involved if city employees were to dispute the findings of the compensation study. Fox Lawson & Associates Fox Lawson & Associates are located in St. Paul and have an additional office in Arizona. They have been in business since 1981, beginning as the public sector compensation consulting practice firm. Their clients include the City of Jackson (MN), St. Paul Public Housing (MN), City of Fergus Falls (MN), West St. Paul School District #197 (MN), Hennepin County (MN), University of Minnesota (MN), City of Eden Prairie (MN), City of Bismarck (ND), Massachusetts Port Authority (MA), Rhode Island Housing (RI), City of Healdsburg (CA), City of Davis (CA), City of Flagstaff (AZ), and Marin County (CA) to name a few. The total cost of their study is $31,000. Staff spoke to the CEO, James Fox, and he stated that the $31,000 includes the Pay Equity Study. They are additional costs if city employees dispute the compensation results. As stated in their RFP, they are not able to make the June 3, 2006 deadline. They would like five months to complete the project. It has been expressed by the City Council, that the Compensation Study be implemented by July Vt. The June 3, 2006 deadline would give Staff and the City Council enough time to review the final report to make the July Vt implementation deadline. The Waters Consulting Group, Inc. The Waters Consulting Group, Inc., is a Dallas, Texas based management consulting firm specializing in compensation, classification, job analysis, job evaluation, performance management, organizational analysis, HR audits and executive search consulting. According to their RFP, they have more than 29 years experience in the field. The cost of their compensation study is $34,500. This is the highest bid, and staff would rather have a local company perform the compensation study to minimize extra costs due to travel, etc. Recommendation All four proposals were give to the City Council at the April 3, 2006, Work Session. Staff removed the RFP Review off the Work Session Agenda because the Human Resources Committee wanted to interview the apparent low bidder before making their recommendation. Staff will be discussing the findings of these proposals with the Human Resources Committee prior to this City Council Meeting. Please bring all RFP materials that were given to you at the April 3, 2006 Work Session. Staff's recommendation will be pending review by the Human Resources Committee. Resolution 6792 is prepared in case the Human Resources Committee recommends the apparent low bidder, Laumeyer & Associates. The Human Resource Committee will be meeting on April 10, 2006 at 530pm. Staff will be presenting to the City Council all updated job descriptions for Council approval on April 24, 2006. i • • . . . r • `_ a —` — � — -- — �' �, • �' •' • � 1, WHEREAS, it has been discussed by the Mounds View Human Resources Committee to revise the Mounds View Personnel Policy in regard to salary compensation; and WHEREAS, the Human Resources Committee recommends a salary compensation study that puts into consideration population, city market value, and taxable tax capacity instead of just using Stanton 6 cities (population 10,000 — 25,000) as outlined in the Personnel Manual; and WHEREAS, Resolution 6732 authorized Staff to advertise for a RFP to conduct a salary compensation study and pay equity report; and WHEREAS, four (4) companies submitted quotes to provide a salary compensation study and pay equity report; and WHEREAS, the lowest quote was from Laumeyer & Associates in the amount of NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council approved Laumeyer & Associates to conduct a salary compensation study and pay equity report in the amount of $ Adopted this 10t" day of April, 2006. Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (seal) =11751KI WWA Meeting Date April 10, 2006 Type of Business: CA City Administrator Review: City of Mounds View Staff R To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Barb Benesch, Administrative Assistant Item Title/Subject: CONTRACTOR LICENSES FOR APPROVAL Please consider the following contractor licenses for approval. All contractor licenses will expire on December 31, 2006. All applicants have submitted appropriate fees and proof of insurance. Those companies that are "new" include applicants that have never been licensed with the City or they may have been licensed with the City in the past, but were not licensed in 2005. Those companies renewing their license were licensed, at a minimum, in the year 2005. The type of license they are applying for follows the company name. DeMars Signs Sign Renewal Ferguson Construction Framing Only New McGou h Construction General Commercial Renewal Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested. Item No: 8B Type of Business: Consent Agenda Administrator Review: City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Mike Sommer, Police Chief Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6788 Authorizing the Purchase of Digital Voice Recorders Date of Report: April 10, 2005 Background Minnesota law requires law -enforcement agencies to record statements from all persons who are in custody. The Mounds View Police Department has been using handheld cassette tape recorders for this purpose. The Ramsey County Attorney's office has indicated they will be setting a countywide standard for all law -enforcement agencies regarding custodial statements. They have announced that law -enforcement agencies will be required to submit audio recordings related to cases for prosecution in the digital DSS format (digital speech standard) this year. This format allows audio recordings to be stored on the computer network. They can be forwarded or transcribed directly from anyone having access to the computer file. The digital format makes transferring these recordings much more efficient to prosecutors, transcriptionists, defense attorneys and others requiring copies of audio statements. The Police Department has a forfeiture fund account from which proceeds from vehicle forfeitures are deposited into. Minnesota law sets guidelines on how these funds can be utilized. The purchase of police equipment is an authorized use of forfeiture funds. This account is sufficiently funded for this purchase. The Police Department requires nine handheld digital recorders along with the accompanying equipment for transcription and telephone recording. The Olympus model DS4000 fits the new required standard and is suitable for police use. The Loffler Companies Inc., a local distributor, carries the lowest bid for this recorder at $309 each (includes docking /transferring station, recharge stand and battery, A/C power supply, USB cable, 32 mg card and download software.) The Loffler Companies Inc. have supplied this model of recorder to the St. Paul Police Department, New Brighton Police Department, Maplewood Police Department, Roseville Police Department, Ramsey County Sheriff's Department and many other law enforcement agencies in the state. The total cost for the Olympus DS4000 digital recorders, transcribing kit, supporting equipment, and tax required for the Police Department to change to this format is $3,500. Recommendation Staff recommends council approve the purchase of the hand held digital recorders and supporting equipment out of Police Forfeiture Funds in the amount of $3500. Mike Sommer Police Chief RESOLUTION 6788 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF DIGITAL RECORDING EQUIPMENT FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT UTILIZING FORFEITURE FUNDS WHEREAS, the Mounds View Police Department along with law -enforcement agencies in Minnesota is required to record all statements taken from persons who are in custody, and; WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Attorney's office prosecutes all felony cases submitted from the Mounds View Police Department and they have announced they are setting a countywide standard change for law -enforcement agencies submitting cases for prosecution with audio recordings. The change will necessitate that law -enforcement agencies utilize DSS (digital speech standard) format, and; WHEREAS, the Loffler Companies Incorporated, carries the digital recorder, which fits the new standard, the Olympus model DS4000. The cost of this recorder and its docking station and accompanying software is $309 per recorder, from the Loffler Companies who carry the lowest bid price for this model. To make this change the Police Department requires nine recorders, along with a digital transcription kit and software for $209, telephone adapter earpieces and telephone recording equipment for $235 for total of $3434.63 for all of the necessary equipment including tax. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council for the City of Mounds View approves an expenditure of up to $3500 from the forfeiture fund for the purchase of digital recording equipment from Loffler Companies Incorporated Adopted this 10t" day of April 2006. Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (seal) Item No. 08C Type of Business: CA Meeting Date: Monday, April 10, 2006 City Administrator Review City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Desaree Crane, Assistant to the City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6791 Authorizing the Closing of City Hall to Prepare to move back to new Mounds View City Hall Facility As discussed at the April 3, 2006, City Council Work Session, professional movers are scheduled to move all furniture, files, boxes, and equipment on Saturday, May 6t". Staff recommends that consideration be given to closing the City Hall building on the Friday before (May 5, 2006) starting at 12noon due to the need to have everything prepared and ready for the movers on Saturday. This will minimize potential overtime, and avoid disruptions and hazardous situations due to the move. The closing of City Hall will be announced on the City's Voice Mail system, on Cable Television, the Mounds View Website and posted at the front door of the Mounds View Community Center. In addition, a press release will be forwarded to all newspapers and news agencies to announce the move back to the new City Hall facility, to include the announcement of closing City Hall on May 5, 2006 at 12noon. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Resolution 2006, at 12noon to prepare for the move Facility. Respectfully submitted, Desaree Crane 6691, closing City Hall on Friday, May 5, back to the new Mounds View City Hall RESOLUTION NO. 6791 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CLOSING OF CITY HALL ON MAY 5, 2006, AT 12 NOON TO MOVE TO THE NEW MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL FACILITY WHEREAS, the City Council passed Resolution 6616 awarding the construction contract, which starting the process of remodeling Mounds View City Hall; and WHEREAS, the new Mounds City Hall Facility will start normal operations on Monday, May 8, 2006; and WHEREAS, staff recommends that City Hall be closed on May 5, 2006 at 12noon, due to the need to have everything ready for the movers on Saturday, May 6, 2006, to help minimize potential overtime expenses, and to avoid disruptions and hazardous situations due to the move. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council authorizes Mounds View City Hall to be closed on Friday, May 5, 2006 at 12noon, to get everything prepared for the contract movers on Saturday, May 6, 2006. Presented this 10th day of April, 2006. Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (seal) Item No. 8E Meeting Date: April 10, 2006 Type of Business: CA WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City Administrator Review of Mounds View Staff R To: Mayor and City Council From: Tracy Juell, Administrative Assistant, Public Works Department Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6790 Approving a Contract Award for Cleaning Services for City Hall Offices and the Police Department Background On June 5, 2000, Council awarded a cleaning contract to Coverall Cleaning Concepts to provide cleaning services for the City Hall offices and the Police Department. Coverall Cleaning Concepts continued to provide cleaning services for the building until October of 2005. At that time the contract was canceled due to the closure of City Hall for the rehabilitation project. Discussion Staff has solicited quotes from cleaning companies to provide cleaning services to City Hall Offices and the Police Department. Five companies have submitted quotes. They are as follows: Cleaning Company Quote Janistar Cleaning Services $850.00/mo Coverall Cleaning Concepts $1,267.00/mo Paramount Bldg Services $1,272.68/mo The Other Cleaning Service $1,345.00/mo Tower Cleaning $1,454.00/mo As a note: the original contract with Coverall Cleaning Concepts was $1220.00/mo Staff conducted a reference check on Janistar Cleaning Services. Results are as follows: Company S&C Bank Cititzens State Physician Bank Dia noistic Rehab. Satisfied w/Janistar Yes — Excellent Yes -Good Yes How Long Cleaning 1997 1999 12-05 Facility(s) Sq Footage Bank Bldg, not (3) Bank Bldg's 3500 Sq Feet sure of size Comments Nice company to Good to work with. work with Detailed. Staff has also contacted the Better Business Bureau web site for any complaints regarding Janistar Cleaning Services. No reports were listed as of April 4, 2006. This contract is for a period of two years. The City also has the right to terminate the contract upon proper notice. Recommendation Staff is recommending entering into a cleaning contract with Janistar Cleaning Services to provide cleaning services for the City Hall building in the amount of $850.00 per month. Funds would be derived from the Buildings and Grounds/Professional Services/Cleaning Services account - 100-4460-3030. Respectfully submitted, Tracy Juell, Administrative Assistant Public Works Department RESOLUTION 6790 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA APPROVING THE CONTRACT AWARD FOR CLEANING SERVICES FOR CITY HALL OFFICES AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, the City currently does not have a cleaning contract cleaning services for the City Hall office and Police Department; and WHEREAS, the City Hall building will need to be cleaned on an everyday basis; and WHEREAS, Five (5) cleaning companies submitted quotes to provide cleaning services for City Hall offices and the Police Department; and WHEREAS, the lowest quote was from Janistar Cleaning Services in the monthly amount of $850.00. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows: 1. A cleaning contract with Janistar Cleaning Services to provide cleaning services for the City Hall building in the amount of $850.00 per month is hereby approved. 2. The Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized to execute said cleaning services contract. 3. That said approval and authorization to execute is contingent upon the approval of the City's Legal Counsel to do such. 4. The funds to administer this contract are to be derived from the Buildings and Grounds Department of the General Fund (Account No. 100-4460-3030). Adopted this 101" day of April 2006. Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (seal) Item No: 8F Meeting Date: April 10, 2006 Type of Business: Consent Administrator Review: City of Mounds View Staff Repol.. III! To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Approve and Authorize Execution of an Amended and Restated Joint Cooperation Agreement Between Ramsey County and the City of Mounds View Introduction: Ramsey County notified the City in March that the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is requiring that all communities that participate in the CDBG program execute an updated agreement outlining the current terms and conditions of the program. The amended and restated agreement incorporates all previous changes that have been considered and adopted by the City. Discussion: The City has participated with Ramsey County since 1985 in the CDBG program, and has had a number of projects funded through this program. Examples of past fundings include the Mounds View Manufactured Home Park second access project, the Mounds View Manufactured Home Park rehab and revitalization project, City Hall accessibility improvements, the Housing Replacement Program, Crime Free Multi Housing investments, etc. While the City has the right to "Opt Out" of its participation under Ramsey County's entitlement, there are no advantages in doing so and would likely result in less opportunities for grant funding. