HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 1997/07/07 » '>
• : ::«:::::<;::::<::,<::<::;:>;<::<::<;::><;<::<::<:: •
•»'' >>'>?':> =><"<'>`' ' <-iiiiiiiiiiiiiii �.���. • • •
.......
Items Discussed
Per Consensus
1. Discussion of Hiring Patrick Peters of SRF for Interim Community
Development Assistance. Staff Report No. 97-2141WS (Presented by:
Chuck Whiting, City Administrator)
2. Review of Insurance Coverage for the 1997/1998 policy year. Staff Report
No. 97-2142WS (Presented by:Bruce Kessel, Finance Director and
Chuck Clysdale,Maguire Agency)
•
3. Discussion on Finance and Administration Staffing Review. Staff Report
No. 97-2143WS (Presented by: Chuck Whiting, City Administrator)
4. Discussion on Cat Related Ordinances. Staff Report No. 97- 2144WS
(Presented by: Chuck Whiting, City Administrator)
5. Discussion on VB Digs Update. Staff Report No. 97- 2145WS (Presented
by:Bob Long, City Attorney)
6. Discussion on General Community Center Redevelopment Status Update.
Staff Report No. 97-2146WS (Presented by: Cathy Bennett, Director of
• Economic Development)
Page Two
07-07-97 Work Session
7. Discussion on Airport and MAC Hearing Preparation. Staff Report No. •
97-2147WS (Presented by:Bob Long, City Attorney)
8. Discussion on Easement Request from Ramsey County for Compost Site.
Staff Report No. 97-2148WS (Presented by: Cathy Bennett, Director of
Economic Development)
9. Discussion on City Owned Property Draft Inventory. Staff Report No. 97-
2149WS (Presented by: Cathy Bennett, Director of Economic
Development)
10. Discussion Regarding Personnel Ordinance Revision. Staff Report No. 97-
2150WS (Presented by:Bob Long, City Attorney)
•
11. Discussion Entering into Contractual Arrangement with Golf Course
Superintendent for the Operation of the Golf Course. Staff Report No. 97-
2151WS (Presented by:Bruce Kessel, Finance Director)
12. Discussion of RFP for Highway 10 Design Theme. Staff Report No. 97-
2152WS (Presented by:Pam Sheldon, Community Development Director)
13. Authorization of funding for SEH to accomplish tasks necessary for the
implementation of the Ring Road. Staff Report No. 97-2153 WS
(Presented by:Pam Sheldon, Community Development Director)
•
Page Three
,t 07-07-97 Work Session
• 14. Authorization to file an application with the Metropolitan Council for funds
for updating the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Report No. 97-2154WS
(Presented by:Pam Sheldon, Community Development Director)
15. Discussion of Policy on Removal of Driveways. Staff Report No. 97-
2155WS (Presented by:Pam Sheldon, Community Development Director)
16. Discussion of Policy on Requiring Surety. Staff Report No. 97-2156WS
(Presented by:Pam Sheldon, Community Development Director)
17. Discussion of Policy on Temporary Events. Staff Report No. 97-2157WS
(Presented by:Pam Sheldon, Community Development Director)
i
�►aff R crf Ale.
Staffing Needs In Administration and Finance Ilea) 3
. Summary Report Prepared for the City of Mounds View
Prepared By: Sandra Morgan Crawford, C.P.A.
Introduction
As part of an ongoing effort by the City of Mounds View to increase efficiencies in the administration of
the city I was engaged to review administrative functions and search for suitable replacement accounting
software.
Findings
In addition to providing temporary support necessitated by the retirement of the Utility Billing Clerk,I
have been reviewing the roles and responsibilities of the staff. This review has determined that with the
full cooperation of all departments in streamlining procedures and redistributing tasks,the business of
the City of Mounds View can be accomplished with little additional staff and minimal overtime.
During my observations and interviews with staff,two common themes kept recurring; the need for
consistent front counter and telephone backup, and the need for more cross training of functions.
Presently the Accountant and the Payroll Clerk provide backup for each other in their areas. With the
Payroll Clerk now covering the Utility Billing area as well,there is need for additional backup as well as
additional support.
•
Recommendation
My recommendation is twofold. First, the Finance Department should hire a temporary, part-time clerk
to provide backup for the front counter and telephones and to provide data entry support to Accounts
Payable,Payroll and Utility Billing. This addition should not add significantly to the payroll as the goal
is to reduce overtime presently being worked. This position is meant to be temporary in nature and last
for approximately 7 months. This will allow the department to adjust to the installation of a new
accounting system which should improve efficiencies with subsequent realignment of duties.
Second,the Public Works Department Secretary should be trained to provide support for the Utiltity
Billing and Accounting systems. Tracy Juell, the Public Works Department Secretary, is the most
qualified candidate considering her knowledge and background in the Public Works Department. By
eliminating some duplication of effort and redistributing some of Tracy's present duties,time should be
available for her to provide assistance.
Once the new accounting software system is in place and the time savings afforded by the new telephone
system can be determined, then administrative staff responsibilities need to be reevaluated and adjusted
accordingly. The projected implementation date of the new accounting software is January 1, 1998.
Due to the impending second quarter utility billing, I recommend that the temporary help be hired and
the training in Utility Billing be 'started as soon as possible.
r L5/ezir 46r0-74 Ala - 941—.2/Y4 16)5
Le
4 interoffice
MEMORANDUM
to: Chuck Whiting
from: Lynnette Morgan
subject: Cat Kennel License
date: June 27, 1997
cc: Tim Ramacher
At the last City Council meeting,the policy issue of cat kennels was brought to the attention of
the City Council. As outlined in Chapter 701.03, subd. 15 of the Municipal Code, kennel
licenses are required only for dogs. However,the Zoning Code defines kennel licenses to
include dogs and cats.
If the City chooses to change the licensing section of the code to be consistent with the zoning
definition, the number of animals which constitute a kennel licenses must be defined. Currently
a residential kennel license is required for more than two dogs but not more than four dogs. A
commercial kennel license is required for more than four dogs.
0 Listed below are some cities which require cat kennel licenses. I have included the number of
animals which require a license.
Apply Valley- More than three cats.
Bloomington -More than four dogs or cats or any combination.
Brooklyn Center-Three or more dogs or four or more cats. Brooklyn Center limits the number
of years this application is renewable to three years.
Coon Rapids - Two or more dogs, cats or any combination.
Crystal- Three or more animals.
Maplewood -More than two cats.
Richfield -More than two dogs or two cats.
,
N:1
MEMO •
To: Chuck Whiting
From: Chief Ramacher
Subject: Cat Problems
Date: June 30, 1997
i
Over the years, the City has had very few reported"cat problems". A typical complaint would
be for a stray or injured cat. Since the City has no restrictions on cats, rarely is one impounded.
Regulating cats would create additional expenses for the City. Currently, animal expenses cost us
about three hundred dollars a month. I would guess that regulating cats would increase that
amount by at least one hundred dollars.
When a resident has a problem with a cat(s), we offer to supply them with a live trap. We also
can suggest that we can cite the cat owner(if known) with violation of our Public Nuisance
III
Ordinance. The Public Nuisance Offense generally needs more than one complainant and has to
be well documented to get a conviction.
I would recommend that no changes be made at this time.
•
June 23, 1997
• Mr. Mayor and
Members of the City Council :
There is a problem here in our area of Mounds View that needs some attention. Our city
does not have an ordinance for cats as pets. Our city references dogs and dog kennel
rules, however it does not reference cats and kennel rules for cats. This lack of
clarification creates many grey areas of having cats as pets, as well as kennel rules for
cats.
I am sure there are many residents who would agree that this would cause quite a
problem, not only by the annoyance of cats roaming freely in the yards of others, but a
health risk as well. Before we can allow our young children to play in sandboxes in the
parks and in their own backyards, we now have to clean up after stray cats who are using
the parks and yards as litterboxes.
The simple request of having the same rules that apply to the dogs in our city be equal to
that of cats would protect all residents from the above problems.
Specifically, I would like to suggest:
• 1. Under the Zoning Code regarding conditional use permits, that it specifies exactly
the number of dogs/cats before a kennel license is required. Currently the code
states under Subd. 29 for residential kennels "Any premises where more than two
(2) but not more than four(4) dogs/cats over six (6) months of age are owned,
boarded, bred or offered for sale."
Does this mean a person can own 2 cats and 2 dogs without a kennel license, or
is a person needing to have a license for 2 cats and 2 dogs?
2. In section 701.03, Subdivision 15 regarding kennels, that everywhere dogs are
referenced, cats be added as well.
Since cats are different than dogs in their habits, I would propose that and item
"e" and"f' be added as well to state:
e. all animals shall be kept indoors and not allowed to roam free
unless properly secured or confined to the kennel property.
f. that as a condition or approval of the CUP, the applicant expressly
agrees to allow reasonable inspections of the property by proper
licensing authorities to verify numbers of animals and other licensing
requirements. Failure to permit such an inspection shall constitute
grounds for revocation of the CUP by order of the City Council.
Item No. 6
Staff Report No. 97-2146WS
Meeting Date 7-7-97
Type of Business WK
• WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing;
CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business
Mounds View City Council
Work Session Staff Report
To: Mounds View City Council ^�,�
From: Cathy Bennett, Director of Economic Development l
Item Title/Subject: Update on Community Center Redevelopment
Date of Report: July 2, 1997
Representatives from WAI Continuum will be present to give an update on the community center
redevelopment project and present renderings for the exterior of the building. Items that will be
discussed include the following:
Children's Home Society Improvements
Budget Update
Change Order Procedure
Title Insurance
Kitchen Improvements
Front Brickwork Improvements
Phase II Development Review and Proposed Bid Process
Community Education Lease
Next Steps/Timeline
Due to the information changing daily, the short week and vacations I am not including anything in the
packet. The most recent information will be provided at the work session for your review and
discussion.
•
it
Item No. 8
Staff Report No. 97-2148WS
Meeting Date 7-7-97
• Type of Business WK
WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB:Council Business
Mounds View City Council
Work Session Staff Report
To: Mounds View City Council
From: Cathy Bennett, Director of Economic Development
Item Title/Subject: Request for Easement from NSP for Compost Site
Date of Report: July 3, 1997
The EDA received a request from NSP to grant a I 0 ft wide easement along the back side of 8283
Long Lake Road at an angle. (See attached map) The easement would be used to bring power to the
Ramsey County Compost Site for lights installed as part of the improvements made this year. The
suggested location of the easement runs at an angle because there is a large tree on the back side of
the property that they want to avoid moving.
The EDA purchased this property under the housing replacement program with the intention of
0 reselling the lot for the construction of a new single family residence. In discussion with community
development regarding the plans for this site it was suggested that we add a clause to the easement
agreement which would require NSP to move the easement, at no cost to the EDA, to run parallel
with the lot line in case the EDA was interested in subdividing this lot. Our thought is that if we ever
have the opportunity to purchase adjoining lots that it may be worthwhile to create a new subdivision.
Ill
If
0
c� v �.- c� v fil
r� _
,,.'•
I = _-i =-I I -
t Z9 I 09 '-'2 •:137:' s'Z9 I O'D 2 '-
1 (9
CI
t .
r.,_-.‘ O O t 00! O p t a t
0 c9
SCJ 1
1 co
I Lo
Ilii r' N c� '1 tn
4- i r 6 _
r
VJ 1 r r
; 1
CLW r
rm � 1 151N 0
I _ - '
S Tl. ` -
i 0
o •. — - — — —
t
I ,
I 1
i ism L-osl_ 001 Opt 001 0
gn
4
99 9 EIC C -
8283 Long Lake Road
Staff Report No. 97-2148WS N
c- .3aLang
all. Department of Public Works
Paul L.Kirkwold,P.E.,Director and County Engineer
ENGINEERING/OPERATIONS
ADMINISTRATION/LAND SURVEY 3377 N.Rice Street
50 West Kellogg Blvd.,Suite 910 Shoreview,MN 55126
RAMSEY COUNTY St.Paul,MN 55102• (612) 266-2600•Fax 266-2615 (612)484-9104 •Fax 482-5232
,6 v,„, k,,,,„ii ---
,....,,,,...,.
' ,..... ,--. 7- 1...„ ...-7---4._,..__
'k.,LL P
May 27, 1997
Ms . Kathy Bennett h All) �
Mounds View Economic Development Authority
2401 Highway 10 N.E.
Mounds View, MN 55112
RE: Electric Utility Ea'ement
Dear Ms . Bennett : -
Enclosed for your review and approv
a is an electric distribution
easement form related to the implementation of lighting at the Ardan
Park compost site this year. Upon execution, please return the form
to me at the following address : Ramsey County Dept . of Public Works,
3377 N. Rice St . , St . Paul, MN 55126 . I will forward the executed
agreement to Northern States Power Co. for recording.
4111
If I can provide additional information, please contact me at
482-5230 .
Sincerely,
Tzt. L.n.,—_----
rry o nan
Project Manager
cc : Larry Carlson, Ramsey County Public Health - Solid Waste
T i/?/,1 Tey c P:
/ i0q !?/rpn — 44'7' i/ —
Sac' f 7
,
J
i,
Minnesota's First Home Rule County
ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION EASEMENT
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That the undersigned, hereinafter called "Grantor", in consideratior.
of the sum of$1.00 and other good and valuable consideration in hand paid by NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY
a Minnesota Corporation, the receipt and sufficiency whereof is hereby acknowledged, do hereby, grant unto said Compan:
its successors and assigns, hereinafter called "Grantee", an easement with the right, privilege and authority to excavate for.
construct, install, mark,inspect,operate,repair,alter,replace,reconstruct,remove and maintain its facilities for the transmission
and distribution of electrical energy,including the necessary poles,wires,guys,stubs, electric cables, conduits,vaults,pedestals
manholes and facilities related and appurtenant thereto,over,across, under and upon said easement on the following describec
land situated in the
County of Ramsey State of Minnesota to-wit:
Lot 14, Block 3, LAPORT MEADOWS.
Said easement shall be limited to:
A 10 foot wide easement the centerline which is described as follows: Beginning at the
southeast corner of Lot 14, Block 3, LAPORT MEADOWS; thence northwesterly to a
point on the north line of said Lot 3 and 22.77 feet West of the northeast corner of said
Lot 3 and there terminating.
The grant of easement herein contained shall also include the right of reasonable access to said easement acros s
said lands for the purpose of exercising the rights granted herein, together with the right to remove from said easemert
any structure, trees, shrubbery, or other object or obstruction which in Grantee's opinion interferes with said facilities C7
the removal of which may be reasonably necessary for the construction or maintenance thereof.
Except as otherwise provided herein or in any Underground Distribution Agreement between the Grantor and Grante
covering the above described premises, Grantee shall, after installation of the above described electrical facilities, or aftc
the exercise of any rights granted herein, restore the lands subject to this easement to as near their original condition a
is reasonably possible and remove therefrom all debris, spoils, and equipment resulting from or used in connection wit:i
said installation.
Grantor further agrees that no structure or obstruction will be erected or permitted or any trees planted on or withi.i
said easement, that he will not change the ground elevation thereof without the written consent of Grantee, or perform an
act which will interfere with or endanger said electrical facilities.
The grant herein contained shall also include the right of Grantee to permit the joint use of overhead facilities an l
joint undergrounding with public utility and cable television companies.
Grantor covenants with Grantee,its successors and assigns,that Grantor is the owner of the above described premises •
and has the right to sell and convey an easement in the manner and form aforesaid.
This instrument and the covenants and agreements contained herein are binding upon the Grantor, his person: 1
representatives, heirs, successors and assigns.
Form 17.6260(9.90) (Over)
The Grantor agrees to execute and deliver to NSP, at NSP's cost, without additional compensation any addition:
documents needed to correct the legal description of the easement area to conform to the right of of way actually occupied
by the transmission lines.
It is mutually understood and agreed that this instrument covers all the agreements and stipulations between the
* and that no representation or statements, verbal or written, have been made modifying, adding to or changing the
hereof.
This instrument is exempt from the Minnesota Deed Tax.
This instrument was drafted by Northern States Power Company, 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be duly executed as of the
day of , 19
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ss.
COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19
by
• NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF • •
ss.
COUNTY OF •
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19
by
(NAME AND TITLE)
of
(NAME OF CORPORATION ACKNOWLEDGING)
corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
(STATE OF PLACE OF INCORPORATION)
NOTARY PUBLIC
•
Firm
17-n250(Bick14.8S1
Item No. 9
Staff Report No. 97-2149WS
Meeting Date 7-7-97
III Type of Business WK
WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing;
CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business
Mounds View City Council
Work Session Staff Report
To: Mounds View City Council
From: Cathy Bennett, Director of Economic Development
Item Title/Subject: City Owned Property Draft Inventory/Plan Ideas
Date of Report: July 2, 1997
Attached is a draft inventory list of City and EDA owned property. This list has been circulated
throughout each department and does not include City Hall, public works buildings and city designated
parks. There are still several gaps in the inventory list with regards to original purchase price and
expected use but this is a start.
I contacted several cities regarding policies/plans regarding City owned property. Most of the Cities
have informal understandings rather than policies: Roseville designates a use for all the property that
they own as part of the comprehensive plan and will only lease or provide an easement agreement if
0 someone is interested in the use of that property. This allows Roseville long term control of the
property but the benefit of a user improving the area. New Brighton's informal procedure is similar in
that they designate a use for each parcel and if an interested buyer does not want to comply with that
use then they do not sell or lease the parcel. The New Brighton representative I talked to said they
are pretty strict in that interpretation. Fridley has a more formal process whereby if the property is
designated as excess, then they will sell it to an interested party through an ordinance procedure. If
the property is owned by the HRA, then they are only required to market the sale of the property
through a public hearing and the price and process is negotiated. I have calls into several other Cities
and may have more information for you at the work session.
I bring this information forward for more discussion prior to drafting a policy. I would like the
Council's feedback regarding your desired goals for City owned property and what issues you would
like addressed in a formal or informal policy.