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Council adopt Resolution 6781, a resolution approving and authorizing the execution of the restated and amended Joint Cooperation Agreement between the Ramsey County Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the City of Mounds View. Respectfully submitted, � 6AM-U James Ericson Community Development Director Office of the County Manager David J. Twa, County Manager 250 Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard St. Paul, MN 55102 Working with You to Enhance Our Quahtyof Life March 13, 2006 Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 Dear Mr. Ulrich: Tel: 651-266-8000 Fax: 651-266-8039 e-mail: david.twa@co.ramsey.mn.us Twenty-one years ago, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, determined that Ramsey County would be eligible to become an Entitlement Urban County and receive an annual allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) dollars in excess of one million dollars. Sixteen suburban communities have chosen to participate in the agreement process over the past eighteen years, thus ensuring that a guaranteed annual allocation would be earmarked for the County and those suburban municipalities that desire to actively participate in the program. Recently, HUD has notified us that in order to remain eligible to continue our participation in this federal program, the participating cities and Ramsey County must execute a new cooperation agreement incorporating all the amendments of the past agreements. Each community already approved these amendments, but HUD now requires an all-inclusive agreement. This agreement will have no specified end date, so that it will renew automatically. Of course, at the time of the renewal, all communities will be notified of the opportunity to "opt out" of the agreement. Our eligibility and the actual dollar amount we receive are based upon the population accumulated through the number of jurisdictions that join with us. Our records show that since 1985, your community has signed cooperation agreements with the County to ensure our eligibility. A copy of the agreement is attached to this letter. Please have it approved by your City Council or Town Board and return a fully executed copy to us no later than April 30, 2006. If, however, your community does choose to "opt out", please be advised that you may not have an opportunity to participate with us for the next three years. "Opt out" notification must be made to both the County and the local HUD office no later than April 30, 2006. Excellence ® Respect* Diversity Printed on recycled paper with a minimum of 10% post -consumer content GEND Page Two March 13, 2006 Letter to City Managers INCLUSION IN THE COUNTY ENTITLEMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT YOU ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM. IT DOES PROVIDE THE COUNTY WITH THE NEEDED POPULATION TO QUALIFY AND INFLUENCES OUR ANNUAL ALLOCATION. We are pleased with the active participation of our municipalities over the past several years. Our suburban communities, as a group, have set countywide priorities for use of CDBG and HOME funds. These priorities have resulted in the creation/retention of over 500 jobs, and over 1,800 low-income, suburban homeowners receiving rehabilitation funding. The HOME funds, which are exclusively for affordable housing, have resulted in the addition of several large-scale rehabilitation projects, many new rental units, and expanded homeownership opportunities in suburban Ramsey County for families and senior citizens. Should you have any questions, or need assistance, please contact Denise Beigbeder or Mary Lou Egan in Community and Economic Development, at 651-266-8000. sam NI-* �91HIESIZ1111111115SX;Y1.1i. •5- Wall 171 v RTAMPITI I am on Fm -91ATAA. , Vi L, WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View has participated with Ramsey County for the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) since 1985; and, WHEREAS, THE City of Mounds View has approved amendments to the original agreement from time to time; and, WHEREAS, on March 13, 2006, Ramsey County notified the City that [IUD now requires all participating cities to execute a new cooperation agreement that incorporates all previously approved amendments to past agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds View that the attached Amended and Restated Joint Cooperation Agreement between the Ramsey County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) and the City of Mounds View relating to the Federal CDBG program is hereby approved and directs the Mayor and City Administrator to execute said agreement. Adopted this 1 Oth day of April 2006. Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (SEAL) AMENDED AND RESTATED JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT This Agreement ("Agreement") is between the Ramsey County Housing and Redevelopment Authority ("Authority") and ("Municipality"), each a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, and is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, as amended. WHEREAS Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. §5301 et seq., as amended, ("CDBG Act") provides for a program of community development block grants; and. WHEREAS, computation of a county's population as an Urban County may include persons residing in units of general local government within the county with which it has entered into cooperative agreements to undertake or to assist in the undertaking of essential activities pursuant to community development block grants; and WHEREAS, Ramsey County, Minnesota qualifies as an "Urban County" as that term is used in the CDBG Act and is eligible to receive community development block grant funds; and, WHEREAS, the HOME Investment Partnerships Act, Title II of the Cranston -Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §12701 et seg•, as amended ("HOME Act") provides for support for affordable housing activities; and WHEREAS, Ramsey County is a member of the Anoka, Dakota, Ramsey, and Washington Counties HOME Consortium ("Consortium") formed pursuant to the HOME Act; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to a Joint Powers Agreement executed May 4, 1993, the Authority assumed all rights and duties of Ramsey County related to the administration of CDBG and RESTATED JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT Page 1 of 7 HOME funds received from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"). Now, Therefore, the Parties agree: 1. DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this Agreement, the terms defined in this section have the meanings given to them: "Act" means either the CDBG Act or the HOME Act, or both, depending upon the context. "CDBG Regulations" means those regulations at 24 C.F.R. Part 570, as amended. "Cooperating Community" means any city, town, or township in Ramsey County which has entered into a Cooperation Agreement, as amended, substantially similar to this Agreement and its Amendments. "HOME Regulations" means those regulations at 24 C.F.R. Part 92, as amended. "Regulations" means either the CDBG Regulations or the HOME Regulations, or both, depending upon the context. 2. SCOPE The Authority and Municipality will cooperate to undertake or assist in undertaking community renewal and low and moderate income housing assistance activities and other eligible activities authorized by the CDBG Act and HOME Act. RESTATED JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT Page 2 of 7 The Authority and Municipality will cooperate in establishing priorities and in preparation of the application for a grant. The Authority will prepare and submit to HUD and appropriate reviewing agencies, all necessary applications for a basic grant amount under the CDBG Act and the HOME Act. In preparing the grant application and allocating grant funds received, the Authority will consider projects proposed by the Municipality. The Authority reserves the right to propose projects which are both consistent with the mutually established goals, needs and priorities and within its statutory implementation authority. No Municipality shall be required to propose a proj ect. The Authority shall have final responsibility for selecting projects and will distribute to the Municipality such funds as are determined appropriate for the Municipality to use in implementing a project. The Authority may implement projects within the Municipality as are determined appropriate by the Authority. 3. TERM The term of this Agreement is for Federal Fiscal Years 2007 - 2009. The Agreement remains in effect until the CDBG and HOME funds and program income received with respect to activities carried out during the initial three year qualification period, and any successive qualification periods, are expended and the funded activities completed. Neither the Authority nor the Municipality may terminate or withdraw from this Agreement during that period. This Agreement will be automatically renewed for participation in successive three year qualification periods, unless the Authority or the Municipality provide written notice it elects not to participate in a new qualification period. By the date specified in HUD's urban county RESTATED JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT Page 3 of 7 qualification notice for the next qualification period, the Authority will notify the Municipality in writing of its right not to participate. Both the Authority and Municipality are required to adopt any amendment to this Agreement incorporating changes necessary to meet the requirements for cooperation agreements set forth in an Urban County Qualification Notice applicable for a subsequent three year urban county qualification period. Failure to adopt the necessary amendment will void the automatic renewal for such qualification period. 4. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS A. The CDBG Act and CDBG Regulations are incorporated herein by reference. The HOME Act and HOME Regulations are incorporated herein by reference. B. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent or otherwise modify or abrogate the right of the Authority or Municipality to submit individual applications for discretionary funds in the event Ramsey County does not receive designation as an Urban County entity under the CDBG Act C. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the Municipality from establishing a Municipal Housing and Redevelopment Authority pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469. D. In the event that there is a revision of the Act and/or Regulations which would make this Agreement out of compliance with the Act or Regulations, both parties will review this Agreement to renegotiate those items necessary to bring the Agreement into compliance. E. The Municipality shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the Authority, Ramsey County, their officials, agents, and employees against any and all liability, losses, costs, damages, expenses, claims or actions, including attorney's fees, which the Authority, Ramsey County, their officials, agents, or employees may hereafter sustain, incur or be RESTATED JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT Page 4 of 7 required to pay, arising out of or by reason of any act or omission of the Municipality, its officials, agents or employees, in the execution, performance, or failure to adequately perform its obligations pursuant to this Agreement. F. The Authority shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the Municipality, its officials, agents, and employees against any and all liability, losses, costs, damages, expenses, claims or actions, including attorney's fees, which the Municipality, its officials, agents, or employees may hereafter sustain, incur or be required to pay, arising out of or by reason of any act or omission of the Authority, its officials, agents or employees, in the execution, performance, or failure to adequately perform its obligations pursuant to this Agreement. G. Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver by the Authority, Ramsey County, or the Municipality of any statutory or common law immunities, limits, or exceptions on liability. H. The Authority and the Municipality shall maintain financial and other records and accounts in accordance with the requirements of the Act and Regulations. Such records and accounts will be in such form as to permit the Authority to prepare required reports and to permit the tracing of grant funds and program income to final expenditure. 1. The Authority and the Municipality agree to make available all records and accounts with respect to matters covered by this Agreement at all reasonable times to their respective personnel and duly authorized federal officials. Such records shall be retained as provided by law, but in no event for a period of less than six years from the date of completion of any activity funded under the Act or less than three years from the last receipt of program income resulting from activity implementation. The Authority shall RESTATED JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT Page 5 of 7 perform all audits of the basic grant amounts and resulting program income as required under the Act and Regulations. J. All projects undertaken pursuant to this Agreement shall be subject to home rule charter provisions, assessment, planning, zoning, sanitary, and building laws, ordinances and regulations applicable to the Municipality in which the project is situated. K.. The parties further agree that pursuant to 24 CFR 570.501 (b), the Municipality is subject to the same requirements applicable to subrecipients, including a written agreement as set forth in 24 CFR 570.503. L. By executing this Agreement the Municipality understands that it: 1. may not apply for grants from appropriations under the Small Cities or State CDBG Programs for fiscal years during the period in which it participates in the Authority's CDBG program; and 2. may participate in a HOME Program only through the Authority. If Ramsey County does not receive a HOME formula allocation, the Municipality may not form a HOME consortium with other units of general local government. M. Both the Authority and .Municipality are obliged to take all actions necessary to assure compliance with Ramsey County's certification required by section 104(b) of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act, section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and other applicable laws. The Authority is prohibited from funding for activities, in or in support of, any cooperating unit of general local government that does not affirmatively further fair housing within its own jurisdiction or that impedes its actions to comply with its fair housing certification. N. The Municipality has adopted and is enforcing: RESTATED JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT Page 6 of 7 a policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non-violent civil rights demonstrations; and 2. a policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such non-violent civil rights demonstrations within jurisdictions. RAMSEY COUNTY HOUSING AND MUNICIPALITY REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IM David Twa Ramsey County Manager Its: Dated: APPROVED AS TO FORM Harry D. McPeak Assistant Ramsey County Attorney This Document Drafted By: Office of the Ramsey County Attorney St. Paul, Minnesota RESTATED JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT Page 7 of 7 Dated: CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA APPROVING JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS AGAINST CITY FUNDS WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 412.141, has full authority over the financial affairs of the City and; WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the claim numbers: 15450 through 15457 in the amount of $ 17,855.79 118208 through 118268 in the amount of $ 158,196.10 TOTAL, AMOUNT OF CLAIMS PRESENTED $ 176,051.89 And has found said claims to be just and correct; It was moved that the City Council of Mounds View hereby approve the attached list of claims dated 04/11/2006 by the vote ayes nayes. Mayor Clerk -Administrator Date: 04/05/2006 Time: 08:36:22 City of Mounds View Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 1 FM Entry - Invoice Cash Disbursement Journal Ranges: Journal It: 'L) 6329, 6331, 6333, 6336, 6340 Transaction #: 'Ai Check Date: (A) Check#: (A) Bank#: (A) Options: # of copies: 1 Void Checks: N Page on Check: N Check # Vendor Name Check Date Type Jrnl# Trans Account # Title ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description Amount Invoice Check 15450 AFLAC 03/30/2006 R 6336 3 100-2014 Accrued insurance payable RD103 March 06 AFLAC 185.B2 240-2014 Accrued insurance payable RD103 March 06 AFLAC 1.16 700-2014 Accrued insurance payable RD103 March 06 AFLAC 10.10 730-2014 Accrued insurance payable RD103 March 06 AFLAC 10,04 Invoice 03/30/2006 Total: 207.12 207,12 15451 Edward Jones 03/30/2006 R. 6336 4 100-2006 Misc. payroll withholdings Money Mkt 3/24/06 20.75 245-2006 Misc. payroll withholdings Money Mkt 3/24/06 13.83 700-2006 Misc. payroll withholdings Money Mkt 3/24/06 265.42 Invoice 03/30/2006 Total: 300,00 300.00 15452 Minnesota Child Support Paymen 03/30/2006 R 6336 6 100-2006 Misc. payroll withholdings Child Supp 3/24/06 313-20 Invoice 03/30/2006 Total: 313.20 313..20 15453 Minnesota State Retirement Sys 03/30/2006 R 6336 5 100-2013 Deferred comp payable #98995-01 MN 3/24/06 700.47 230-2013 Deferred comp payable #98995-01 MN 3/24/06 108.80 290-2013 Deferred comp payable #98995-01 MN 3/24/06 3.28 700-2013 Deferred comp payable #98995-01 MN 3/24/06 107.35 730-2013 Deferred comp payable #98995-01 MN 3/24/06 116..10 Invoice 03/30/2006 Total: 1,036.00 1,036.00 15454 Public Employees Retirement As 03/30/2006 R 6336 2 1.00-2012 PERA payable PERA 643400 3/30/06 12,583.88 210-2012 PERA payable PERA 643400 3/30/06 21.69 230-2012 PERA payable PERA 643400 3/30/06 298.04 240-2012 PERA payable PERA 643400 3/30/06 9.47 245-2012 PERA payable PERA 643400 3/30/06 210.34 252-2012 PERA payable PERA 643400 3/30/06 136.48 290-2012 PERA payable PERA 643400 3/30/06 22.21 700-2012 PERA payable PERA 643400 3/30/06 B95.79 730-2012 PERA payable PERA 643400 3/30/06 752,34 Invoice 03/30/2006 Total: 14,930-24 14,930.24 15455 Public Employees Retirement As 03/30/2006 R 6336 1 100-2012 PERA payable DCP 643400 3/30/06 100.00 Invoice 03/30/2006 Total: 100.00 100.00 15456 Secure Benefits Systems Corp. 03/30/2006 R. 6336 7 100-2006 Misc- payroll withholdings Flex Med/Depend 3/24/06 630.53 100-4160-3030 Other professional service Flex Med/Depend 3/24/06 21.84 Date: 04/05/2006 Time: 08:36:23 City of Mounds View Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 2 FM Entry - Invoice Cash Disbursement Journal ;.