Ill
'mia a 41;,0, 1,.:9 n y N Im * * cL'� y m •
m 1 t.1 u `21 ° F 14' x = m rn cmi� 8 a oo < c u
10 a mIm f i t 'z—� I0 7, 0 e v is 0 0
ci f 1= c m m a p. .. = m 0 > > m a r
G K 1 -. I m N 0 .c r 1a 1a O a = m m
m Im 8. m a 0 = m + x r r r o m D
I 0 0 0 , N Is
o a o o m m m m aa,
< 41 m 1 a It-
(0 le-) m m az
o 'oI� Ia 42 a a n a c a a
o I� o w o
a
r p
19 m
o pa
+ I+ +IO 00 O O O O O O O O IO O O O O
V V I V 0 CO CO V V V V V 0 OI 0
LT VI UV N co
W I W W W tJ 47 W W W W W W W WW W 6.) (t..) W
0090999909900000090
N 1A.1 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C
Ca Ca cJ W Ca W W W Ca (J W W W ca W W W ca 3
N N b tJ W fJ b N cal 4f W N N N 3, 3
W +I+ a N N W N N N a W W W 1.7 0 cJ W 1
8 0 0 0 1 0 O O I O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O I O coil ,o N N O I-10 0 N 0 O O w as O I O
La
N I+ CO IW 0 CO 10 a s 10 W 0 100 (m m Ca I6)
N I01 W I5 I1 N 1+ i+
V I+
0 0 0 0 I`° 0 0; 0 0 10 1N 0 W
x 10 10 1.1`41412.1°416!
x x 1+Ix c c X x x X X C nl .. IX 1� x (X m r-
_,.
_ x X
0 ICT IN 0 97 d calif y IO 0 10 d 1W W IW N W IN a 2.
a 1 I O q 0 0 0 1 0 m_ W 1(J 14! 0' N 0
N II l+ i+ I 1141 0 y
0- 1+IV ItalI01� Im IV IN 1V d �1i+ i+ I+ItJ 1p f0 0 C
cT '+ I. ICA O a O V 0 0 0 a I+ sr
0 I0 0 la 101 V I0 10 1N 10 10 0 a IV V 1V IOV1 0 10 1D m
W ,0 I0 IN W I0 l0 0 la ,0 0 10 0 IN IN !N 10 0 10 0 0
0 0 10 0 0 I 0 0 0 -.10 0 0 0 oC '
CO 0 "1 W W 10 10 N m ` UI .CT Of - a 0
N NJ 0 0+ N N cNJ I..) NJ Na N + + + O W
0 01 Ca CJ W Ia a m a
Z. -a !0 1 CO l0 10 10 10 W CO CO fO I CO m I a I 0 o .
CO 0) 01W W 0 01 a t m 01 01 OI 0 110 a V
1 ~1 III1m aIN M 1 a IN N N IN N N N N N IN N C mIal ,a Im 1 3 im 2:jN mIo.10im ato Ira Ira mIw 44l8 0a
to IoIoIoI0ooI IIoIo1ooI0IooIo m 0.
0 0 'O 10 o 0 o 1 0 10 10 0
0 0
14.
lt
I0 IV 10 Al m I IO (0 IO Ifn IN lin d c O Ia
10':
I. .
SLA 1 NE
•
........
7-1-- ... -
.i,/771...bil i...1•••• _. - 7:7-74-11=seri- ------
.... N
- .
-,..,-._. -.-.-. - - - _ - ..-.- -..,_.,, , A
_,
0 1_
'•'"..._-__ .,, .-771..... :.1.- -. ..„ - ...
.. ...=-.-. i„..--,.
- -,..7.at:R en.,_ :_t__,.. ... ._
. _.
-. i-g :-. -... ..., ,-. . - ..,-,_ ,,-;ii-.,-
. ‘. .... . "..4a",0-=... ... ..• ... ..... =Et 4 NO SCALE
-.7'... ",'.. -..-..1-• •-•.4..._.. III..}.11 ..._?..- - ::: ari '
`': • ,_ --m-A: *7.75:....---0.7.--.... . LT. . - --- „,.......
,...-.---_ _ _cm= o•sro I BLAINE
••• f.911111C n'': ...,..:. . CZMIIC 1-1Mm= 7*. ::: ,I=LICI a ii ..- - — — -
'.., .../st"" Ili"" •••••‘141* 1 ,Iiiirti.ii . ililii!lii.... ...., ili'l....t ... t . _ .,,.,,
.... \ •
< ;,,,,,_- ,r:-1_, • - - !Immi., • -- • _._,_-— ._____\ -
-, , --EiW'r'm... -t-..... II • - .... =`qi----m:„: + :t:''.. '‘. . .
• , =WINNE&.:•.i.... - F.. _ -T--4„.L.1,.tii.tsliis.s.:..S.
, .N..,,, ,.:'''-- -: 7.1"
A
- , 4.,.. " ,4.,„:,,,,r;,,,, ,We-.4:1111.1IIlig Ili:. ...f ... -. :•. .........u.T.Iclit.pminrra
-... ' -,•-,corn , ...a..-.=Mr- •ila...,toil. ImcilrI,1" .,.1
- „,..,
--,... cric Cum=cola-
:.,..... ,, ! A ••• ..., ,"" .4=NC ...yaw.° i.jV :14iii
li =mum= •••
ss., ••••1 --rf,.... alb '' RIIIE'" "., --- CMG:...., .. Ar, -
7"\;V-_A ....1
, ,..... Ikon - __
1104 ,,..1 -
EillrLr.m. - (01-521141k
1 - • ',..§.
i 1 .. r." .4 IIM MW ."' ..4 siii im-------742.1.- will, --,,- tit>
• ,, , t.!,..,:_j I I miiiii;tic ri
_.... =
. • .; . - i „...It 77 :. •mitie -.i.-r-TITR.=i7E.. ---7.; im .. ....T.4.m..I k itol-iimppurn P.14-1MICMIPP 0
I • '''' •;i ......:,,,,,_ IMEHIPPDVM1113 FillEatokidar
- , e 1 f:mi ... .4=2- ....
•' lip 71E11.10, 4 .... t 4. ..,. ,.. .„1:11111E - .... 7.:'.
..., 4i..j m_ ,i111141fttlaVat uttiamtatuilliail =
• --. - . .. -.-. , Zf--- • issqui , (/)
I;;.; - 4..••• -,,,...-;.... - 3ti,, -. .,;7
Wt il4 r...Pr."'Fitifir-
.... TIT-. ''' 'T, ilidliiiiiil -' - -'---- n'
'. "./Ce' i .... •-,' ..... - • ___.4 ,...-___,.. ,,•
- -....... --...,7.......,„n . ......., ,_... rammadaft,- - .....
'Spring Luk 1 ^ •-• CM /
i i ------ - — '73-
t riftgatailla re1. i ).,...,' 1 s :- . i. • i.i.,a !.._ __ ...:.m. .
;1"-'-':'7.-... ''''' 11'74 ./ — *- ' .•.-1 , : i 1 Illas=.-— 1.0.00%. :
i . ••., ••1-1.-.V 4;7H
y\l......t.. , 1 i ....... •- CD= 1 :
-71 ''. :.: .1-A...•. 1.1 ...IZIW .1
:tm•_. : ..it-1-q ZLIIII1 S...., pi SArr-12,.. , .I ,}1;,.. 4 -11:: ". ... i 7.1 ,..,..*.P.fa..., ''':S. • !1 1' .1> li
... .... !=1 •--7.-',- -.... .. vpmat.I.I'''.kli T
I1••=•••• ,....--=-7.4.i'Z''.--,.7=-.-•.: I; . Ate q s•-, 1 1 1 1 .1 ;...T=t".. '1,1 7Aemern.. :., enn
1/4/ •
_.,'., .= •.,. ..., _.
:TT I•,• :,..,.; I, :,, ....- 1 1,,-; ,a,.7,- ,„,„ —- , ...-= ffltitta M-\L'T'
,. :'...1..- t.1.1.• al,.u.
1.1.1..U1 ;•.: "' ...1 c=rn 0.,i!;!d -,.. ''",,WI;or I.; Alsi.Iiitil.ii i.td:s 174,7 kt'.
II; 1 I
• ;
-
:'-...
.i„.: -* ..-.7--• ....• r•-'',_ '
-4..,'-• --, ....: ..-•-.- .-.111411; .
-......... -.. -.!.4
! 'I I i • '1/4 1 111EIM. .-- ,
v .... ,
-..' ''. .'"'''' —1''"'-, 1.-. ' i ••,::5iWi ''1 1 I I i 1'i ',4,,,,,„,.., F;i.1;
>- . •,.{zt- ... -'"-sur•4,, 1 ,..-/--- 1 .1 1 1 '''45IN •
l'": l• 3.1.2.1 ,,,i .11
11" "- - ..1 (1 C • . '
1 i; ii.tsi•tti i iiiit ,.....,,.., ,,,Lia a „ --.-3...... 6,46._. .,,.. .... :77........01.46.. .„..„:...,,:f :::.°=— .,...1-
EWE cail.alii..ft . : 1 i
I I
..... ;
•--14 • 1 •••• LEUEINEIMIgnr .
-' . 1 FAi.,..".1,,,LOCILIffiEMEILIEIV
.i.M.Lia ......-_.''.. .10. .-,"
, - -,• ,...