-heck 4 Vendor Name Check Date Type Jrnl11 Trans Account 4 Title Description Amount Invoice Check 230-2006 Misc.. payroll withholdings Flex_ Med/Depend 3/24/06 10.12 240-2006 Misc_ payroll withholdings Flex Med/Depend 3124/06 5 77 245-2006 Misc. payroll withholdings Flex Med/Depend 3/24/06 -82 700-2006 Misc. payroll withholdings Flex Med/Depend 3/24/06 77-59 730-2006 Misc payroll withholdings Flex Med/Depend 3/24/06 61.56 Invoice 03/30/2006 Total: 808 23 808-23 15457 United Way of the St. Paul Are 03/30/2006 R 6336 8 100-2006 Misc. payroll withholdings United Way 1st Qtr 2006 141.51 245-2006 Misc. payroll withholdings United Way 1st Qtr 2006 1..01 700-2006 Misc. payroll withholdings United Way 1st Qtr 2006 18.48 Invoice 03/30/2006 Total: 161.00 161.00 118208 U. S. Postal Service 04/11/2006 R 6329 1 290-4420-3300 Postage Postage for Clean Up Day Flyers 745..00 Invoice Total: 745.00 745.00 118209 League of Minnesota Cities Ins 03/23/2006 R 6331 1 100-4360-4800 Insurance & bonds Insurance-2nd Qtr, 3,274.08 100-4460-4800 Insurance & bonds Insurance-2nd Qtr, 1,309.54 100-4470-4800 Insurance & bonds Insurance-2nd Qtr, 1,143.56 100-4160-4800 Insurance & bonds Insurance-2nd Qtr.. 4,583.62 100-4100-4800 Insurance & bonds Insurance-2nd Qtr. 63.75 100-4200-4800 Insurance & bonds Insurance-2nd Qtr.. 4,256.35 100-4350-4800 Insurance & bonds Insurance-2nd Qtr. 429.73 230-4650-4800 Insurance & bonds Insurance-2nd Qtr. 1,006.65 240-4416-4800 Insurance & bonds Insurance-2nd Qtr.. 223.70 245-4415-4800 Insurance & bonds Insurance-2nd Qtr. 469.77 252-4736-4800 Insurance & bonds Insurance-2nd Qtr. 335.55 252-4732-4800 Insurance & bonds Insurance-2nd Qtr.. 917.17 252-4730-4800 Insurance & bonds Insurance-2nd Qtr. 536.88 255-4350-4800 Insurance & bonds Insurance-2nd Qtr, 984.28 700-4823-4800 Insurance & bonds Insurance-2nd Qtr. 2,684.41 730-4823-4800 Insurance & bonds Insurance-2nd Qtr. 1,901..46 Invoice 21504 Total: 24,120.50 24,120..50 118210 T R Computer Sales, LLC 03/23/2006 R 6333 1 100-4180-3030 Other professional service Permit Works Annual Support 2,416.01 Invoice 15964 Total: 2,416-01 2,416.01 118212 Accurint - Account #1300411 04/11/2006 R 6340 90 100--4200-3030 Other professional service Searches 2.75 Invoice 1300411-20060331 Total: 2.75 2.75 118213 Ace Solid Waste, Inc. 04/11/2006 R 6340 3 100-4460-3530 Refuse collection Public Works 432.33 Invoice 0003208467 Total: 432.33 252-4350-3530 Refuse collection Community Center 821.91 Invoice 0003208468 Total: 821.91 1,254..24 118214 Airtec, Inc. 04/11/2006 R 6340 4 100-4360-1600 Operating supplies Shop Supplies 16.54 100-4460-1600 Operating supplies Shop Supplies 66-15 Date: 04/05/2006 Time: 08:36:24 City of Mounds Vies:: Operator: Marge Nolquist Page: 3 FM Entry - Invoice Cash Disbursement Journal Check, 4 Vendor Name Check Date Type J1:3111, leans Account „ Title Description Amount Invoice Check - 100-4475-1600 Operating supplies Shop Supplies 33-08 245-4415-1600 Operating supplies Shop Supplies 16.53 700-4823-1600 Operating supplies Shop Supplies 16.54 730-4823-1600 Operating supplies Shop Supplies 16-54 Invoice 381758 Total: 165.38 100-4460-1600 Operating supplies Shop Supplies 20.04 100-4360-1600 Operating supplies Shop Supplies 5.01 100-4475-1600 Operating supplies Shop Supplies 10..02 245-4415-1600 Operating supplies Shop Supplies 5 01 700-4823-1600 Operating supplies Shop Supplies 5 01 730-4823-1600 operating supplies Shop Supplies 5.01 Invoice 381846 Total: 50.10 215-48 118215 Anchor Paper Co. 04/11/2006 R 6340 6 100-4460-1600 Operating supplies Paper Products 77.64 Invoice 10049205-00 Total: 77..64 77..64 118217 Aramark Uniform Services 04/11/2006 R 6340 8 252-4350-2410 Maintenance;mats,towels,mo Mats 127.46 Invoice 629-5938044 Total: 127.46 100-4360-2400 Uniform & clothing Uniforms, Rugs 14.90 100-4470-2410 Maintenance;mats,towels,mo Uniforms, Rugs 11.72 100-4465-2400 Uniforms & clothing Uniforms, Rugs 6.81 100-4472-2400 Uniforms & clothing Uniforms, Rugs 12.69 100-4360-2410 Maintenance;mats,towels,mo Uniforms, Rugs 11.72 100-4410-2400 Uniform & clothing Uniforms, Rugs 4.69 100-4465-2410 Maintenance;mats,towels,mo Uniforms, Rugs 11..72 245-4415-2400 Uniform & clothing Uniforms, Rugs 6.81 245-4415-2410 Maintenance;mats,towels,mo Uniforms, Rugs 11.72 252-4350-2410 Maintenance;mats,towels,mo Uniforms, Rugs 11.72 252-4350-2400 Uniform & clothing Uniforms, Rugs 5.88 700-4823-2400 Uniform & clothing Uniforms, Rugs 11.76 700-4823-2410 Maintenance;mats,towels,mo Uniforms, Rugs 11-73 730-4823-2400 Uniform & clothing Uniforms, Rugs 11.76 730-4823-2410 Maintenance;mats,towels,mo Uniforms, Rugs 11-73 Invoice 629-5938045 Total: 157.36 252-4350-2410 Maintenance;mats,towels,mo Mats 127.46 Invoice 629-5942968 Total: 127..46 100-4465-2400 Uniforms & clothing Uniforms, Rugs 6..81 100-4360-2400 Uniform & clothing Uniforms, Rugs 14.90 100-4470-2410 Maintenance;mats,towels,mo Uniforms, Rugs 14.08 100-4465-2410 Maintenance;mats,towels,mo Uniforms, Rugs 14.08 100-4360-2410 Maintenance;mats,towels,mo Uniforms, Rugs 14,08 100-4410-2400 Uniform & clothing Uniforms, Rugs 4.69 100-4472-2400 Uniforms & clothing Uniforms, Rugs 12.69 245-4415-2410 Maintenance;mats,towels,mo Uniforms, Rugs 14.08 245-4415-2400 Uniform & clothing Uniforms, Rugs 6.81 252-4350-2410 Maintenance;mats,towels,mo Uniforms, Rugs 14,09 252-4350-2400 Uniform & clothing Uniforms, Rugs 5.88 700-4823-2410 Maintenance;mats,towels,mo Uniforms, Rugs 14.09 700-4823-2400 Uniform & clothing Uniforms, Rugs 11.76 730-4823-2410 Maintenance;mats,towels,mo Uniforms, Rugs 14.09 730-4823-2400 Uniform & clothing Uniforms, Rugs 11.76 Date: 04/05/2006 Time: 08:36:26 City of Mounds Vicar Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 4 FM Entry - Invoice Cash Disbursement Journal Check. ff Vendor Name Check Date Type Jrnl# Trans Account 9 Title Description Amount Invoice Check Invoice 629-5942969 Total: 173.89 586.17 118218 Beisswengers 04/11/2006 R 6340 16 100-4360-1210 Supplies, buildings & grou Pliers 15.61 Invoice 194789 Total: 15.61 252-4730-5110 Repairs, buildings & groun Drywall Screen,Brush,Tape,Cleaner 19.70 Invoice 202290 Total: 19..70 100-4460-1600 Operating supplies Appliance Bulb 1.08 Invoice 202320 Total: 1.08 700-4823-1210 Supplies, building & groun Paint 9.56 Invoice 202811 Total: 9..56 700-4823-1250 Supplies, utilities Paint for Well #6 24..20 Invoice 204092 Total: 24.20 700-4823-1210 Supplies, building & groun Paint Tray, Roller 8.72 Invoice 204093 Total: 8.72 78.87 118219 Barbara Benesch 04/11/2006 R 6340 91 100-4180-3630 Training & conferences Mileage Reimbursement 13.80 Invoice Total: 13.80 13.80 118220 The J.. P. Cooke Co.. 04/11/2006 R 6340 17 100-4160-1600 Operating supplies Rubber Stamp 24.25 Invoice 495719 Total: 24.25 24..25 118221 Cottens, Inc. 04/11/2006 R. 6340 18 252-4350-1600 Operating supplies Wet Tire -Black 6.70 Invoice 880755 Total: 6.70 6.70 118222 Electrical Installation & Main 04/11/2006 R 6340 19 252-4730-5130 Repairs, equipment Electrical Repair 260.43 Invoice 0007818-IN Total: 260.43 260.43 118223 Jim Ericson 04/11/2006 R 6340 20 230-4650-3630 Training & conferences Expense Reimbursement 18.68 Invoice Total: 18..68 18..68 118224 Factory Motor Parts Co. 04/11/2006 R 6340 26 100-4465-1220 Supplies, vehicles Battery 87.59 Invoice 1-2409758 Total: 87..59 100-4465-1220 Supplies, vehicles Pulley-returned-#131 -12.20 Invoice 41-043195 Total: -12..20 100-4465-1220 Supplies, vehicles Belt, Pulley, Tensioner-#503 82.16 Invoice 41-044340 Total: 82.16 100-4465-1220 Supplies, vehicles BCA Bearings-#041 47.10 Invoice 41-044354 Total: 47.10 100-4465-1220 Supplies, vehicles Oil Seals-#041 3.92 Invoice 41-044363 Total: 3.92 100-4465-1220 Supplies, vehicles Belt-#043 17.25 Invoice 41-044441 Total: 17.25 1.00-4465-1220 Supplies, vehicles Pulley-#503 14.64 Invoice 41-044621 Total: 14.64 240.46 118225 Fastenal 04/11/2006 R 6340 28 Date: 04/05/2006 Time: 08:36:27 Citv of Mounds View Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 5 FM Entry - Invoice Cash Disbursement Journal Check N Vendor Name Check Date Type Jrn]4 Trans Account I: Title Description Amount Invoice Check 100-4180-1600 Operating supplies LPS Silicone, TKK 12 47 Invoice MNSPR27369 Total: 12.47 12.47 118226 Filterfresh 04/11/2006 R 6340 29 100-4160-1600 Operating supplies Brewer Lease 31.95 Invoice 105793 Total: 31.95 31.95 118227 G & H Consultants, LLC 04/11/2006 R 6340 30 100-4180-3030-034 Other prof;Medtronic-t Medtronic Plan Review 16,037-33 Invoice 06-101 Total: 16,037.,33 16,037.33 118228 Government Training Services 04/11/2006 R 6340 45 100-4180-3630 Training & conferences Workshop Registration -Heller 300,00 Invoice Total: 300..00 300.00 118229 Greater Metropolitan Housing C 04/11/2006 R 6340 31 230-4650-3030 Other professional service Sponsorship -Housing Resource Ctr. 11,000.00 Invoice Total: 11,000.00 11,000.00 118230 Hawkins, Inc. 04/11/2006 R 6340 32 700-4823-1600 Operating supplies Chlorine 905,60 Invoice 793884 Total: 905.60 700-4823-1600 Operating supplies Chemicals 2,601.26 Invoice 794300 Total: 2,601.26 3,506,86 118231 International Code Council, In 04/11/2006 R 6340 34 100-4180-2100 Books & periodicals Books 85.00 Invoice 0127913-IN Total: 85,00 85.00 118232 Jay Bros., Inc.. 04/11/2006 R 6340 35 251-4470-7050-073 Random Pk Bldg Repl Pr Random Park B1dg.Replacement 22,425,70 280-4180-7050-073 Random Pk Bldg Repl Pr Random Park B1dg.Replacement 33,638.55 Invoice 1 Total: 56,064.25 56,064.25 118233 Thomas Kinney 04/11/2006 R 6340 88 100-4200-3630 Training & conferences Expense Reimbursement 18.30 Invoice Total: 18.30 18,30 118234 Lifeloc Technologies, Inc. 04/11/2006 R 6340 36 100-4200-1600 Operating supplies Police Equipment 449.25 Invoice 0069600-IN Total: 449.25 449.25 118235 Liftec Sign & Crane, Inc. 04/11/2006 R 6340 37 230-4650-3030-033 Golf Course Redevelopm Survey/Estimate Billboard Removal 300,00 Invoice 1482 Total: 300.00 300.00 118236 Lil' Fingers Safety Shields 04/11/2006 R 6340 38 252-4350-5110 Repairs, buildings & groun Door Guards 190.00 Invoice 7064 Total: 190,00 190.00 118237 Lillie Suburban News, Inc 04/11/2006 R 6340 39 100-4160-3420 Advertising Seasonal Workers Ad 1,104.00 100-4160-3410 Legal notices Notices Published 39 38 Date: 04/05/2006 Time: 08:36:28 City of Mounds View Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 6 FM Entry - Invoice Cash Disbursement Journal .heck ff Vendor Name Check Date Type Jrn1',i Trans Account ff Title Description Amount Invoice Check Invoice Total: 1,143 38 1,143.38 118238 M.A.M_A. 04/11/2006 R 6340 44 100-4130-3630 Training & conferences Luncheon -Ulrich 1.8,00 Invoice 1453 Total: 18.00 18.00 118239 Mail Box Express 04/11/2006 R 6340 41 700-4823-5130 Repairs, equipment Sensus Meter Returned 7.96 Invoice 71549 Total: 7.96 7.96 118240 Bruce Meehan 04/11/2006 R 6340 46 100-4470-3630 Training & conferences Expense Reimbursement 274.07 Invoice Total: 274.07 274.07 118241 Menards 04/11/2006 R 6340 43 100-4360-5110 Repairs, buildings & groun Fiberglass Filter 1.73 Invoice 13216 Total: 1.73 100-4360-1210 Supplies, buildings & grou Paint 34.58 Invoice 13427 Total: 34.58 36.31 118242 Minnesota County Attorneys Ass 04/11/2006 R 6340 47 100-4200-2100 Books & periodicals Manuals, Forms 94.79 Invoice 16208 Total: 94.79 94.79 118243 University of Minnesota 04/11/2006 R 6340 48 100-4160-3630 Training & conferences Course Registration -Crane 260.00 Invoice 968394 Total: 260.00 260,00 118244 Murlowski Properties, Inc.. 04/11/2006 R. 6340 49 700-4823-1240 Supplies, streets Edgewood Water Main Break 275.48 Invoice 9146 Total: 275.48 275.48 118245 Nextel Communications 04/11/2006 R 6340 50 100-4200-3100 Telephone Cell Phones 235.05 100-4360-3100 Telephone Cell Phones 110..21 100-4465-3100 Telephone Cell Phones 110,21 100-4470-3100 Telephone Cell Phones 198.58 100-4180-3100 Telephone Cell Phones 65.54 245-4415-3100 Telephone Cell Phones 110.22 252-4350-3100 Telephone Cell Phones 110.22 700-4823-3100 Telephone Cell Phones 110.21 730-4823-3100 Telephone Cell Phones 110.21 Invoice 664093314-052 Total: 1,160.45 1,160.45 118246 Northern Sanitary Supply 04/11/2006 R 6340 51 100-4460-1600 Operating supplies Towels 64.01 Invoice 111227 Total: 64.01 64.01 118247 Office Depot 04/11/2006 R 6340 54 100-4160-1600 Operating supplies Post -Its, Pens, Staples 211.56 Invoice 329044682-001 Total: 211.56 100-4160-1600 Operating supplies Key Tags 8.18 Invoice 329700183-001 Total: 8.18 Date: 04/05/2006 Time: 08:36:29 City of Mounds View Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 7 FM Entry - Invoice Cash Disbursement Journal Check 1; Vendor [dame Check Date Type Jrnl# Trans Account 11 Title Description Amount Invoice Check 100 4160-1600 Operating supplies Cartridge 87.54 Invoice 330071722-001 Total: 87-54 307.28 118248 Pitney Howes, Inc. 04/11/2006 R 6340 56 100-4160-4010 Rental, equipment Postage Machine Lease 262-00 Invoice 8407165-MR06 Total: 262 00 262.00 118249 Timothy Pittman 04/11/2006 R 6340 55 100-4410-3630 Training & conferences Mileage Reimbursement 83.68 Invoice Total: 83-68 83,68 118250 Plant & Flanged 04/11/2006 R 6340 58 700-4823-1250 Supplies, utilities Well #6 Pipe Repair 262.20 Invoice 0044342-IN Total: 262.20 262.20 118251 Print Central 04/11/2006 R 6340 57 285-4470-3030 Other professional service Color Copies 678.41 Invoice 62174 Total: 678.41 678..41 118252 Ramsey County 04/11/2006 R 6340 61 100-4180-3030 Other professional service Abstract Recording Fee 46..00 Invoice 0120050-IN Total: 46.00 100-4180-3030 Other professional service Abstract Recording Fee 46..00 Invoice 0120071-IN Total: 46.00 100-4180-3030 Other professional service Abstract Recording Fee 46.00 Invoice 0120086-IN Total: 46.00 100-4180-3030 Other professional service Abstract Recording Fee 46.00 Invoice 0120131-IN Total: 46.00 100-4180-3030 Other professional service Abstract Recording Fee 46.00 Invoice 0120139-IN Total: 46.00 230.00 118253 Ricoh Customer Finance Corp. 04/11/2006 R 6340 64 252-4732-5130 Repairs, equipment Copier Lease 178.92 Invoice 8875383 Total: 178.92 178.92 118254 Schmieg-Washburn Industries, I 04/11/2006 R 6340 66 230-4650-3030-033 Golf Course Redevelopm Golf Course site bids 300.00 Invoice 7075 Total: 300.00 300.00 118255 Short -Elliott & Hendrickson 04/11/2006 R 6340 67 280-4180-7050-100 City Hall Rehabilitati City Hall Improvements 6,848.71 Invoice 0143090 Total: 6,848.71 6,848.71 118256 City of St. Paul 04/11/2006 R 6340 65 100-4200-5130 Repairs, equipment Radio Service/Maintenance-Feb- 109..09 Invoice 093374 Total: 109.09 109.09 118257 Streichers 04/11/2006 R 6340 89 100-4200-1600 Operating supplies Police Equipment 894.65 Invoice I341357 Total: 894-65 894.65 118258 Timesaver Off Site Secretarial 04/11/2006 R 6340 68 100-4100-3030 Other professional service EDA/City Council-2/27 441.56 Date: 04/05/2006 Time: 08:36:30 City of Mounds View Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 8 FM Entry - Invoice Cash Disbursement Journal Check # Vendor Name Check Date Type Jr1114 Trans Account It Title Description Amount Invoice Check Invoice M14449 Total: 441.56 100-4110.3030 Other professional service Plan.Comm.Mtg. -3/15 172 50 Invoice M14499 Total: 172.50 614.06 118259 Toltz, Ring, Duvall, Anderson 04/11/2006 R 6340 71 700-4823-5155 Repair, water service Leak Location & Survey 115.58 Invoice 000200601236 Total: 115-58 280-4180-7050 Construction Groveland Park Shelter 1,959.96 285-4470-3030 Other professional service Groveland Park Shelter 3,639.92 Invoice 000200601266 Total: 5,599.88 5,715.46 118260 Tousley Ford, Inc. 04/11/2006 R 6340 75 100-4465-5120 Repairs, vehicles Shield -returned -40.29 Invoice 1406616 Total: -40.29 100-4465-1220 Supplies, vehicles Brake Light Pigtails -Squads 49.20 Invoice 1411157 Total: 49.20 100-4465-1220 Supplies, vehicles Shaft Assy., Additive-#041 157.19 Invoice 1411931 Total: 157.19 100-4465-1220 Supplies, vehicles Shaft Assy.