-.I
-1- -.. .... ..."'-....L.,, .....•,i,.,•x•-•,t i.i.•.1
.11;41.1*, .. . -- 4
,.il-I:i i., i .. . ;:....... • -" ....i i:t.-1.1.,.11 . . .E 171 1..I i.,...i.3 4.1,1'41€_+±?.. :... •j, A
, 11L,1 C=L....= / , . / -.:
-..-- „,..1.•• '''''''-'.... '''
, -. ,,. -I zaa. I .... •
--. ".. '''..''.7-....,"..-.-..' .--a'.. ,. ....• "J1X a ^.÷", '' . - ....., =E.= -.•
". -.. . .... ., .. =
1 C-- v ---; tj
1 .... •:.;- . - . '". "7:;'.4t. ::.. """-
- - -, a---, ,- ,=-1' •
F4-r,
''-mm .:,i' -- - ,-ffi`-'"` ,..F' ,:.`' g's- _,ii;ii. tr.i-....• ,.. -:-: z ;
-maim.=. -•L _.
...... qz-n,:„..._ ..., _ ..,-,—,-- - -- — _—.1— --7.4 cl'i /,'.- • - 4, rtli .
N _..... ..
= -
N E W BR , •:, ,i7o ,-
1 / - ..•
, •
._.
, 1
CITY OF
• OUNDS UNIMPROVED ROAO
IF.WBASE MAP Revised Nov. 1995
,
a
it
Item No. /1
Staff Report No. 97-a/5/ tc25
Meeting Date: July 7, 1997
IliType of Business: WK
WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council
From: Bruce A. Kessel, Finance Director
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of management contract for operation of golf course
Date of Report: July 2, 1997
Over the past year, there have been discussions relating to maximizing the revenues at the golf
course while minimizing the long term financial risk to the City and insuring that the citizens of
Mounds View have access to the golf course with reasonable green fees.
Golf courses are somewhat unique to governmental entities in that they must compete with other
public and private courses. In order to compete effectively, a course must keep abreast of its
competition,both for the quality of the playing experience and the price of the product. Services
provided in addition to the actual golfing include lessons, merchandise sales, food& beverage
sales, repairs of customer equipment, etc. which are available from numerous businesses. The
course must be open for business from sunrise to sunset for approximately seven months.
• Maintenance must be performed seven days a week. Specialized knowledge of both the existing
course and also general horticulture and mechanical equipment is needed to insure the course is
maintained in top condition. Failure to perform required maintenance for even several days can
result in damages that can be very costly and/or require a long period of time to correct.
It is my opinion that the City needs to devise a mechanism to retain several key employees on a
long term basis. As such, I obtained information from the National Golf Foundation relating to
statistical operating information and methods used to structure operations. I also contacted other
governmental entities with golf courses to obtain a better understanding of how they have
structured their operations. It should be noted that no two golf courses are the same and as such,
each course has to establish a structure that takes its unique characteristics into account.
Due to the uniqueness of golf courses (seven days a week operation from sunrise to sunset for
approximately seven months, with few full time employees, and the need to compete for
business), contracting for the operation of the course appears to provide some advantage to the
City. It should be noted that the operating margins at The Bridges are very tight due to the
relatively high debt service costs and any additional costs resulting from a change in structure
would be hard to absorb. Depending upon how a contract for the maintenance of the golf course
was structured, there could be added costs including:
• Increase in liability exposure. Claims against cities are generally limited to $600,000
while private businesses do not have any limit on their liability. We can generally
• purchase insurance coverages at very reasonable rates and any private operator would
likely have to pay a higher premium. In addition, the City would in all likelihood, also
•
City of Mounds View Staff Report
July 2, 1997
Page 2
obtain insurance on thegolf course as additional protection even if it contracted with a •
private operator resulting in doubling the insurance cost. (Estimated additional cost-
$2,500).
• Depending upon how a contract was structured, it could result in the need to pay property
taxes. (Estimated cost$20,000 to $30,000)
• A private operator would have to have their own accounting system for payroll, financial
reporting, etc. while removing this operation from the city would not directly reduce our
costs. (Estimated additional cost$12,000).
• A private operator would need to obtain their own health insurance and retirement
coverage which would generally be more expensive for a small group. On the other side,
fewer benefits (retirement) would need to be provided resulting in some offsetting
savings.
There are also some structural problems, including:
• The course has been in operation for several years and as such, has acquired equipment to
operate the course. If the City contracts for course operations, the city would have to sell
the equipment, use the equipment at other locations, or enter into an arrangement with the
operator to use/lease the equipment, which results in complications in the contract
relating to maintenance on and the condition of the equipment.
• The City has hired employees and if we now contract for the operation of the course, how
will we deal with existing employees.
While an arrangement taking into account all these factors could be structured, it still appeared •
that the added cost from contracting out the management of the course would more than offset
the advantage and as such, I am proposing a highbred approach under which we would enter into
a management contract with the current superintendent. He would be paid a base salary
($40,000) and we would set the total payroll costs at a percentage of total revenues (proposed
44%). He would be given total control over the hiring, promotion and firing of all employees
and setting of all salaries, subject to certain constraints such as following applicable federal and
state policies and guidelines (Fair labor standards, ADA, veterans' preference, family medical
leave act, etc.), and paying of required benefits such as retirement, social security, etc. For other
benefits such as health insurance, vacation, sick leave, etc.,he would develop his own policies.
The City would pay the employees and at the end of the year, an adjustment would be made to
the superintendent's salary based upon the agreed percentage of total revenues, less golf course
payroll costs.
Gross revenues would exclude interest earnings. Rates for the subsequent year would be
proposed by the golf course superintendent during the budget process. If a need to adjust the
rates during the year arose, a process such as a committee comprising the superintendent, finance
director and mayor and one councilor would meet to approve any rate revisions. Any discounts
offered will be considered a reduction of gross revenues. Sales tax owed will be considered a
reduction from gross revenues. Advertising will be considered an expense but must be included
as a separate line item that must be approved by the City. The markup on merchandise must be •
at least 30% while the markup on food and beverages must be at least 100%, provided that sales
to employees may be between cost and retail. Policies and discounts for league play will be
presented in the budget. The percentage of lessons paid to the golf pro(s)will be excluded from
gross revenues and payroll costs.
IIIPayroll costs will include all salaries and benefits paid to golf course employees. Benefits
include but are not limited to social security, medicare, retirement, health, life, and dental
insurance, unemployment and workers' compensation insurance and claims, specialized golf
course training and seminars provided however, general training provided to all city employees
and other training that will benefit other city departments may be excluded at the discretion of
the City Administrator. The City will not charge the golf course for incidental services provided
to the golf course by other City personnel nor will there be a reduction in golf course personnel
costs for incidental work provided to other city operations by golf course personnel.
The contract will include a requirement that the course and equipment be maintained at
preestablished minimum standards. As part of this contract, the cost of personnel will include
the cost to grind the reels/blades on the equipment; the City will provide the grinder necessary
for this work. At most courses, this is contracted out at a cost of approximately $9,000 per year.
A capital budget will be presented during the budget process and the City will pledge to replace
equipment worn out by normal use. As part of the proposed contract, golf course personnel will
undertake several improvement projects per year such as planting additional trees, shrubs and
flowers, reconstructing tees and/or greens, constructing new facilities such as this year's picnic
area and chipping green. These projects will be presented during the budget process and are
estimated to take approximately 400 hours of time.
110 Attached is selected information from the 1995 National Golf Foundation's Operating and
Financial Performance Profiles of 9 hole Public Golf Facilities in the United States. In addition,
I have prepared a schedule comparing this information to our facility. As noted on the schedule,
detailed information is obtained independently from the overall information; as such, I adjusted
the detailed information in order that the detail would agree to the totals (see schedule for method
of adjustment). Overall, our course is in the top 5% of Frost Belt courses for rounds of golf
played and total revenues. Based upon the detailed information, payroll costs were 44% of gross
revenues; as I adjusted the detail to equal the total expenses, it was 40.75%. It should be noted
that the greater the number of rounds played and the earlier in the year the course is opened,the
greater the maintenance and personnel costs. The noted 40.75% figure was an average of the top
25 and 5% of courses and as such, is probably on the low side. The top 5% of frost belt golf
courses have club houses that average 10,000 square feet verses our 1,800; the larger area
increases their ability to sell more merchandise with little additional overhead since they already
staff the club house for taking reservations, renting carts, etc.
It is proposed that the City enter into a contract with its current superintendent at a base salary of
$40,000 per year under the terms outlined above. Under the contract, total payroll costs would
equal 44% of revenues (40.75%of top 5% of frost belt courses plus .50% for the restricted area
for merchandising plus 1.25% for added maintenance on equipment plus 1.50% for correction of
original design and construction problems and yearly course construction enhancements, for a
• total of 44% of gross revenues). It is proposed that the contract be effective for 1997 through
2001. If the arrangement was working satisfactorily, it would be proposed to structure future
City of Mounds View Staff Report
July 2, 1997
Page 4
. contracts for a five to ten-year term. Any contract should also have a provision allowing the City •
to terminate the contract on short notice for failure to perform.
One other issue that needs to be addressed relates to the 1996 golf season. The superintendent
spent numerous hours correcting construction problems such as the water pump and preparing
information associated with the pending lawsuit. This resulted in 690 hours of work above a
standard work schedule for which he did not receive any compensation. In addition, after
receiving bids for grinding reels/blades of$9,000, he performed the work himself using another
organization's equipment. The City's policy for exempt employees is that they do not receive
compensation for flex-time hours and at the end of the year(March 31st for the golf course), the
hours are reduced to 40 hours resulting in a loss of 650 hours of flex time. Due to the unusual
circumstances in 1996 and the additional work performed by John in 1996 and early 1997, it
would seem fair to provide some compensation. Using a$40,000 salary with retirement, social
security and medicare,the hourly rate would be $21.50 times 650 hours equals $14,000 plus the
value of performing the added maintenance. It is proposed that additional compensation of
$6,000 be provided.
Other information
I have also attached information from the 1996 Municipal Golf Facility Employee Compensation
Study as supplemental information that you may find of some value.
•
•
Revenues
. •
Top 5% of Frost Belt Mounds View's Percent
Public Courses (A) 1996 Actual over(under)
1995 1996 Total w/o Nat'l Top
Actual Adjusted (D) Total sales tax 5%
Green fees & annual passes $286,000 $294,580 $333,621 $313,259 6.34%
Golf cart rentals 45,000 46,350 14,765 13,864 -70.09%
Driving range 28,000 28,840 82,698 77,651 169.25%
Merchandise sales 45,000 46,350 19,836 18,625 -59.82% .
Food&beverages 71,000 73,130 43,387 40,739 -44.29%
Miscellaneous 16,000 16,480 32,949 32,475 97.06%
Sales tax 0 0 (30,643) 0 0.00%
Total revenue, all sources 491,000 505,730 496,613 496,613 -1.80%®
Additional revenue detail:
Rounds played 38,000 38,100
Green Fees $14.00 $10.00 Weekend (C)
Total green fee revenue (Note B) $532,000 $381,000
Green fees per above $286,000 $313,259
Rounds played per above 38,000 38,100
Average green fee $7.53 $8.22
10 Frost belt average fleet size 21 10
Top 5%cart fees $8.00 $9.00
Clubhouse square footage 10,000 1,800
(A) 1995 actual per Nat'l Golf Foundation's report on public golf courses.
Total revenues equals reports total, however, detailed revenues
per the report were arrived independently of total revenue. Therefore, averaged
the top 5 and 25% course detail for all revenue sources except green fees which
were increased by$18,000 so total revenues all sources equaled $491,000.
(B) See Note A- courses with highest total rounds were not the same as courses with highest green fees.
(C) Weekday rates $9, leagues, children, seniors, etc. receive a discount.
(D) 1996 Adjusted= 1995 Actual plus 3%.
Top 5% of Frost Belt Mounds Percent
Public Courses (A) View's over(under) 0
1995 1996 1996 Nat'l Top
Actual Adjusted (C) Actual 5%
Payroll $200,000 $206,000 $159,492 -22.58%
Irrigation water 5,000 5,150 1,250 =75.73%
Fertilizers, chemicals 15,000 15,450 26,021 68.42%
Lease expense - golf carts 19,000 19,570 10,163 -48.07%
Lease expenses - equipment 16,000 16,480 907 -94.50%
Cost of merchandise sold 33,000 33,990 9,918 -70.82%
Cost of food & beverages 36,000 37,080 21,694 -41.49%
Advertising& marketing 5,000 5,150 2,479 -51.86%
Property taxes 8,000 8,240 (B) 0 -100.00%
Facility insurance 8,000 8,240 (B) 1,454 -82.35%
Utilities 14,000 14,420 13,570 -5.89%
Miscellaneous 31,000 31,930 50,865 0.00%
Total operating expenses 390,000 401,700 297,813 -25.86%
Depreciation 78,489
Interest 188,734
Total expenses 565,036
Additional expenditure detail:
Total acreage 220 100
Acreage maintained as golf course 101 45
Maintenance building(s) sq ft 10,000 1,800
III
Number of employees:
Full time year round 3.1
Full time seasonal 4.5
Part time year round 5.0
Part time seasonal 6.5
Estimated Full Time Equivalents:
Full time year round 3.1 2.0
Full time seasonal 9/12 of year 3.4 5.3
Part time year round 1/2 time 2.5 0.0
Part time seasonal 9/12 yr @ 1/2 time 2.4 6.2
11.4 13.5
(A) 1995 actual per Nat'l Golf Foundation's report on public golf courses.
Total expenses equals reports total, however, detailed expenses per the report were arrived at
independently of total expenses, therefore, averaged the top 5% and 25% course detail for all expense
sources except payroll which was increased by $34,000 so total operating expenses equaled $390,000.
(B) Used amouts from the top 25% of frost belt courses verses the average noted in(A).
(C) 1995 Actual plus 3%. 4110
/0112CMAAllk
MI MP \EINEw
Operating & Financial
Performance Profiles
of
9-hole Golf Facilities in the U.S.
•
Public Facilities
1995 Edition
National Golf Foundation
Regional Profiles
This section examines the operational characteristics of responding private facilities and
is organized as follows:
Page#
Sun Belt 2
Frost Belt 10
Regions Used in Analysis*
S '
FROST BELT f r
c4 T 111
llll� �
:\ J
\i„,/
I
� � SUN BELT -
i \ t
*Hawaii is included in Sun Belt;Alaska in Frost Belt. •�
4
• Operating&Financial Performance Profiles of 9-hole Golf Facilities/Public Edition 4
• Operating Data
The following tables depict the operating characteristics of responding 9-hole regulation
public facilities. Keep in mind these statistics were derived independently. For example,
facilities falling into the top 25% in revenues may not be the same facilities for the top
25% in operating income. Thus, total revenues minus total operating expenses will not
equal net operating income for the different percentiles. In addition, because each line of
data is derived independently and not all facilities responded for all budget items,the sum
of these budget items will not necessarily equal total revenues or total expenses within
each percentile.
F
R
Revenues O
S
Frost Belt vs_U.$
. (in thousands) •
Bottom Top Top
25 Percent Median 25 Percent 5 Percent E
• Frost Belt U.S. Frost Belt U.S. Frost Belt U.S. Frost Belt U.S. L
$118 $123 $173 $182 $267 $290 $491 $61T..
.•. . Revenues by Category- = i
a
.. (in thousands) :
Bottom Top 25 Top 5
Revenue Item* 25 Percent Median Percent Percent
Green Fees/Guest Fees $32 $63 $120 $271
Annual Dues/Passes $13 $29 $48 $95
Golf Car Rentals $8 $17 $31 $60
Golf Range $3 $7 $15 $41
Total Merchandise Sales $5 $11 $25 $66
All Food & Beverage Sales $6 $17 $42 $100
Other Revenue $3 $5 $8 $23
•The sum of revenue items will not equal total revenues since statistics are derived independently.
•
Operating&Financial Performance Profiles of 9-hole Golf Facilities/Public Edition
11
7
1
Operating Data0
t (continued)
i
Expenses
V �
;� , FrostBeCtvs.C! S ,. - 7 T
v'! 7-: •' --::y r -ay iiiiiinds) x".`'_.. x +"w; lib`?a.,,•.s.iei.r
Bottom Top 25 Top 5
25 Percent Median Percent Percent F
Frost Belt U.S. Frost Belt U.S. Frost Belt U.S. Frost Belt U.S. R
$81 $85 $124 $133 $190 $204 $390 $437
S
T
Expenses by•.Category , r
.. _. an Moosends) <_„ .t. _c,7-.: .._., -i. B
Bottom Top 25 Top 5
Expense Item* 25 Percent Median Percent Percent0
Clubhouse Payroll $8 $18 $38 $76
Maintenance Payroll $14 $23 $45 $83
General/Administrative ) $3 $6 $9 $57
Irrigation Water $0.4 $0.7 $1.8 $8.0
Fertilizers/Chemicals $2 $6 $11 $19
Lease Expense/Golf Cars $0 $3 $15 $23
Lease Expense/Equipment $0 $0 $10 $22,!
Cost of Merchandise Sold $4 $8 $20 $46
Cost of Food & Beverage $5 $11 $22 X50,
Ad/Marketing/Promo $1 $2 $3 $7
Property Tax $2 $4 $8 $21 •
Facility Insurance $2 $5 $8 $19
Utilities $3 $5 $8 $21
Other Expenses $3 $6 $13 $49
*The sum of expense items will not equal total expenses since statistics are derived independently. I
0
1
III
Operating 8 Financial Performance Profiles of 9-hole Golf Facilities/Public Edition
12
I
.... Operating Data
(continued)
Rounds Played
.r a:;,: :Total Rounds Played in-1994 . ry <;.�
' Bottom Top 25 Top 5
25 Percent Median Percent Percent
Frost Belt U.S. Frost Belt U.S. Frost Belt U.S. Frost Belt U.S. F
10,000 10,600 15,000 17,000 23,000 25,000 38,000 45,000 R
O
` - Average Percentage of Rounds That Were... . __ • S
- T
Frost Belt U.S.
18-hole Rounds 31 % 37% B
Played on the Weekend 43% 43% E
• Total Rounds"vs:.Desiied`.Rounds LT
factual 1994 rounds as a percentage of what the=owrier/operatordesired'to achieval
Frost Belt 81 % U.S. 81 %
Fee Structure
Fee Summary .:.,.T ,-,_ -
Bottom Top 25 Top 5
25 Percent Median Percent Percent
Frost U.S. Frost U.S. Frost U.S. Frost U.S.