-4041 149.91 Invoice 1412107 Total: 149..91 316.01 118261 U. S. Postal Service 04/11/2006 R 6340 77 700-4820-3300 Postage Postage for Utility Bills 550.00 730-4820-3300 Postage Postage for Utility Bills 550.00 Invoice Total: 1,100.00 1,100.00 118262 U,I-I.L.. Co. 04/11/2006 R 6340 76 280-4180-7050-100 City Hall Rehabilitati Payment on Main Contract 7,683,00 Invoice 19962 Total: 7,683-00 7,683.00 118263 U.P.S. 04/11/2006 R 6340 78 100-4180-2100 Books & periodicals Returned Fire Code Books 13.26 Invoice 00001262R9126 Total: 13.26 13.26 118264 Kurt Ulrich 04/11/2006 R 6340 79 100-4130-3800 Mileage & Parking Expense/Mileage Reimbursement 260.30 100-4130-2100 Books & periodicals Expense/Mileage Reimbursement 43..87 Invoice Total: 304.17 304.17 118265 Verizon Wireless 04/11/2006 R 6340 80 100-4200-3100 Telephone 763-213-7361 36.88 Invoice 3668878431 Total: 36.88 36.88 118266 Visit Minneapolis North 04/11/2006 R 6340 81 100-4653-3045 Contractual N.. Metro Conf Hotel -Motel Tax -Feb. 867,09 100-4653-3045 Contractual N. Metro Conf Hotel -Motel Tax -Feb, 2,734..24 100-4653-3045 Contractual N.. Metro Conf Hotel -Motel Tax -Feb. 292.60 Invoice Total: 3,893.93 3,893.93 118267 Westway Exteriors 04/11/2006 R 6340 1 100-3281 Fixed fee building surcharge Permit Refund 50 100-3271 Building permit - fixed fee Permit Refund 77.00 100-3258 License check fee Permit Refund 5.00 Date: 04/05/2006 Time: 08:36:31 City of Mounds View Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 9 FM Entry - Invoice Cash Disbursement Journal Check it Vendor Name Check Date Type Jrnl4 Trans Account It Title Description Amount Invoice Check Invoice Total: 82.50 82.50 118268 Xcel Energy 100-4200-3210 Electricity 100-4360-3220 Natural gas 240-4416-3210 Electricity 252-4350-3210 Electricity 252--4350-3220 Natural gas 04/11/2006 R Sirens Warming House Street Lighting Community Center Community Center Invoice Total: 6340 84 24 . 1.8 76 10 259 70 3,718.41 2,812.66 6,891.05 6,891.05 Totals: 176,051.89* 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 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting March 27, 2006 New Brighton City Hall 803 Old Highway 8, New Brighton, MN 55112 7:00 P.M. l . MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, and Thomas NOT PRESENT: Flaherty 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Monday, March 27, 2006 City Council Agenda MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To Approve the Monday, March 27, 2006 agenda as presented. Ayes — 4 5. PUBLIC INPUT Nays — 0 Motion carried. Mayor Marty stated David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, called before the meeting and wanted to stress that the City should concentrate on streets and infrastructure and this should be the number one priority. 6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUISNESS None. 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. 7:05 p.m. Public Hearing, Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 770, an Ordinance Vacating Excess and Unused Right of Way to SYSCO Minnesota. Community Development Director explained Ordinance 770. Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting March 27, 2006 Page 2 1 2 Director Ericson stated that representatives from SYSCO are present to answer questions. 3 4 Director Ericson stated this is a good example of the City working with a property owner and 5 existing business to move forward with their growth and development. He stated it releases 6 former right-of-way back to the property tax rolls of approximately 16,000 square feet. 7 8 Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. 9 10 Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. 11 12 MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/MARTY. To waive the reading and adopt Ordinance 770, an 13 Ordinance Vacating Excess and Unused Right of Way to SYSCO Minnesota. 14 15 Director Ericson asked if the motion and second includes authorization to publish the ordinance 16 summary. Mayor Marty and Councilmember Stigney replied it does. 17 18 ROLL CALL VOTE: 19 20 Mayor Marty Aye 21 Councilmember Gunn Aye 22 Councilmember Stigney Aye 23 Councilmember Thomas Aye 24 25 Ayes — 4 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 26 27 B. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 769, an Ordinance Amending 28 Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code Relating to Signs and Billboards. 29 30 Director Ericson noted the Municipal Code should take into account the recent changes relating 31 to the First Amendment free speech rights, making the Sign Code more consistent with content 32 neutral guidelines, so that the Sign Code is defensible. He stated Staff is looking to remove 33 language associated with commercial and non-commercial differentiation to make it as content 34 neutral as possible. 35 36 Director Ericson stated changes were highlighted in detail at the last meeting, about regulating 37 signs based on the size of the sign, the type of the sign and the location of the sign, and 38 eliminating language about the content of the sign. 39 40 Director Ericson explained that the Municipal Code relating to signs and billboards also needs to 41 be amended to bring the City Code into compliance with the agreement of the City and Clear 42 Channel Outdoor, Inc. relating to the relocation of billboards from the golf course property to 43 elsewhere in the community. 44 45 Director Ericson stated the proposal was to open up billboards to be located anywhere on I-35W, Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 3 1 Highway 10, Old Highway 8, north of the intersection of County Road 10 and Silver Lake Road 2 and south of the intersection of County Road 10 and Wooddale. He stated there was some 3 discussion at the last meeting about eliminating the locations of north of the intersection of 4 County Road 10 and Silver Lake Road, and that has been amended for the Second Reading, and 5 those locations are not part of the Ordinance. 6 7 Director Ericson stated there are issues associated with the locations on the south side of County 8 Road 10, specifically one area where the City is planning to put up a gateway sign as one enters 9 the community from the southeast. He stated there is some concern if there is a billboard sitting 10 on top of this sign or adjacent to it, there might be too much clutter or take away from the effect 11 of the gateway sign. He stated that Staff recommends further revising the Ordinance to eliminate 12 any spots on the north side County Road 10 south of Woodale. He commented there would be 13 three or four parcels that would be affected. He stated this change is not reflected in the 14 Ordinance yet. 15 16 Director Ericson explained the other change that is recommended is to restrict the height of the 17 proposed billboards to 45 feet, but only on Highway 10, I-35W and Old Highway 8. He 18 explained this would be conditioned on proper zoning. He stated the height restriction would be 19 35 feet on County Road 10. He explained this is not reflected in the Ordinance, so an 20 amendment will be needed for this. He stated if there are height issues, the City will look at 21 those issues on a case by case basis if there is a need for a variance. 22 23 Director Ericson stated a representative from Clear Channel Outdoors is present. 24 25 MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/GUNN. To waive the reading and adopt Ordinance 769, an 26 Ordinance Amending Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code Relating to Signs and Billboards, 27 including adoption of the proposed changes made by Staff. 28 29 Councilmember Thomas indicated that there are several changes that are not reflected in the 30 Ordinance that need to be discussed. She asked for explanation of the language changes. 31 32 Councilmember Stigney asked for clarification on Item f. Director Ericson stated there are two 33 areas that would be changed. He referenced Page 3, Section 7, addresses height limitations by 34 district, where footnote 3 indicates the maximum billboard height is 45 feet. He proposed to 35 change the language to reflect that in the locations along Highway 10, Old Highway 8, and I- 36 35W that the height limitation can be increased to 45 feet so the underlying height limitation 37 remains at 35 feet. He stated it would eliminate the County Road 10 locations as being 38 appropriate for 45 feet, so those areas would remain at 35 feet. 39 40 Director Ericson commented that with regard to the locations that the billboards can be sited, he 41 referenced Page 4, Paragraph b, where "the south side of County Road 10" would be added to 42 explicitly state that it is the south side only at that location. He stated the map would also be 43 amended that illustrates the same change. 44 45 Councilmember Thomas stated the Council has not discussed the locations other than I-35W that Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 4 1 were proposed to be at 45 feet. She stressed there is information in the new Ordinance that has 2 not been discussed as a group, such as Old Highway 8 having 45 foot sign limits and the 3 exemption of the north side of County Road 10. 4 5 Mayor Marty commented he talked to Councilmember Flaherty, and stated that his take was that 6 the entrance gateway into the City at County Road H and County Road 10, whereas Director 7 Ericson suggested the monument sign would be on the north side of County Road 10 coming into 8 the City. Mayor Marty stated that as far as he and Councilmember Flaherty were concerned, a 9 height limit of 45 feet along I-35W, US Highway 10, and Old Highway 8 is fine. He stated he 10 would like to try to keep billboards out of the City and keep them on the outskirts of town. 11 12 Mayor Marty commented as Councilmember Flaherty stated in the agreement for Medtronic 13 Phase 2 incorporating into Phase 1, Medtronic would be obligated to buy out two billboards. 14 Mayor Marty suggested the language should reflect the locations of I-35W, US Highway 10, and 15 Old Highway 8 and the language should be removed that refers to County Road 10. 16 17 Councilmember Thomas stated she has a concern with billboards in the Old Highway 8 area 18 because it too close to residences. She stated it is the same reason she does not like billboards on 19 the north side of the City. She stated it is not fair to residents to have billboards be put up by 20 their homes. She stated the Council could discuss a requirement of distance from residences. 21 22 Councilmember Gunn asked if the distance requirement is 250 feet. Mayor Marty stated it was. 23 24 Councilmember Gunn wondered if it would be on the other side of the road. Councilmember 25 Thomas stated there is no specification on Old Highway 8, and it is not specified on I-35W and 26 Highway 10 where there are residences on the sides of the road. She stated there are issues and 27 changes that have been raised that have not been discussed yet. She stated it is difficult to get 28 anything on the north side to qualify for the 500 foot amendment that Staff had proposed. She 29 stated this is why the distance language was removed. 30 31 Mayor Marty suggested an amendment to remove County Road 10 as a sign location. He 32 reviewed that billboards can be placed along US Highway 10, Old Highway 8 and I-35W. He 33 stated there is the guarantee that Medtronic would buy out at least two billboards. He stressed he 34 would like to keep the billboards out of town and keep them in the outskirts only, to keep a good 35 first impression for someone coming into Mounds View for the first time. He stated the City has 36 no control over the subject content on the billboard. 37 38 City Administrator Ulrich suggested Section 10, Subdivision 6b, would be amended to strike "or 39 County Road 10 south of Woodale Drive". 40 41 AMENDMENT MOTION: MARTY/STIGNEY. To amend Section 10, Subdivision 6b, Chapter 42 1008 of the Municipal Code Relating to Signs and Billboards, to strike "or County Road 10 south 43 of Woodale Drive" as a sign location. 44 45 City Administrator Ulrich stated it would also include the amendment of map to reflect the 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 Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 5 change. Councilmember Thomas stated there is no point in negating the area entirely, as long as it is controlled by height. She stated she could accept the Staff recommendation to remove it from the north side where there are no residences. She stated she is more interested in protecting the residents' homes. Mayor Marty stressed he wanted to keep billboards out of the main thoroughfare. Councilmember Gunn stated there are a lot of signs on the end of County Road 10, and she would much rather have signs there than anywhere else on the road. Mayor Marty stated there is the guarantee from Medtronic that they will buy out two signs, so the City does not have to put them there just because the City could. Councilmember Gunn stated there is no guarantee that Clear Channel will find spots where the Council is allocating signs. Councilmember Thomas pointed out that the Sign Code does not apply to just that situation. Councilmember Stigney stated he agreed with not putting billboards on County Road 10 at all. City Administrator Ulrich commented out that the City has the obligation to provide some areas where signs can be located. He stated by indicating that signs can be located on I-35W and Old County Road 8, the City has met the contractual obligations to provide areas where signs could be explored with the property owners with locations with Clear Channel and it opens up to other companies as well. He stated the City does not have to necessarily go beyond that. Ayes — 3 Nays — 1 (Thomas) Amendment motion carried. Councilmember Thomas suggested an amendment to keep the maximum height at 35 feet unless it is outside of the 250 foot radius of residences. She stated the 45 feet limit will hit close to some of the places on Old Highway 8. Director Ericson explained the signs have to be located beyond 250 feet from the residences, regardless of height. Councilmember Thomas asked if the height limitation would be allowed at 45 feet around the area. Councilmember Gunn asked if the changes would be a height restriction of 35 feet along County Highway 10 and 45 feet along I-35W, Old Highway 8, and Highway 10. Director Ericson stated that was the initial recommendation for change. Councilmember Thomas stated she does not want it to be 45 feet if it will be close to residences, which there is on Old Highway 8. Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 6 1 Councilmember Gunn wondered if the signs would want to be higher rather than lower. 2 Councilmember Thomas responded no because the higher it gets, it causes light pollution and is 3 disrespectful to residents. 4 5 AMENDMENT MOTION: THOMAS/MARTY. To amend Chapter 1008 of the Municipal 6 Code Relating to Signs and Billboards, to allow a maximum billboard height of 35 feet on Old 7 Highway 8. 8 9 Director Ericson stated he would take the Ordinance back and check the map to see how much it 10 would impact the sites if it was changed to reflect a 500 foot setback for residential zoned 11 property. 12 13 Councilmember Thomas stated it would be only for the 45 foot height limitation. 14 15 Mayor Marty stated depending on where the location of the sign is, a variance could be 16 requested. 17 18 Councilmember Stigney stated that one of the problems is the relocation of billboards and where 19 to put them, and that a certain height is required for the billboards to be visible in some locations. 20 He stated this issue was already discussed, and the certain locations that require a height of 45 21 feet have been designated. He stated he does not support the amendment. 22 23 Councilmember Thomas stated Old Highway 8 was not part of that discussion. 24 25 Mayor Marty stated there are residents living in that area, and the height requirement could be 35 26 feet, and a variance could be requested for signs on Old Highway 8. He stated the City would 27 look at it if it is a hardship and if it does not infringe on the citizens, it would not be a big deal. 28 He stated for the protection of the residents, he supports an amendment of the height requirement 29 of 35 feet on Old Highway 8. 30 31 Councilmember Gunn asked Rick Sonterre, representative for Clear Channel Outdoors, if they 32 were putting billboards along Old Highway 8, would they be put on the I-35W side by I-35W or 33 on the business side. She asked who would see the billboards if they were on the business side. 34 35 Mr. Sonterre, stated that all of the property between Old Highway 8 and the MnDOT fence line is 36 public held land and does not allow for construction. 37 38 Councilmember Stigney asked Mr. Sonterre if there would be a problem with having a height 39 requirement of Councilmember Stigney asked Mr.Sonterre if he would have a problem with a 35 40 foot height requirement and coming in for variance for any heights above that. 41 42 Mr. Sonterre stated that Clear Channel prefers to have a single common voice with Tom 43 McCarver on all policy matters and negotiations with the City. He stated he prefers to have Mr. 44 McCarver speak on this question. He stated if an evaluation was done of the locations that exist 45 and look at the obstacles that would be a hindrance to visibility rights, it would be assumed that a 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 Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 7 higher billboard would be necessary. Mayor Marty stated he would like to give consideration to the citizens that live in the area, and if a variance does seem to be necessary, then Clear Channel can come forward and ask the Council. He stated the Council would look at the specific site and make a determination. He stated if there is a hardship, the Council may very well have to extend the height limitation to 45 feet. He stated he did not want to give it a blanket 45 foot approval. Ayes — 2 Nays — 2 (Gunn, Stigney) Amendment motion fails for lack of a majority. ROLL CALL VOTE: Mayor Marty Aye Councilmember Gunn Aye Councilmember Stigney Aye Councilmember Thomas Aye Ayes — 4 Nays — 0 Motion carried. (Note: This item was again addressed under Staff Reports, Item B.2.b. Motions were made to reconsider and postpone to April 4, 10, 2006.) C. Resolution 6781 Authorizing Execution of a Joint Cooperative Agreement between Ramsey County and the City of Mounds View for the CDBG Act. Item deleted. D. Resolution 6784 Approving Change Orders No. 11-17 for the City Hall Rehabilitation Project. Director of Public Works Lee reviewed Change Orders No. 11-17. Change Order 11 is in the amount of $12,579 for items related to doors. Change Order 12 is in the amount of $12,051 for the replacement of existing hot water heating coils. Change Order 13 is in the amount of $3,650 for items relating to the concrete floor and partition wall in the Police Sally Port 142. Change Order 14 is in the amount of $4,642 for items relating to changes of the Lobby's ceiling design. Change Order 15 is in the amount of $4,482 for items relating to duct work, vestibule detail and flooring. Change Order 16 is in the amount of $977 for items relating to interior glazing, crank handle, and electric strike. Change Order 17 is in the amount of $29,285 for HVAC improvements. Marty asked if Change Order 11, the addition of electric strikes, is for the card key. Director of Public Works stated it is. 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 Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 8 Director of Public Works Lee explained these changes are consistent with list given to the Council during the last meeting. MOTION/SECOND: GUNK/THOMAS. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6784 Approving Change Orders No. 11-17 for the City Hall Rehabilitation Project. Councilmember Stigney stated the total costs are now at $1.5 million, and the project was budgeted for $1.6 million. He stated a lot of things keep adding up, and it is time to say no to some of the items. He stated that he did not support the project in the first place. Ayes — 3 Nays —1 (Stigney) Motion carried. E. Resolution 6785 Approving Execution of a Letter of Agreement for Community Center Remodeling Design Services. City Administrator Ulrich explained at the March 6, 2006 Council work session, it was the Council consensus to proceed with the recommendation of the Mounds View Community Center Task Force to hire a design professional to provide a review of space utilization and preliminary cost estimates for the recommended remodeling options. City Administrator Ulrich explained three architectural firms submitted proposals for the Phase 1 preliminary design work. He explained the lowest two bids came in at $5,000 each from DSGW Architects and Rozeboom Miller Architects. City Administrator Ulrich stated DSGW Architects has been responsible for smaller community center projects including the North St. Paul Community Center. He stated that project is compared in many ways to the Mounds View Community Center. City Administrator Ulrich stated Rozeboom Miller Architects recently did the YMCA/City Community Center in Andover. He noted that many of their projects have been larger in scope, but the firm indicated they are comfortable with all sizes of projects. City Administrator stated he recommends choosing Rozeboom Miller Architects with a bid of $5,000 for the development of Phase 1 architectural design for the Mounds View Community Center. Councilmember Stigney stated he does not agree with the recommendation of the Task Force to convert the Community Center into a fitness center. He stated what is being asked of the Council tonight is to proceed with the project by spending money on the design agreement. Councilmember Stigney asked if anyone has looked at the practicality of breaking even when asking for 50 percent from membership and 50 percent or more from the City. He asked how many memberships will it take to make the Community Center self-sufficient to pay for itself. He wondered if this is a viable project with all the other fitness centers in the area. He asked why the City would want to get into the fitness business. He suggested the City gets Requests for 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 Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 9 Proposals (RFPs) to see who can come up with something that might bring in a viable alternative instead of changing the Community Center to a fitness center. Councilmember Stigney stated his concern with launching ahead with something without knowing what the dollar value is. He stated this is the wrong approach on the Community Center altogether. He stressed the City should go out for RFPs to get different options instead of doing the fitness center route. Councilmember Thomas stated the Community Center Task Force compared very closely to what was going on in North St. Paul and why the rates were used and whether it would be appropriate for Mounds View. She stated the City is not running a strip mall and is not trying to find who is going to make the most revenue in the building. She stated the issue is if it is going to be made into a serviceable Community Center for residents. She stated the 50150 was the original 1996 proposal that was based off the concept of the revenue -making side being the banquet center and the Park and Recreation Commission replacement to have them running that. City Administrator Ulrich stated that in North St. Paul, it was found that they were very successful in bringing in additional revenue. He stated this is one of the things that convinced the Task Force that it would be a viable solution to the revenue issues that the Mounds View Community Center had. He stated the North St. Paul Community Center currently brings in $140,000 of revenue, so it could be a very viable source of additional revenue and help supplement the Community Center, but still have it focused on the community and provides community services that it traditionally has. Councilmember Stigney stated he heard a lot of projections on how much the golf course would bring in. He asked if there are any guarantees that those revenues will come in. He stated if it does not happen with membership, then the City would need to contribute the rest. He stressed the City should go for RFPs to get other viable alternatives. Councilmember Gunn stated the whole purpose was to bring the Community Center back to the community. She stated the City tried to bring in private businesses to run part of Community Center several times and it did not work. She stated people have commented about the small exercise room and how much more they would use the Community Center if there was decent equipment. She commented even the kids at school have been talking about a cheaper place to go to exercise. Councilmember Gunn stressed these kids cannot afford to buy a whole membership at the YMCA, Northwest, or Lifetime Fitness, and this would be a place where they could come and use the facilities at a reasonable price. She stressed the building should be brought back to the community and offer things to hopefully bring in more people. She stressed nothing can be guaranteed in the building. Councilmember Stigney stated it can be guaranteed with a contract. He stated the recommendation by the Task Force will turn it back on the taxpayer. He stated the goal is to make the Community Center self-sufficient. Councilmember Gunn stated that many years ago when the Community Center idea came forth, and one person made a comment that the Community Center would be self -supportive. She stated this has been brought up over and over. She stated the rest of the people on that committee 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 Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 10 did not ever believe that the building would be self-sufficient. She stated there is still a Parks and Recreation Committee, whether it be the YMCA or the City's own people, the City still will be funding programming. Councilmember Gunn stated it would still be coming out of taxpayer money even if there was not a building. She stated the City has always paid for that part of it. She stated the Community Center is a City building, and the City will probably be funding part of the Community Center for a long time, but hopefully the amount will be going down. She suggested perhaps the City can get it to run even with membership dues. She stated the Community Center needs to be brought back to belong to the community. City Administrator Ulrich explained this step in the process is to ascertain how much of an investment this really would be, and whether it justifies the cost. He stated this is the first step towards another decision, which would be whether or not the City should go ahead with this investment. He stated this gives us the cost estimates to give information to determine if it is a cost-effective decision. Mayor Marty noted that the Rozeboom Miller quote is identical to DSGW Architects at $5,000. He noted that DSGW Architects did the North St. Paul Community Center that is comparable to the Mounds View Community Center. He stated both proposals look comparable. He stated that when reviewing the proposal from DSGW Architects, if Phase 2 is pursued for the implementation (construction, administration and project follow-up), the fee percentage is 6 percent compared to Rozeboom that has a fee percentage of 7.5 percent. Mayor Marty stated it seems that the North St. Paul project worked out pretty well and if the project goes farther than just this study, he stated he would be more comfortable knowing ahead of time that the City would save 1.5 percent of the costs by going with DSGW Architects. Mayor Marty stated David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, called before the meeting and stated he does not want to go forward with this. He wondered if this meant the Community Center would be changing. Mayor Marty stated this is to take a look to see if it is feasible and is not giving approval to change anything at the Community Center at this time. City Administrator Ulrich stated he is comfortable with either architectural firm. He added that Phase 2 is not being sought right now, and that cost may be negotiable with either firm. He suggested he could go back and ask if Rozeboom Miller if they could guarantee 6 percent for Phase 2, but if it makes no difference and the Council likes the design work of DSGW, he commented he is fine with going with them. Councilmember Gunn asked if there was any particular reason Rozeboom Miller was chosen. City Administrator Ulrich stated it was somewhat a subjective decision, and that he preferred more of the design work and also that they had some higher profile work. He noted they were also the only firm that came out and walked through the areas of the Community Center. Mayor Marty pointed out in both of the reports, DSGW and Rozeboom stated the quote of $5,000 is all-inclusive whereas SEH had meals and travel expenses would be added on to their 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 Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page I I quote of $9,500. Mayor Marty stated the Council is approving which firm to take a look at the Community Center. He stated if the Council approves Rozeboom tonight and the project goes farther, and they do not agree to reduce their fees to 6 percent, DSGW could have been a little cheaper in the long run. He stated both firms are relatively comparable, but is leaning towards DSGW even though they did not come out to the Community Center. Councilmember Thomas asked if there is an indication from past history if the firm stayed on budget and timelines. City Administrator Ulrich stated Rozeboom satisfied the budget and timelines on both the Andover and North St. Paul projects. He offered to research it further. Valerie Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, stated she and her husband belong to Anytime Fitness in Mounds View. She stated the business is thriving, is a real asset to community and is also reasonable priced. She stated she agrees that the City should not get into things like this as it runs the risk of driving a brand new business out of the City. MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6785 Approving Execution of a Letter of Agreement for Community Center Remodeling Design Services, with the amendment to select DSGW Architects. Councilmember Stigney stated it will cost the City $5,000 to proceed with the project, when the City should not be looking at proceeding with it at all. Finance Director Beer suggested that the Council designate the fund that should be used to pay the $5,000 fee as part of the resolution. He recommended the Special Projects Fund. A consensus was reached that the Special Projects Fund should be used. Ayes — 3 Nays — 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. F. Consider Request of Mr. Brian Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, Regarding Enforcement of Building Code Provisions. Director Ericson explained that Brian and Valerie Amundsen live at 3048 Woodale Drive and have a swimming pool in their rear yard. He explained there is a six foot tall fence around their backyard to comply with City Code, which requires (at least) a five foot tall fence for pool areas. He stated that last year, the Amundsens' next door neighbor at 7092 Pleasant View Drive constructed a low -height retaining wall alongside the Amundsens' fence and graded the land level between the wall and garage. He explained the end result is that because of the change in elevation along the common property line, the fence no longer offers the same level of security as it did before the neighbor's lot was graded. Director Ericson stated the Amundsens charge that due to the actions of the neighbor, their fence no longer conforms to City Code and they are assuming undue and unnecessary risk and liability and are requesting Council action to correct the situation. Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 12 1 2 Director Ericson explained the situation was brought to the Planning Commission, the matter 3 was discussed and forwarded on to the City Council for consideration. 4 5 Director Ericson stated Staff sought legal counsel and indicated that Staff prepared a letter to the 6 Amundsens which indicated that their fence and the presence of the retaining wall and grading 7 area alongside of adjoining wall that are both in compliance with City Code. He stated two 8 compliant issues side -by -side should not make one or the other non -compliant and should not 9 prohibit or restrict a resident from doing something on their own property. 10 11 Director Ericson pointed out one of the issues that Mr. Amundsen has brought up is in regard to 12 the definition of a terrace, and citing City Code that all yard terracing be set back two feet back 13 from the property line. He stated the interpretation of a terrace is not a retaining wall, but rather 14 is a reference to a patio or deck area. He stated the intent of the Code was more to restrict decks 15 and patios away from a property line. He stated it is very common to have a retaining wall at the 16 property wall and there are no setback requirements for retaining walls. 17 18 Director Ericson stated Staff recommends taking no action on this matter. 19 20 Valerie and Brian Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, stated this has turned into quite a bigger 21 issue. She stated when they talked to the Planning Commission, the major point was the fence 22 issue. She commented that Brian did find the part of the Code that states that terraces need a two 23 foot setback. 24 25 Ms. Amundsen commented that part of the City Code imports the State of Minnesota Code, and 26 in the Minnesota Code, it says that if a word is not given a definition, one goes to the Merriam- 27 Webster Collegiate Dictionary and that definition is to be used. She stated by this definition, 28 what her neighbor has done is a terrace, and there is a two foot setback requirement stated in the 29 City Code. 30 31 Ms. Amundsen stated the fact is that in this county, one's property is to do with as one pleases to, 32 as long as Code is followed. She stated there are some restrictions and one cannot do whatever 33 one wants right up to the edge of the property because there are setbacks. She stated the neighbor 34 stated that he decided to use the area for parking a vehicle, and she stated there is a five foot 35 setback for this that is clearly laid out in Code. 36 37 Ms. Amundsen stated it is the responsibility of City Staff to uniformly enforce Codes across all 38 residents' property. She stated they are asking the City to enforce the existing Code. 39 40 Ms. Amundsen explained that they went to City Hall to review the permit and it was found that 41 the permit was for a fence. She stated if a fence had been built, it could have been right on the 42 property line and nothing could be done about it. She stated grading was done, pulled dirt, and 43 changed the contour of the land. She stated there was no permit to do grading work, and 44 commented she feels Staff is overlooking the fact that work was done without a valid permit and 45 not within Code. 