Belt Belt Belt Belt
9-hole Green Fees' $8 $8 $9 $9 $11 $11 $14 $14
18-hole Green Fees' $12 $12 $14 $14 $16 $16 $20 $21
9-hole Car Fees' $4 $4 $5 $5 $5 $5 $8 $7
18-hole Car Fees' $8 $8 $8 $8 $10 $10 $11 $11
1 Peak season weekend rates
•
Operating & Financial Performance Profiles of 9-hole Golf Facilities I Public Edition
14
Operating and Maintenance Characteristics41110
The following tables depict certain facility characteristics such as facility acreage, square
footage of clubhouse and maintenance buildings, association with a real estate
development or a resort, and years in operation, among others. Again, keep in mind all
statistics shown here were derived independently. For example,the bottom 25% of
Region l's public facilities that maintain 34 acres as golf course may not be the same
25% of facilities that have less than 55 total acres.
Facility Characteristics --:,..--.-:.... ..,;:i.,:---:r x .:�•. - F
Bottom Top 25 Tap 5 R
25 Percent Median Percent Percent
Total Facility Acreage 55 70 95 220
Total Acreage Maintained as Goff Course 34 49 66 101 S
Average Green Square Feet 2,800 4,000 5,000 7,000 T
Clubhouse Square Feet 1,500 2,400 4,000 8,000
Maintenance Building(s) Square Feet 1,200 2,000 3,200 10,000 B
•
Facility Age ,,,,,-,.:.,-:-, i;-::":".-
Less Than 5-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40 Years
5 Years Years Years Years Years or More
Frost Belt 7% 4% 11% 22% .20% 35%
U.S. 7% 4% 11% 24% 19% 36%
Distribution of Staffing
Full-Time Part-Time
Year-Round Seasonal Year-Round Seasonal
Course Maintenance 1.4 2.1 1.5 2.1
Golf Shop 0.9 1 .3 1.8 2.4
Food & Beverage 0.4 0.8 1.4 1.7
Administrative 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Totals 3.1 4.5 5.0 6.5
Number Employed
by Concessionaires 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2
110
Operating& Financial Performance Profiles of 9-hole Golf Facilities/Public Edition
15
• Operating and Maintenance Characteristics
(continued)
Golf Cars
Average Fleet Siie = ; ' s
Frost Belt 21 U.S. 21
Average Percentage of Golf Car Fleet
Frost Belt 34% U.S. 32% R
0
Percentage of Golf Cars That
Gas Electric T
Frost Belt 82% 18%
U.S. 73% 27% B
Average Percent of Rounds"That Used a Golf Gary. L
Frost Belt 41 % U.S. 45% T
Usage Requirements
Facilities That: Frost Belt U.S.
Do Not Require 94% 92%
Sometimes Require 6% 8%
Always Require 0% 0%
•
Operating &Financial Performance Profiles of 9-hole Golf Facilities/Public Edition
17
•
Alf!' IAA&
V
NATIONAL GOLF FOUNDATION
U.S. Golf Facility
Employee Compensation Study
1996 Municipal Edition
National Golf Foundation
.
Interpretation of Statistics
Compensation characteristics vary from one facility to another. Therefore, in ,
order to capture and portray this diversity, the data in this report are presented
by three statistical measures, or percentiles, as discussed below.
25th Percentile: represents a point at which 25% of the responses fall below the
reported amount and 75% above. For example, the 25th percentile for annual
base salary of Directors of Golf at responding municipal facilities is $40,700; i.e.,
25% of individuals in this position have a lower annual salary than this amount
while 75% have a higher salary.
Median: 50% of the responses fall
below this amount and 50% above.
0 The median base salary for Directors
of Golf at responding municipal
facilities is $51,000.
75th Percentile: 25% of the
responses occur above this amount
and 75% below. At responding
municipal facilities, 25% of Directors of zsm Median ,5e,
Golf receive base salaries in excess of Percentile Patende
$65,700.
• .
U.S. Golf Facility Employee Compensation Study/1996 Municipal Edition v
•
•
Employee Compensation Annual Base Salary/Hourly Wage Data
The following tables depict the compensation characteristics of responding
municipal facilities. Keep in mind these statistics were derived independently.
For example, the 25% of facilities which pay their Director of Golf an annual
salary of less than $40,600 may not be the same 25% of facilities which pay
their Head Golf Professional less than $27,000. Also, not all facilities have
every position listed. Finally, some of the lower salaries represent part time
and/or seasonal rather than full time or year-round staff positions.
0
Annual Salary Data S
T
Golf Operations B
25th Percentile Median 75th Percentile E
Frost Belt U.S. Frost Belt U.S. Frost Belt U.S. L
$ $ $ $ $ $ T
Director of Golf' 40,600 40,700 51,600 51,000 64,900 65,700
Head Golf Professional' 27,000 29,500 35,700 37,800 45,800 48,100
Asst. Golf Professional' 12,200 12,700 22,000 22,100 27,700 27,100
Golf Pro Shop Manager 12,900 13,200 22,200 23,000 27,300 29,300
Golf Shop Clerk 6,500 6,700 13,000 13,300 19,500 20,000
Head Cart Mechanic 21,700 21,500 26,700 25,800 35,100 30,600
Carts Supervisor 8,300 8,800 16,700 17,500 23,800 24,200
Bag Room/Cart Attendant * 5,000 * 10,000 15,000
Starter/Ranger 6,300 6,000 12,500 12,000 18,800 18,000
Practice Range Staff 5,700 * 11,400 * 17,200
These are base salaries only. Of all the positions at the golf facility,the director of golf and golf
professionals are most likely to receive additional income from golf lessons and golf cars.(See page 15)
Less than 1%of respondents
- Golf CourseOperations
25th Percentile Median 75th Percentile
Frost Belt U.S. Frost Belt U.S. Frost Belt U.S.
$ $ $ $ $ $
Course Superintendent 35,000 34,500 42,200 41,500 48,700 48,800
Asst. Superintendent 23,400 22,900 28,800 28,200 34,200 35,700
Course Maintenance Staff 20,600 18,700 25,000 24,400 29,400 29,300
Head Vehicle Mechanic 24,300 23,300 29,500 28,200 36,200 34,700
410
U.S. Golf Facility Employee Compensation Study/1996 Municipal Edition
12
. • Employee Compensation Annual Base Salary/Hourly Wage Data (cont)
Annual Salary Data (cont)
Food and Beverage Operations
25th Percentile Median 75th Percentile
Frost Belt U.S. Frost Belt U.S. Frost Belt U.S. : F
$ $ $ $ $ $ R
F & B Manager 23,500 23,800 29,600 30,000 37,600 38,700 v 0
Head Chef/Cook 24,000 23,000 28,000 27,100 33,400 32,900 S
Cooks 9,300 10,000 18,600 20,000 26,900 26,500 T
Wait Staff • 5,000 " 10,000 " 15,000
•Less than 1%of respondents B
E
• General Facility Operations :.:-- --p:, L
25th Percentile Median 75th Percentile T
Frost Belt U.S. Frost Belt U.S. Frost Belt U.S.
• $ $ $ $ $ $
General Manager39,400 39,000 47,200 48,000 61,300 63,300
Controller/Chief Account. 20,500 21,900 25,000 27,500 29,500 35,100
Business Office Manager 22,300 23,400 26,500 28,200 32,600 34,800
Bookkeeper 20,000 21,300 24,000 25,000 28,000 28,700
Building Maintenance Supt. 20,000 13,700 26,700 23,800 35,100 31,400
III
U.S. Golf Facility Employee Compensation Study/1996 Municipal Edition 13
Employee Compensation Annual Base Salary/Hourly Wage Data (cont.)
III
Hourly Wage Data
Golf Operations x-;
25th Percentile Median 75th Percentile
Frost Belt U.S. Frost Belt U.S. Frost Belt U.S. F
$ $ $ $ $ $ R
Asst. Golf Professional 7.30 7.10 8.10 8.10 9.40 9.40 0
Golf Pro Shop Manager 7.10 6.70 7.80 7.70 9.80 10.20 S
Golf Shop Clerk 5.50 5.50 6.10 6.20 6.90 6.90 'j'
Head Cart Mechanic 7.30 7.30 8.70 8.90 11.70 11.50
Carts Supervisor 5.30 5.30 6.00 6.00 6.80 6.80 B
Bag Room/Cart Attendant 4.90 4.80 5.40 5.40 5.90 6.10 E
Starter/Ranger 5.20 5.10 5.70 5.70 6.40 6.50 L
Practice Range Staff 5.00 4.80 5.60 5.40 6.30 6.00 T
Golf Course Operations - •
25th Percentile Median 75th Percentile
Frost Belt U.S. Frost Belt U.S. Frost Belt U.S.