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 Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 13 Ms. Amundsen stressed that Code is there for the public health and safety, and it has been well thought out for the protection and safety of the neighborhood and also to respect residents' rights. She stated that she and Brian have gotten very familiar with the Code and have strictly followed it in the past. Ms. Amundsen stated it is Staff s job to admit if a Code violation was overlooked. She stated the letter referenced the idea that there are other people doing this, and commented that this does not make it right. She wondered if this type of thing has been allowed to go on in the community. Ms. Amundsen stated she hopes that they were not dealt this way because of past issues with the City, because it is plain and clear that there is Code that needs to be followed. Mayor Marty asked how someone can pull a permit to build a fence and how it passed the Building Inspector if they have not made a fence, but rather did grading work and put in a retaining wall. Director Ericson stated there may be a language issue involved in this situation. He stated when the applicant made the application for the work, Staff went to the property and observed it was not really a fence that was being constructed but rather a retaining wall. He stated the permit was changed to be a retaining wall with associated grading. He stated the property owner was not sure what he was applying for. Director Ericson noted Staff takes offense to the implication that something was overlooked or that its integrity was being questioned for past issues with the property owners. He stressed the City treats no property owners special, and that the Amundsens are wonderful property owners and the City would hope that every property owner would have the same regard for Code. He stated they are wonderful examples of what residents should be. He stated he was sorry the Amundsens feel like they are being mistreated or being somehow punished for past issues. Mayor Marty stated all residents will be treated the same regardless of past issues. Ms. Amundsen stated the matter is frustrating and she feels like she is doing the City's job. She stated she does not think it is fair and does not know why it is happened. She stated the neighbor originally wanted to put up a fence. Mr. Amundsen stated it is currently still listed on the permit as a fence. Mr. Amundsen stated it is a clear situation that was brought to the permit office on August 24, 2005. He indicated that he was opposed to anything located that close to the fence, and if the neighbor wanted to proceed with something on the property line that was not a fence, a variance would need to be requested through the Planning Commission. He indicated none of that process was followed. Mr. Amundsen stated when he contacted Director Ericson in regard to the land that was going to be filled in, Director Ericson indicated there was very little that could be done. 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 Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 14 Mr. Amundsen stated he now has additional liability because in the intent of the law, he has a protective fence to keep the public away from having access to the pool, and if someone can walk up on to a retaining wall with only 3.5 feet of residence instead of the intended 5 feet, any insurance claim would say he is negligent in not trying to enforce the rule of having 5 feet of protection. He stated he does not have the proper restriction into his property. Mr. Amundsen stated there has been both a looking aside at what the Code states, and also the intent to preserve public safety, which is the responsibility of the permitting department. He stated that when applying the Code, a more restrictive interpretation instead of a general interpretation is to be used. He noted this is a quote out of the State Municipal Code that the City has adopted. Mr. Amundsen stated they really want to resolve this issue, and the neighbor has been uncooperative when they tried to work with him. He stated they decided to assert their rights and responsibilities to have the City look into why these Code violations have been allowed. He stated there is a public safety issue that needs to be addressed. He stated the Planning Commission did not want to deal with the matter. Mayor Marty asked Director Ericson asked how much room there is from the fence/retaining wall back into the yard or garage. Director Ericson stated he does not recall the exact dimension from the garage to the property line, but recalled that a small vehicle could be parked alongside of the garage to maintain a five foot setback. He stated the requirement was clearly communicated to the property owner, that if they chose to pave surface, they would need to come before the City to have a five foot area for the parking area, and vehicle would need to be parked five feet from the property line. Mayor Marty asked if the area is currently a finished surface. Director Ericson indicated it is not. Mayor Marty confirmed that there can be no parking there. Director Ericson indicated that is correct. Mayor Marty stated he was concerned if someone tripped over a wall and then fell six feet, it could be a problem. Director Ericson stated that Mayor Marty raised a good point; however, if the Amundsens did not have a pool, that issue is still going to be there regardless. Director Ericson pointed out that from a Staff perspective, it is a clear situation and a clear interpretation of the Code. He stated a retaining wall was constructed, and there are no setback requirements for a retaining wall. He stated when he indicated a common occurrence, it is because retaining walls are often built alongside a property line. Mr. Amundsen stated he was not sure when the retaining wall Code was changed, as he was told a retaining wall had to have a five foot setback in 1984. He stated this does not negate the fact that the Code has a two foot setback requirement for a terrace, which is any surface that extends within two feet. He stated this may be a difference of how the Code is applied, but it is what the current Code states. He stated he has asking the Council to enforce the setback because there is a difference of opinion between what has been the practice and what the current Code states. Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 15 1 Councilmember Thomas stated it seems to be clear to all parties involved, even though they are 2 diametrically opposed. She stated it is helpful to provide a definition of a terrace, but a definition 3 of retaining wall is also needed. She stated not all of what State Code provides is necessarily the 4 definition the City can use for its charter, because the City Code can define terms in regard to 5 how it chooses to use them. Councilmember Thomas stated the Council needs to find out what 6 the City definition is for a retaining wall and why it is different. She stated she needs more 7 information to sort out this matter. 8 9 Ms. Amundsen stated if she reads the Code and it says a terrace has a two foot setback, but there 10 is no definition of a terrace in the City Code. She stated one does not need to know what a 11 retaining wall is, one needs to know what a terrace is. She stated by the definition in State Code, 12 it is a terrace. 13 14 Councilmember Thomas stated the City still does not have a definition of a retaining wall and 15 what might be the difference between them. 16 17 Mr. Amundsen stated the term "retaining wall" only appears once in Code, when it references 18 fences that are built next to retaining walls. He stated this is the single reference to a retaining 19 wall. He stated if a use is not defined within Code, then it is prohibited. He stated a retaining 20 wall next to a lot line is not a defined use, so it is prohibited. 21 22 Councilmember Thomas stated if there is a rule about a fence with a retaining wall, then it is a 23 defined use and retaining walls next to fences are allowed. She stated the Amundsens have 24 clearly discovered a hole in the Code that the City needs to fix with language. She stated if the 25 Code is not good enough for residents to understand, it is not good enough. 26 27 Ms. Amundsen stated they are not trying to be difficult neighbors, and it is not an issue with the 28 neighbor, but is rather an issue with Code enforcement. She stated they want to hold the City 29 responsible, just as they have been held responsible as they have built structures over the years. 30 She stated the issue is that there are restrictions, and people cannot do whatever they want, 31 wherever they want on their property. She stated they have laid out these restrictions fairly 32 clearly, and if this had not happened already, it may have been seen more clearly. Ms. Amundsen 33 stated it is becoming an issue because the poor gentleman has already built this, and this made it 34 more complicated. She stated it is confusing because of the dilemma that a party was allowed to 35 do something and got this far. 36 37 Mayor Marty stated his concern with someone that pulls a permit for a fence and does not build a 38 fence. 39 40 Ms. Amundsen asked the Council to take action fairly soon, as the liability is a huge concern. He 41 asked the Council to take some time to discuss the matter and make a decision. 42 43 Mayor Marty noted that Councilmember Flaherty visited the property, and indicated he would 44 not have a problem giving a variance for a 10 foot fence and asked about the possibility of the 45 City paying for additional fencing. Mayor Marty stated that although it would be a nice thought, 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 Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting March 27, 2006 Page 16 the City cannot set a precedent by starting to pay to resolve neighbors' disputes. Mayor Marty asked if the League of Minnesota Cities was consulted. Director Ericson commented that City Attorney Riggs and a Staff member spoke with someone at the League of Minnesota Cities in regard to this matter. He deferred the question to City Attorney Riggs. City Attorney Riggs stated that he discussed the matter with the League of Minnesota Cities, and they did not see that the City is in a situation of liability based on the Code. He stated that unfortunately, the Code does have holes. He stated there are a lot of potential solutions to correct the issue. He stated Code is there for public safety to provide a minimum level of protection. Ms. Amundsen stated she did not present the Code oversights in the packet because they have not found all of them. She noted they have presented some additional Code violations in regard to these setbacks and defining a terrace. She stated this is a stronger argument legally, while the other area is gray. She stated the fact remains that there have been some Code violations, and the City has the responsibility to enforce Code. City Attorney Riggs stated the legislature has said that the City is immune even if Code is improperly enforced, not that it was in this case. He stated there is wide latitude of how the language is enforced by the City. He stated Staff has interpreted it one way, and he does not know what the solution is. He stated there is not a perfect answer in this situation because both parties have a right to do something. He stated the Council could decide that the Code should be interpreted from this day forward with a terrace definition. Ms. Amundsen stated that when residents do things outside of Code, the City has the right to correct the situation. She confirmed with City Attorney Riggs that he has not determined if there has been a violation of Code. City Attorney Riggs stated this is correct. City Attorney Riggs commented this is the way the Staff has interpreted the Code and that is the difference. He stated he is going off Staff interpretation, case law, and the League of Minnesota Cities position on the City's liability. Mr. Amundsen stated their concern was that the permit department was informed by the homeowner that they were hoping to build a parking pad. He stated there are setback requirements that the permit department has said in the past that require a five foot setback. He stated the homeowner approached the City to build a fence, and when the permit department goes out, they find out what the homeowner really wants to do is build a parking pad. He stated the permit department did not tell them about the five foot setback for the parking pad, which is required for all other homeowners. Councilmember Thomas stated Director Ericson stated he informed the resident that the setback for the parking pad was five feet. She stated she is not sure any Code violation has taken place. Mr. Amundsen stated that there is a record of the City citing this homeowner for parking a car that was unlicensed and untagged on that parking pad. He stated not only has the homeowner Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 17 1 said he was going to park a car there, but in fact did. 2 3 Councilmember Thomas if a car is parked there right now. Mr. Amundsen replied there is not, 4 but the homeowner's future intent is clear. 5 6 Councilmember Thomas asked if the issue with the retaining wall is that a car might someday 7 park there in the future, or if it is the retaining wall's existence and the height itself. Mr. 8 Amundsen stated it is the retaining wall's existence and the issue of public safety. He stated he 9 would have to spend significant dollars to fix the fence because of something that occurred due 10 to my neighbor. He stated he should not be obligated to do something because of what his 11 neighbor has done. He needs to do this to project his liability and his liability insurance. 12 13 Councilmember Thomas stated she was not sure that is true. She stated there is not enough 14 information, and is unclear if a violation has occurred. She stated the City does not know what 15 the definition of a retaining wall is, because there is a hole in the Code in regard to this item. 16 17 Councilmember Gunn asked where the neighbor is, as only one side of the story has been 18 presented, and the whole picture is not available. Ms. Amundsen indicated they did not tell the 19 neighbor that they were coming to the City Council with the matter. Mr. Amundsen stated that 20 the neighbor told him get off his property when he asked if the terrace could be reduced. 21 22 Ms. Amundsen commented that the City could have notified the neighbor, and did not feel that it 23 was her responsibility to contact the neighbor. 24 25 Councilmember Stigney asked about the setback for a fence. Director Ericson stated it cannot be 26 on the property line. 27 28 Councilmember Stigney stated Staff needs to look at the information that was provided to see 29 what the next step is. He stated he understands the whole picture, but does not know the 30 resolution and it cannot be resolved tonight. He stated it should be turned over to Staff and legal 31 counsel and readdressed in two weeks. 32 33 Ms. Amundsen stated this would be acceptable. 34 35 City Administrator Ulrich suggested that the matter be brought back in two weeks, and 36 notification of the meeting would be given to the adjacent property owner. 37 38 Mayor Marty stated the worst case scenario would be that the height of the fence could be 39 extended. 40 41 Councilmember Thomas stated she would hate to have the Amundsens make that expense before 42 a decision is made. She stated she does not think it is the Amundsens' responsibility until Staff 43 determines what is going on. 44 45 City Attorney Riggs stated there are not liability issues on the Amundsens' part or on the City Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 18 1 part. He stated this may be an issue with private homeowners insurance, and that is something 2 else to look at. He stated the City Code does not ensure what private insurance may require. He 3 stated perhaps Staff could discuss the matter with the neighbor to see if there can be some sort of 4 compromise, since there is potential cost to be expended on both sides. 5 6 Councilmember Gunn asked what the insurance company said. Ms. Amundsen stated the 7 insurance company indicated it is an exceptional situation. She stated that the Code violation 8 with the setback requirement is a more sensible way to approach this. She stated one is not going 9 to lean over two feet to get to the fence. She asked that the definition of retaining wall versus 10 terrace be reviewed. She stated this is the best option, so they can have a six foot high fence and 11 it would also eliminate gulley, which is already filling up with debris. She stated the City needs 12 to see if there has been a Code violation. 13 14 Mayor Marty stated this definitely needs to be referred to the Planning Commission to clean up 15 the Code regarding fences, retaining walls, terraces, and the related setbacks. He stated 16 clarification is needed so it does not happen again. 17 18 Councilmember Gunn suggested the issue be discussed at the next worksession on April 3, 2006. 19 20 City Attorney Riggs stated Staff has looked at a lot of the legal issues associated with this. He 21 stated it is a unique situation, and this is one that is not covered in the City Code. 22 23 G. Amending Resolution 6756 to Authorize Plans and Specifications for a 24 Sidewalk on the east side of Silver Lake Road between County Road H and 25 County Road H2 for the Silver Lake Road Sidewalk Improvement Project. 