$ $ $ $ $ $
Asst. Superintendent 7.50 7.90 9.30 9.60 11.90 12.40
Course Maintenance Staff 6.10 6.20 6.70 7.00 7.50 7.90
Head Vehicle Mechanic 8.60 9.40 10.30 11.50 12.60 13.60
•
U.S. Golf Facility Employee Compensation Study/1996 Municipal Edition 14
Employee Compensation Annual Base Salary/Hourly Wage Data (cont)
Hourly Wage Data (cont)
Food and Beverage Operations ;.-==, {
25th Percentile Median 75th Percentile
Frost Belt U.S. Frost Belt U.S. Frost Belt U.S. ., F
$ $ $ $ $ $ R
F& B Manager 7.10 6.90 7.60 7.90 8.50 9.40 0
Head Chef/Cook 6.50 6.40 8.00 7.60 9.70 9.80 S
Cooks 5.90 5.90 7.00 6.80 8.00 7.70 T
Wait Staff 4.70 4.70 5.20 5.30 5.80 5.80
B
Other Operations ,. -: E
25th Percentile Median 75th Percentile L
Frost Belt U.S. Frost Belt U.S. Frost Belt U.S. T
$ $ $ $ $ $
• Lifeguards 5.30 .5.40 6.00 6.50 7.80 7.60
General Facility Operations r' „_
25th Percentile Median 75th Percentile
Frost Belt U.S. Frost Belt U.S. Frost Belt U.S.
$ $ $ $ $ $
Business Office Manager 6.70 8.50 11.30 10.50 13.10 13.30
Bookkeeper 7.70 8.00 10.00 10.80 13.80 14.20
Building Maintenance Supt. 5.70 6.00 7.00 6.70 8.50 7.70
Housekeeping 5.60 5.50 6.30 6.30 6.90 7.00
•
U.S. Golf Facility Employee Compensation Study/1996 Municipal Edition 15
Sources of Additional Income and Employee Benefits
IIII
The following tables depict additional compensation and staff characteristics of
responding municipal facilities. Percentages shown are based on number of
respondents which indicated they had that position. For example, of the
facilities having a Director of Golf, 58.8% said that individual received additional
income from lessons.
:F
w.
Lessons -:: . Association.Dues. ,Education Allowance: R
Frost Belt U.S. Frost Belt U.S. Frost Belt U.S. 0
% % % % % % S
Director of Golf 58.8 56.1 67.7 64.9 61.8 59.7 T
Head Golf Professional 87.2 88.2 60.6 53.3 44.7 46.8
Golf Pro Shop Manager 24.3 22.1 24.3 24.7 24.3 23.4 B
Course Superintendent 5.7 4.2 63.8 61.3 52.4 53.9 E
F& B Manager N/A 5.3 32.6 25.0 37.2 29.0 L
Head Chef/Cook N/A N/A N/A 9.8 N/A 9.8 T
General Manager 22.5 22.3 67.4 62.8 46.9 45.7
Controller/Chief Account. N/A N/A N/A 14.3 N/A N/A
III
N/A =Not Applicable
Percentage of.Goif, _ Percentage,of .� , 2.
. _ ...ems
:Car Rental Fees • _ Green/Guest Fees= x _ Bonus
Frost Belt U.S. Frost Belt U.S. Frost Belt U.S.
% % % %
Director of Golf 8.8 14.0 N/A 8.8 32.4 35.1
Head Golf Professional 20.2 20.7 7.5 7.7 20.2 26.6
Golf Pro Shop Manager N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 14.3
Course Superintendent N/A 1.6 N/A 2.1 17.1 20.9
F& B Manager N/A N/A N/A N/A 23.3 31.6
Head Chef/Cook N/A N/A N/A N/A 14.3 13.7
General Manager 6.1 5.3 N/A N/A 20.4 29.8
Controller/Chief Account. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A =Not Applicable
11110
U.S. Golf Facility Employee Compensation Study/1996 Municipal Edition 16
. Sources of Additional Income and Employee Benefits (cont.)
III
Insurance Paid by Facility
Health Life Business Dental. :•
Frost Frost Frost Frost
Belt U.S. Belt U.S. Belt U.S. Belt U.S.
% % % % % % %
Director of Golf 81.6 84.8 71.1 74.6 N/A N/A 52.6 54.2 F
Head Golf Professional 75.3 78.2 60.5 61.3 12.4 11.3 49.4 50.0 R
Golf Pro Shop Manager 40.0 51.2 32.5 36.6 7.5 N/A 27.5 28.1
Course Superintendent 94.5 94.4 72.5 72.3 N/A 11.8 68.8 63.6 S
F&B Manager 56.8 65.0 47.7 46.3 N/A N/A 36.4 32.5
Head Chef/Cook 41.4 49.1 27.6 30.2 N/A N/A 31.0 26.4 T
General Manager 88.7 85.3 75.5 70.6 17.0 13.7 71.7 60.8
Controller/Chief Account. 15.0 14.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A B
N/A =Not Applicable E
L
T
Other Benefits
• Annuity/
:: .-
Paid Vacation Profit-Sharing Retirementnity/ -._ 40, -. Pension;
Frost Frost Frost Frost
Belt U.S. Belt U.S. Belt U.S. Belt U.S.
% % % %
Director of Golf 85.7 87.9 5.7 N/A 54.3 55.2 28.6 34.5
Head Golf Professional 67.9 74.3 11.1 10.1 51.9 47.3 29.6 26.4
Golf Pro Shop Manager 45.0 54.8 N/A N/A 25.0 28.6 15.0 15.5
Course Superintendent 88.9 90.5 7.4 8.0 69.4 63.0 26.9 28.0
F&B Manager 54.6 63.4 13.6 12.2 29.6 28.1 18.2 25.6
Head Chef/Cook 44.8 50.0 N/A N/A 24.1 20.4 N/A N/A
General Manager 88.7 88.5 15.1 13.5 60.4 49.0 26.4 28.9
Controller/Chief Account. 15.0 15.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A =Not Applicable
•
ill
U.S. Golf Facility Employee Compensation Study/1996 Municipal Edition 17
Item No. �3
Staff Report No. 97-Z/53 SCJS
Meeting Date: July 7, 1997
Type of Business: Work Session
WK: Work-Session;PH:Public Hearing;
CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Authorization of funding for SEH to accomplish tasks necessary for the
implementation of the Ring Road.
Date of Report: July 3, 1997
Summary:
Staff is seeking authorization from the City Council for$11,000 for the completion of several tasks
needed for implementation of the Ring Road through the O'Neil Property. Staff is recommending that
these funds be taken from tax increment funds which have been allocated to Highway 10
redevelopment.
Background:
Mounds View was one of four cities to participate in a design course sponsored by the University of
Minnesota this spring. The focus in Mounds View was on design solutions for the Highway 10
corridor. The course resulted in the development of a"Ring Road" concept which would provide a
local level road system on either side of Highway 10 between Edgewood Drive and County Road I.
One of the keylinks in the RingRoad is throughthe O'Neil roe which is located between Long
property rtY
Lake Road, County Road H2, and Highway 10. The link would connect a new signalized intersection
at Edgewood Drive and Highway 10 located and a new four way intersection at Mounds View Drive
and Long Lake Road. The O'Neil property is proposed for development as a 16-screen movie theater,
office buildings and restaurants. On May 27,the City Council adopted Ordinance 598 which rezoned
the O'Neil Property from B-1 and R-2 to Planned Unit Development, and also adopted Resolution
5119 approving the general concept plan. The stipulations attached to the general concept plan
included the following statement:
"The property owner/developer shall work with the City to deterine the feasibility of
constructing a roadway connection from Long Lake Road to the proposed signalized
intersection at Edgewood, as part of development stage plan review. This roadway
connection is intended to implement the ring road concept illustrated inthe City's
Comprehensive Plan. The City shall take the lead in negotiating with the Department of
Natural Resoucres, MnDOT and Ramsey County."
Since approval of the rezoning for the O'Neil property, staff has met with MnDOT to discuss the ring
road concept and the possibility of realigning Edgewood and creating a full movement, signalized
intersection on Highway 10 midway between Long Lake Road and County Road H2. They were
willing to review a proposal, but would need to see a road alignment, intersection design and signal
sequencing study. They appreciate the comprehensive approach to traffic management which the Ring
Road represents, and the efforts the City has made to reduce the number of driveways onto Highway
• 10.
City of Mounds View Staff Report
July 3, 1997
Page 2
Staff has also met with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesota Department of Natural 41111
Resources, and Rice Creek Watershed District to discuss crossing the wetland on the O'Neil property
to achieve the connection with Mounds View Drive. The City would need to show that:
• there is a public purpose served by the road
• the public need outweighs the no-build alternative
• what other alternatives have been explored
• what constraints prevent the use of alternatives
• whether bridging is feasible
• there are no feasible or practical alternatives that have less environmental impact
Mitigation would have to be provided, preferably on the O'Neil property. The amount of mitigation
depends on which agency has jurisdiction. A contour map of the wetland needs to be prepared in order
to determine if the area to be used for the road is under DNR, or under Army Corps and Rice Creek
Watershed District. The agencies could see reasons for the road crossing and did not appear opposed
to an application.