26 27 Director of Public Works Lee explained Resolution 6756 was approved on February 27, 2006 for 28 the Silver Lake Road Sidewalk Improvement Project. He indicated the resolution did not 29 specifically state what side the sidewalk should be placed on, although the City Council indicated 30 a preference for the east side. He stated the resolution needs to be amended with this 31 specification. 32 33 Director of Public Works Lee explained the City Council requested options for the sidewalk on 34 the segment adjacent to Silver View Park. He reviewed the options, which consisted of Option 35 Al for a sidewalk coming through the park to avoid the wetlands ($53,600), Option A2 which is 36 the same as Option Al with the addition of security lighting ($109,600), Option B for a sidewalk 37 along the boulevard which would go through the wetlands ($252,000), and Option C for an 38 elevated boardwalk along the boulevard ($337,540). Director of Public Works Lee noted another 39 option would be to have a sidewalk along the park entrance driveway for $21,600. He 40 recommends this be added as a bid alternate to get bids to see if it should be pursued. 41 42 Director of Public Works Lee stated these options were considered by the Park and Recreation 43 Commission, and they recommend Option B. He commented that Staff is looking for input from 44 the City Council on what option to prepare plans and specifications for. 45 Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 19 1 Councilmember Stigney stated the City should look at the cost to build the sidewalk on the west 2 side of the street since the cost is now up to $252,000. He stated that no one is going to walk 3 through the park, so the sidewalk needs to go straight across on either side. 4 5 Councilmember Stigney asked what the Park and Recreation Commission's suggestion was to 6 pay for this. Mayor Marty and Director of Public Works Lee stated it would come out of TIF. 7 8 Councilmember Stigney stated TIF is not an unlimited pool. 9 10 Mayor Marty stated it is not an unlimited pool, but the City needs to make some expenditures. 11 12 Councilmember Stigney stated the City should make some expenditures, but should concentrate 13 on streets and construction rather than pathways. 14 15 Councilmember Gunn stated that the City always knew it would be more because of the area. 16 17 Director of Public Works Lee stated a lot of the cost is for the wetland issues and moving the 18 ditch. He stated the same problems were encountered further to the south. 19 20 Councilmember Thomas stated from a safety and practicality standpoint, the City cannot do 21 anything but Option B. She stated the City cannot provide good service by putting residents 22 through a safety hazard situation. 23 24 Mayor Marty stated that even if a park trail, a park trail with security lighting is done, or a 25 sidewalk along the park entrance driveway, they will all cost money. He stated the City needs to 26 do the rational and safe thing. He recalled Councilmember Flaherty's comment during the last 27 meeting that his wife would not follow the sidewalk into the park. 28 29 Councilmember Thomas stated people would continue walking on road, which would lead to 30 even a bigger safety issue. 31 32 Mayor Marty stated the City will be spending money on this section no matter what option is 33 chosen, but Option B is the only logical and safe option. 34 35 Councilmember Stigney asked what the total cost estimate of the west side versus the east side 36 with Option B. Director of Public Works Lee stated the east side would be $521,000 and the 37 west side would be $368,000. 38 39 Councilmember Thomas wondered what option the cost of the west side was based on. Director 40 of Public Works Lee stated it was basically for Option Al. 41 42 Councilmember Stigney stated the cost is doubled by going on the east side of the street. He 43 stressed that the cost for the sidewalk on the west side should be reviewed again. He asked if 44 there is some reason that this matter has to be resolved tonight. 45 Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 20 1 Director of Public Works Lee stated if the project is going to happen in 2006, the Council needs 2 to keep moving on this. He explained there would be the same issues on the west side 3 4 Councilmember Thomas stated the cost estimates for the west side of the street does not figure in 5 the additional wetland construction costs. 6 7 Director of Public Works Lee stated that there are wetlands on both sides of the road north of 8 County Road H2. 9 10 Councilmember Thomas asked if there would be a similar cost increase on the west side with a 11 similar boardwalk. Director of Public Works Lee stated that is correct. 12 13 Councilmember Stigney asked to see the costs for the west side to review the feasibility and 14 practicality. He stated it is premature to try to resolve this tonight. 15 16 Mayor Marty commented that this project was promised to the citizens of Mounds View in 1994, 17 and it is time to get the project done. He recommended that Option B be selected to get the 18 project going. 19 20 Councilmember Stigney stated that regardless of cost, going ahead to get something done is not 21 the right thing to do at this time. 22 23 Councilmember Thomas stated that cost is not the only factor, but there are other factors still in 24 place that lead her to choose the east side. She stated she does not like spending that much 25 money, but the Council should not delay the decision, as construction costs will only increase. 26 She recommended the project move forward with Option B. 27 28 MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To waive the reading and amend Resolution 6756 to 29 Authorize Plans and Specifications for a Sidewalk on the east side of Silver Lake Road between 30 County Road H and County Road H2 for the Silver Lake Road Sidewalk Improvement Project by 31 proceeding with Option B. 32 33 Councilmember Stigney stated TIF will be discussed at the worksession on Wednesday, and that 34 without determining the costs on the west side, the Council is rushing things too much. He stated 35 there is no reason that the decision could not be delayed for a week or two to get final estimates 36 and to make a comparison back and forth. He stated total TIF expenditures that will be spent 37 throughout the City could all be reviewed at once. 38 39 Councilmember Gunn stated information supporting the sidewalk on the east side was received 40 from the neighborhood meeting. 41 42 Councilmember Thomas stated the preference was fairly significant for the sidewalk on the east 43 side. 44 45 Ayes — 3 Nays — 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 21 1 2 H. Resolution 6786 Approving the Preliminary Feasibility Report, Waiving 3 Public Improvement Hearing, Holding a Public Informational Meeting, 4 Ordering the Project, and Authorizing the Preparation of Plans and 5 Specifications for the Hidden Hollow South Street and Utility Installation 6 Project. 7 8 Director of Public Works Lee explained this is for utility extensions for six lots on Hidden 9 Hollow South Street. He stated the estimated cost of the improvement is $150,000, and all costs 10 will be borne by the developer except for the trail extension, which is $4,200 that will be 11 assigned to the City's water and sanitary sewer budget. 12 13 Mayor Marty asked what the purpose is of having a public information hearing after the project 14 has already been ordered. 15 16 Director of Public Works Lee stated public input is usually received on the same night that the 17 City Council takes action on an item. 18 19 Councilmember Thomas stated lots of input has already been received from the neighborhood, 20 and the sooner the problems are fixed, the better. She stated the City should go ahead with this, 21 as the neighbors are well aware of the issue and they want to see it happen. 22 23 MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/THOMAS. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6786 24 Approving the Preliminary Feasibility Report, Waiving Public Improvement Hearing, Holding a 25 Public Informational Meeting, Ordering the Project, and Authorizing the Preparation of Plans 26 and Specifications for the Hidden Hollow South Street and Utility Installation Project, as 27 amended. 28 29 Mayor Marty stated after hearing about the different kinds of fill that was put in over the last 30 several years, and after seeing the site and how much higher it was than other properties, he 31 indicated he would like to get the project going. He stated the feasibility report considers 32 grading, proposed infiltration basin, and existing swales, so there is some water control the area. 33 He stated right now it is an accident waiting to happen. 34 35 Ayes — 4 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 36 37 Councilmember Thomas asked when the date of the public informational hearing would be. 38 Director of Public Works Lee stated it would be in four to six weeks. 39 40 G. Resolution 6787 Authorization of the Execution of Easements Associated 41 with the County Road J Improvement Project. 42 43 Director of Public Works Lee explained that the County is requesting a ponding easement and a 44 temporary construction easement from the City. He commented that neither one of easements 45 will impact any future development of SYSCO Outlot A. 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 Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 22 Mayor Marty asked if the County will be digging out the ponding easement. Director of Public Works Lee stated the County will be digging some of it out, as well as creating a pond to retain water. Mayor Marty asked who will pay for this. Director of Public Works Lee stated it will be paid by the County Road J project. He commented it is a requirement of Rice Creek Watershed District. City Attorney Riggs stated the final language in the easement would need to include a statement that references the deed the City received for SYSCO Outlot A, because it had a right of reverter if the City did not use it for certain purposes. He commented that Staff contacted SYSCO and they did not see a problem with that language, but the easement should have one statement that references any right that is granted to the County that is subject to the right of reverter on the additional deed. MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6787 Authorization of the Execution of Easements Associated with the County Road J Improvement Project. Ayes — 4 8. CONSENT AGENDA Nays — 0 Motion carried. Councilmember Gunn left the meeting at 9:19 p.m. Councilmember Stigney asked to remove Items B, C and D. Mayor Marty asked to remove Item E. A. Licenses for Approval W. Resolution 6779 Approving the Purchase of a Replacement Mower for the Par-lis Division. Division-.D-. Resolution 6783 Authorizing Step inereases for Offleer Timothy Wolf a MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/STIGNEY. To waive the reading and approve Consent Agenda Item A. Ayes — 3 Nays — 0 Absent — 1 (Gunn) Motion carried. Councilmember Gunn returned to the meeting at 9:22 p.m. Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 23 1 2 8B. Resolution 6779 Approving the Purchase of a Replacement Mower for the 3 Parks Division. 4 5 Councilmember Stigney asked why the old mower was not put in the golf course auction. He 6 stated he spoke with City Administrator Ulrich who indicated the mower would be put up for 7 auction, but the resolution shows it as a trade-in. 8 9 Director of Public Works Lee stated when it comes to disposal of equipment, it can be put up for 10 auction, but 10 percent is lost to the auctioneer. 11 12 Councilmember Stigney stated there was a big auction at the golf course with a lot of equipment. 13 14 Director of Public Works Lee stated this equipment was always scheduled to be traded in, and it 15 could not be disposed of before approval was received to replace it. 16 17 City Administrator Ulrich pointed out there is the option of putting the equipment in the 18 government surplus auction in Arden Hills. 19 20 Councilmember Stigney stated the budget was for this year, and it could have came before the 21 Council to indicate if the equipment was put up for bid, this is what is projected to pay. He 22 questioned if the figures could have been found out well ahead of time. He wondered if the City 23 could have made more money if it was sold at the golf course auction with a reserve on it. 24 25 Councilmember Stigney wondered if putting the equipment up for auction will be beneficial in 26 time and money. 27 28 Director of Public Works Lee stated it can be done either way, but it could not be sold in the golf 29 course auction because the replacement was not approved in October. He suggested it could be 30 added to the state auction, but pointed out that 10 percent would be lost off the top for the 31 auction fee. 32 33 Councilmember Stigney asked if other people that sell this item have been contacted to see what 34 could be received on trade. 35 36 Director of Public Works Lee explained that the State has done that as part of the State bidding 37 process. He explained it is open to anyone who wanted to bid on the item. He stated this is the 38 lowest bid of the item. 39 40 Councilmember Stigney asked if anyone has been contacted that has sold this device and what 41 the possible trade-in value is, exclusive of the State bidding process. 42 43 Councilmember Thomas stated the point of using the State bid process is so Staff does not waste 44 time in doing something the State already did. She pointed out the State performs the bid process 45 in larger quantities and provides greater access to those who do the appropriate bidding. She 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 Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 24 stressed it is a significant waste of Staff time and salary by doubling up on the work that the State has already done. Councilmember Gunn asks what happens to an item if it not sold when it is put up for auction. Director of Public Works Lee stated the City would take back the equipment. City Administrator Ulrich suggested that the equipment could be taken to the dealer to receive the trade-in value if it did not sell at auction. Director of Public Works Lee stated the reserve bid could be placed at $1,100 to make up for the 10 percent auction charge, but for $1,000, it is a lot more time and effort hauling the equipment back and forth to auction. Finance Director Beer stated that sales tax could be deducted if a trade-in is received from the dealer, so the reserve price would need to be increased even more. Councilmember Thomas stated that the City would have to wait to buy the replacement mower until it is determined if the old mower is sold at auction. MOTION/SECOND: GUNK/THOMAS. To waive the reading and approve Resolution 6779 Approving the Purchase of a Replacement Mower for the Parks Division. Ayes — 4 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Councilmember Stigney stated he would like to see that the State bid process is in the City's benefit because he has nothing to back it up. He stated he would like a comfort level that the State is really doing something. City Administrator Ulrich stated that the point Councilmember Stigney is trying to make is that the State bid is not always the lowest price. He commented that sometimes deals can be obtained from the dealer or if it is late in the bidding year, products may be discounted, particularly electronic goods. He stated this is less common on durable goods such as mowers. He stated electronics prices can be volatile. City Administrator Ulrich stressed that he relies on Staff to conduct the proper research to determine if it is a good price. 8C. Resolution 6779 Approving the Purchase of a Replacement Mower for the Parks Division. Councilmember Stigney stated he had the same questions as on Item 8C. He stated the cost of the previous item was $9,080, while the cost of this item is $18,629. MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/MARTY. To waive the reading and approve Resolution 6780 Approving the Purchase of a Utility Cart for the Parks Division. Ayes — 4 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 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 Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 25 81). Resolution 6783 Authorizing Step Increases for Officer Timothy Wolf and Officer Keith Demarest. MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/STIGNEY. To waive the reading and approve Resolution 6783 Authorizing Step Increases for Officer Timothy Wolf and Officer Keith Demarest. Ayes — 4 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 8E. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, April 10, 2006 at 7:05 p.m. to Consider a Conditional Use Permit for an Environmental Processing Facility at 4889 Old Highway 8. Director Ericson explained there is a pending purchase agreement for the Skyline Motel property. He explained the applicant is seeking to redevelop the site and construct an environmental processing facility that would treat household, commercial and industrial waste. He stated there will be septage involved and the processing would remove the water from the waste that comes into the facility and the clean water would go into the Met Council Sanitary System, as opposed to septage, industrial waste and other types of material. Director Ericson stated it is an internal process and the applicant is building nothing outdoors, so there will be no noise, no storage, and no smells. He stated it is a unique and complex process. He stated the end product will be purchased by buyers to use for biomass fuel, fertilizer and other uses or sent to a Landfill. He stated the product will be delivered off -site, so no product is stored on site. Director Ericson explained that one issue that Staff and the Planning Commission raised is the matter of potential odors from the site. He stated this is a facility that does treat septage. He explained the facility will be constructing a biofilter, which would treat the air that is exposed to the smell of product in the facility, and released into the atmosphere. He stated the understanding is that one could stand on top of the biofilter and not smell anything. Director Ericson stated there are only two facilities like this in the country, so it is a rather new type of operation. He stated there is another operation that treats septage in Wisconsin that has not had a good tract record, but it is an outdoor operation and the product is stored outdoors, so it is not the same type of operation. Director Ericson stated the City is holding an informational neighborhood meeting with Townsedge Terrace Park on March 30, 2006, and City Staff will also inspect a biofilter in Woodbury. He commented the Met Council is excited about the prospect of this type of facility, as it will allow four existing dump sites to close. He stated Met Council desires to have the product treated so it is not entered into system without any controls or checks and balances. Director Ericson stated the benefit to Met Council and to the City and its residents is that there will be less treatment involved, and it would be the private sector to deal with this problem rather than the government. He explained Met Council would treat facilities in the north metropolitan area. He stated there would be increased truck traffic at most by nine to ten vehicles an hour, 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 Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 26 depending on the time of the year. Director Ericson explained that the Planning Commission examined all issues and recommended approval, recognizing there are mechanisms that can be instituted with a conditional use permit to control for noise or odors if there is a problem. He stated the conditional use permit Public Hearing is set for April 10, 2006. Director Ericson stated Staff is willing to keep an open mind as to this type of use and the potential benefit to the City. He added it is industrial zoned property that is consistent with the zoning Code with a conditional use permit. Mayor Marty suggested this matter be an agenda item for the April 3, 2006 worksession. Councilmember Stigney stated there is no mechanism to measure odor. He questioned on what basis the facility would be shut down if it there were complaints about odor. He stated by dumping the septage, the water goes into the sanitary sewer, and he wondered if residents of the City are going to have to pay for this. MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN. To Set a Public Hearing for Monday, April 10, 2006 at 7:05 p.m. to Consider a Conditional Use Permit for an Environmental Processing Facility at 4889 Old Highway 8. Ayes — 4 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS Councilmember Stigney referenced check # 118141 for $17,467 for installation of flooring and asked if it was for the gymnasium. Finance Director Beer stated it was related to the water line break in the daycare center from last year. Councilmember Stigney asked if any was covered by insurance. Finance Director Beer stated it was and the City has already received a reimbursement of $20,000. He stated the total claim was over $30,000 and there was a $10,000 deductible. Councilmember Stigney referenced check #118155 for $669 for ice machine repair. Director of Public Works Lee stated it was for the compressor on the ice machine to be changed out. Mayor Marty referenced check # 118151 for $142 for an alarm battery. Finance Director Beer stated he will get back to Mayor Marty. Mayor Marty referenced check #118159 in regard to the items for Medtronic project for $4,923 and Tax Increment District #5 for $4,290, and wondered if both are reimbursable. Finance Director Beer stated they are. Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 27 1 Mayor Marty referenced check # 118170 in regard to the items for Brides Redevelopment for 2 $10,911 and Sysco expansion for $1,223, and wondered if both are reimbursable. Finance 3 Director Beer stated they are. 4 5 Councilmember Stigney referenced check #118184 for $6,482 to North Metro Mayors 6 Association for membership fees, and asked what period of time it covers. Finance Director Beer 7 stated it covers the 2006 calendar year. 8 9 Councilmember Stigney wondered if the City is getting a benefit of $6,482 by being members of 10 that association. 11 12 Councilmember Stigney referenced check #118194 for $600 to Donald Salverda & Associates 13 for the Effective Management Program, and asked if the City is getting a benefit of $600. City 14 Administrator Ulrich stated yes, and explained it provides contacts with other managers 15 throughout the year and provides training. He stated they talk about different opportunities in the 16 metropolitan area and review best practices. City Administrator Ulrich stated it gives him a good 17 idea of what is going on throughout the metropolitan area. 18 19 Mayor Marty asked if it is a one-time charge for the year. City Administrator Ulrich stated that it 20 is, and the group meets six times per year. 21 22 Councilmember Stigney referenced check #118197 for $706 for fender painting for vehicle #706. 23 Director of Public Works Lee stated that it is a water utility truck that hit a post when it was 24 backing up. 25 26 Councilmember asked if it was a new truck. Director of Public Works Lee stated it is a 2000 or 27 2001 vehicle. 28 29 Councilmember Stigney wondered if the repair was required to fix the dent. Director of Public 30 Works Lee stated it was. 31 32 Councilmember Stigney wondered why repairs are done on older vehicles. Director of Public 33 Works Lee commented that the truck looks new and the City would like to keep it in that 34 condition as long as possible. He indicated they would hammer out the dent if it would have 35 been an older vehicle. 36 37 Councilmember Gunn referenced check #118207 in regard to the item for the Golf Course for 38 $385, and wondered why the City is still paying an electric bill for the golf course. Finance 39 Director Beer explained there were some expenses continuing with the clubhouse until it was 40 disconnected and there was also some bills related to the outbuilding that the City will seek 41 reimbursement from Opus. 42 43 MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/MARTY. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as Presented. 44 45 Ayes — 4 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 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 Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 28 10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. March 13, 2006 City Council Meeting Minutes MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/STIGNEY. To Approve the March 13, 2006 City Council meeting minutes as corrected and with corrections that Staff received. Ayes — 4 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 11. REPORTS A. Reports of Mayor and Council Mayor Marty stated the former golf course clubhouse has been moved to Random Park. He stated that it looks like it fits in pretty well, and the building did not break and fall apart like some people thought it might. B. Reports of Staff 1. Director of Public Works Lee a. Update Report regarding March 9t' neighborhood meeting (County Highway 10) Director of Public Works Lee noted that 17 people attended the meeting. He indicated the next step is to study the draft capital improvement program, which will be done at the next worksession meeting. b. County Road 10 Monument Project — Letter Proposal Director of Public Works Lee indicated the letter proposal has not been received, and hoped to review it at the next worksession meeting. c. Oakwood Park Proposed Improvements — Letter Proposal Director of Public Works Lee stated this item was reviewed by the Park and Recreation Commission, and they made the motion to not go forward at this time, as they wanted additional information of what the total project costs will be. Mayor Marty noted that $14,000 for a feasibility study of a field without a structure, even though there are underground culverts and drainage issues, seems kind of expensive. Director of Public Works Lee stated Staff will look into the item further and report back at the next City Council meeting. 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 Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 29 2. Community Development Director Ericson a. Update Report on Harstad/Red Oak Estates #3 Director Ericson presented a report on the Harstad/Red Oak Estates #3 project. He stated he was surprised and saddened at how many trees were actually removed, as he did not anticipate every single tree would be removed from the site. He stated he contacted Rice Creek Watershed to see if they had any problems with the tree removal from the wetland site, but they indicated they only regulate the wetlands and not the trees. Director Ericson explained he has been in contact with every property owner of the existing towh home building and all owners would prefer to not have a swimming pool and tennis court. He stated the only way they cannot have a swimming pool and tennis court however, is if City Council agrees to absolve Mr. Harstad of that requirement. He indicated Mr. Harstad would be willing to submit the cash value of the construction of tennis court and swimming pool for Park and Recreation Commission purposes. He noted Mr. Harstad is planning to restore the site and will submit a landscape plan. Councilmember Stigney asked if taking trees out of the area would degrade the watershed. Councilmember Thomas stated it gets back into what is allowed as changes from the original court order issue. She stated she hates to tamper with anything that changes a set up when she does not know what the end result of the legal connotations will be. Councilmember Gunn wondered about the property owners that are already there. Councilmember Thomas stated they originally bought houses there assuming there would be a swimming pool and tennis courts built. Councilmember Gunn wondered if all the original owners are still there. b. Update Report on Tree Preservation Ordinance Director Ericson indicated that Staff has been working on the ordinance to address tree preservation, tree removal, and forest management process, based on what the City Council directed last year. He indicated Staff should have something to the City Council for review within a month. c. Reconstruction of Ordinance 769 Director Ericson stated that he would like the Council to consider recalling the approval of Ordinance 769 based on the need to perhaps to add additional language regarding the number of billboards in the community. He stated the way the ordinance is drafted, it leaves an open-ended possibility of the number of signs. He stated that he needs to talk with City Attorney Riggs to 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 Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 30 develop language for this item to set limits on the number of billboards. He indicated this would be brought back to the next meeting. City Attorney Riggs stated the timing gap will cause problems, and there will be holes in certain things unless the proper timing of events occurs. MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN. To reconsider the adoption of Ordinance 769, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code Relating to Signs and Billboards. Ayes — 4 Nays — 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/STIGNEY. To postpone the adoption of Ordinance 769, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code Relating to Signs and Billboards, to April 10, 2006. Ayes — 4 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 3. City Administrator Ulrich City Administrator Ulrich presented a report on the Canyon Grill. He reviewed that the Council previously authorized a $2,000 per month lease payment, and the City is not having any luck reaching final agreement for that. He stated Canyon Grill indicated they wanted to lower the lease payment to $1,000 and not pay taxes. He stated the relationship needs to be dissolved and perhaps space should be rented on an hourly basis and have the church make a payment directly to the City. He noted the long term agreement with Canyon Grill will expire on April 1, 2006. City Administrator Ulrich suggested the Chamber may want to lease a little more space, and starting January 1, 2007, the space will be tax-exempt. Mayor Marty noted there are three or four weddings scheduled for the banquet center. City Administrator Ulrich indicated Canyon Catering would be kept as the caterer and the City would charge him a room rental rate. Councilmember Thomas asked if the church is interested in continuing to lease the space directly. City Administrator Ulrich replied he was meeting with the church this week, and will provide an update at that time. C. Reports of City Attorney None. 12. Next Council Work Session: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. (Special Work Session) Next Council Meeting: Monday, April 10, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting 2 13. ADJOURNMENT 3 4 The meeting was adjourned at 10:12 p.m. 5 6 Transcribed by: 7 8 Annette Anderson 9 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. March 27, 2006 Page 31 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Executive Session Date: 09/26/05 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 Time: 11:00 pm 1. 10:30pm EXECUTIVE SESSION IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Mayor Marty, Council Members Gunn, Flaherty, and Thomas. City Administrator Kurt Ulrich, City Finance Director Mark Beer, Community Development Director Jim Ericson, City Attorney Scott Riggs 3. DISCUSS PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY The City Council and City Staff discussed the purchase of real property commonly known as Red Oak Estates. A variety of purchase options were discussed. The City Council consensus was to not extend an offer for purchase of the property. 4. 11:32pm MEETING ADJOURNED Respectfully Submitted: Kurt Ulrich City Administrator CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PRESS RELEASE The City of Mounds View would like to invite all of our residents and businesses to the 2nd Annual Town Hall Meeting on Saturday, April 29, 2006 from 9am - Noon at the Mounds View Community Center, 5394 Edgewood Drive in Mounds View. There will be Mounds View historical displays, a variety of city vehicles to see up close, and each city department will have an information booth and staff available to answer questions. The gym will be open for children's activities. There will also be seminars discussing current city topics, including the Vision and Goals of our City for 2006. This is your chance to talk with Mounds View City Staff, the Mayor and Council members. Below is a schedule of events. We hope to see you there! CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW TOWN HALL MEETING AGENDA SATURDAY, APRIL 29, 2006 MOUNDS VIEW: BUILDING A BETTER FUTURE 9-915am Registration (Cookies and Coffee Served) 915am-1130am Department Exhibits and other Exhibits • Mounds View Police Department • SBM Fire Department • Public Works • Community Development • Finance • YMCA • Festival in the Park • Children Activities at the Mounds View Community Center Gym 915am-1200pm City Council and Staff Presentations 915am-930am Welcome Presentation by the Mayor 930am-945am History of Mounds View Video Presentation 945am-1005am Vision, Mission and Goals for 2006 Speaker: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator 1005am-1020am Fix our Roads: Re -building City Streets, Sewer and Water Speaker: Greg Lee 1020am-1035am Keep Our Taxes Low: The State of the City's Financial Health Speaker: Mark Beer, Finance Director 1035am-1050am Protecting Our Community: A Report on City Emergency Services Speaker: Police Chief Mike Sommer Fire Chief Nyle Zikmund 1050am-1105am Break 1105am-1120am Encourage Growth: Reviewing the City Economic Development Policy Speaker: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director 1120am-1135am Putting the "Community" back in the Community Center: Report of the Mounds View Community Center Task Force Speaker: Barbara Thomas, Chair or Gary Stevenson, Vice Chair 1130am-12pm Final Thoughts 12pm Town Hall Meeting Adjourns