The developer for the O'Neil property is willing to work with the City to redesign their site layout to
implement the Ring Road. It is in both the City's and the developer's best interests to obtain approval
for the signalized intersection at Edgewood Drive. The developer is concerned, however, with the
length of time it may take to obtain agency approvals for the signalized intersection and wetland
crossing. Therefore, it is important to proceed as quickly as possible to deal the following tasks:
• developing a road alignment and intersection design
• calculating traffic generation and distribution, so we know how much traffic will flow through
the signalized intersection
• preparing a signal sequencing study
• preparing a contour map of the wetland
• preparing the application to the federal, state and local agencies for crossing the wetland
Staff has obtained estimates of the cost for doing the above tasks from SEH, who acts as the City
Engineer(see attached). The estimates total to $10,500. Staff is requesting authorization for an
amount not to exceed $11,000 from tax increment funds which have been set aside for Highway 10
redevelopment. Staff regards this expenditure as critical to making progress on implementing the Ring
Road and to obtaining a signalized intersection at Edgewood Drive and Highway 10. This intersection
would serve not only the theater project but also City Hall, the Police Department, and the Mounds
View Community Center, and provide a safer, full movement intersection for use by residents north of
Highway 10.
Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director
N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\S PECPROJ\SP025.97\RINGROAD.CC!
miprAllI 58.11
3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE,200 SEH CENTER,ST PAUL,MN 55110 612 490-2000 800 325-2055
. 0 . ARCHITECTURE • ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL • TRANSPORTATION
June 19, 1997 RE: Edgewood Avenue
Highway 10 Intersection
Mounds View, Minnesota
SEH File No. P-MOUND9708.00
Ms. Pamela Sheldon
Community Development Director
City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, Minnesota 55111-1499
Dear Pam:
As a continuation of our work with the proposed relocation of the Highway 10 and Edgewood Avenue Intersection,
we propose the following work program.
Work Program
0 Traffic volumes generated by the proposed theater will be forecasted and distributed to the new Highway 10
intersection and along the frontage road. This is necessary to provide volume information for both the design and
analysis of the intersection and the frontage road.
Traffic volume information will be obtained from Mn/DOT and the City.Volumes on Edgewood, on Highway 10
and at the intersection will be obtained. These will be utilized in conjunction with the theater forecast to develop
"New Edgewood Avenue"traffic volumes.
Using volume information obtained above,we will develop new turning movement counts for the intersection.These
turning movement counts are necessary to provide a traffic signal analysis.
Mn/DOT will be contacted and traffic signal coordination data for Highway 10 will be obtained. With this
information,we can insert an additional traffic signal at Edgewood into the coordination scheme. It will be necessary
to review this for AM peak hour,PM peak hour, and the off-peak periods. It may also be necessary to review it for
any special timing coordination that Mn/DOT uses. The impact of the new traffic signal will be evaluated.
Simultaneously, we will be refining the Edgewood Avenue alignment through the City Hall parking lot. The City
should furnish us with parking lot plans so that we can be fairly accurate in our assessment of the revisions that will
be necessary.At the same time,we will coordinate access from the realigned Edgewood Avenue to the newly formed
triangular piece of property to the east, and determine what access problems need to be resolved as part of the
realignment.
ill
SHORT ELLIOTT
HENDRICKSON INC. MINNEAPOLIS,MN ST.CLOUD,MN CHIPPEWA FALLS,WI MADISON, WI LAKE COUNTY,IN
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Ms. Pamela Sheldon
June 19, 1997
Page 2
We will also refine the frontage road and parking lot connections on the south side of Highway 10 at the proposed
theater parking lot.This will be necessary to determine the impact on parking and circulation within the site and the
ability to access the frontage road leading back to Long Lake Road.
The frontage road will impact a wetland west of the theater. We will make a preliminary evaluation of the severity
of that impact.
All of the above information will be summarized and presented to the City staff. Subsequent to the City staff meeting,
the meeting will be held with Ramsey County and Mn/DOT to present the findings of the study. Preliminary contact
may be made with Ramsey County Traffic and Ramsey County Planning(Dan Soler and Tim Mayasich). Mn/DOT
efforts will be coordinated through Sherry Narusiewicz and should include planning, state aid, and traffic
engineering. Finally,a meeting should be held with the property owners and developers to evaluate the positive and
potential negative impacts of the work. Although not part of this program, it may be necessary to meet with the •
neighbors if the work as proposed, goes forward.
Throughout the entire process,we will collect reports and studies regarding development,the Ring Road, and other
area development.This, in conjunction with the traffic volume information and signal coordination information,will
be helpful in developing a potential signal justification report. This will be necessary if a signal is to be installed.
Finally,we will package the information throughout the process so that the report can easily be assembled at the end
of the work.
Schedule
We understand that the entire process is on a very quick time table. We have already begun some work on some of
the elements and,as soon as we receive City approval,we can begin work on the additional tasks. Signal coordination
will take the longest to obtain and produce. We estimate the work can be done in 2-3 weeks. As soon as the signal
coordination data is obtained and work begun, we can schedule the meeting so that a final date is set.
Cost Estimate
Because we are uncertain of the availability of some of the data,we can only provide a cost estimate rather than a
cost not to exceed.We currently estimate the cost at$5,500,with much of the effort in signal coordination evaluation.
We will keep the City appraised of costs and if it appears the signal coordination analysis costs are exceeding
estimates,we will notify you immediately.
•
Ms. Pamela Sheldon
June 19, 1997
Page 3
Would you kindly review the work program, schedule and cost estimate presented above. If you are in agreement,
would you please sign both copies of this letter proposal and return one copy to us as our formal notice to proceed
with the work. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact me at 490-
2045 or John Hagen at 490-2195.
Respectfully submitted,
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.
, '1 �G'�Ciz2Gt-✓
Glen Van Wormer, P.E.
Manager,Transportation Department
• slh
Enclosure
Accepted this day of , 1997.
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW,MINNESOTA
By:
Title:
110
07/02/97 WED 07:25 FAX 612 490 2150 SEH 2002
•
P'1'58 MEMORANDUM
QT.PAUL,MN 0 MINNEAPOLIS,MN 0 ST. CLOUD,MN ❑ CHIPPEWA FALLS, WI 0 MADISON, WI 0 LAKE COUNTY,IN
July 1, 1997
TO: Ms. Pamela Sheldon,Community Development Director
City of Mounds View
FROM: Joel Schilling, Sr.Scientist
Water Resources Department
SUBJECT: Estimate of Labor and Expense- Wetland Permit Applications
O'Neil Property
The following is an estimate of costs associated with preparation of permit applications for a new
municipal street to serve the O'Neil property and provide traffic circulation with future City public
facilities. •
Task One -Wetland Permit Applications
Prepare permit applications for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Section 404) and Wetland
Conservation Act(Rice Creek Watershed District). Also,based upon topographic survey of
proposed roadway alignment,prepare permit application for the Department of Natural Resources.
Labor: $ 2,975
Expenses:
Subtotal: $3,000
Task Two-Topographic Survey
Conduct horizontal and vertical survey within the S.T.H.#10 and Long Lake Road quadrant
sufficient to determine existing roadways,wetland boundaries (delineation line, OHW
jurisdiction)and related utilities.
Labor: $ 1,800
Expenses: 200
Subtotal: $2,000
Total: $5,000
" 07/02/97 WED 07:25 FAX 612 490 2150 SEH la003
• Ms. Sheldon
page two,7/1/97
Please understand that this estimate is based upon preparing and submission of permit
applications only and does not anticipate any meetings with regulatory agency staff or council
meetings.We do not anticipate at this time any unusual circumstances affecting this estimate.
cc: Mr. Steve Campbell,P.E.
•
Item No. 14
Staff Report No.
III Meeting Date: July 7, 1997
of Business: Work Session
K.: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing;
CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Authorization to File Application with the Metropolitan Council for
funds for updating the Comprehensive Plan
Date of Report: July 6, 1997
Summary:
Staff is proposing to file an application for funds available through the Metropolitan Council to
assist local governments in reviewing and amending local comprehensive plans. The deadline for
filing an application is July 18, 1997.
Background:
Funds are available for loans and grants to assist local governments in implementing the
Metropolitan Land Planing Act. The funding is available through the Metropolitan Council and is
intended to provide communities with incentives to review and amend local comprehensive plans,
• fiscal devices and official controls, to reinforce regional goals and to create more livable
communities.
In 1996, the Legislature authorized the Metropolitan Council to transfer up to $1 million from
solid waste bond proceeds to the planning assistance grant and loan program to assist local
communities in meeting comprehensive planning requirements. The planning assistance fund
includes this $1 million available for grants and approximately $770,000 available for interest free
loans. Grants may not exceed up to 75% of the total costs and expenses of the work plan, service
or activity for which a grant is awarded. The maximum grant amount allowed for each
community is approximately $20,000. Mounds View would need to show an investment of
$27,000 in order to receive the maximum grant amount. We have prepared a project budget
which shows a City contribution of$73,200 of which$24,200 would be from the General Fund
and $49,000 would be from tax increment funds. A grant of$20,000 from the Met Council
represents 21.5% of the total project budget of$93,200.
The Community Development Department budget for 1997 includes $10,239 for hiring a
consultant to assist with updating the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is proposing an additional
$14,000 from the general fund be allocated in 1998, for a total of$24,200 from the general fund.
Of the money allocated from tax increment funds, $34,500 would be from the money allocated to
the Highway 10 corridor and $15,000 from money allocated to housing programs. The proposal
for preparing a housing strategy using tax increment funds will be discussed at the August
worksession. The total budget would be as follows:
City of Mounds View Staff Report
July 6, 1997
Page 2
$24,200 general fund
$49,000 tax increment financing
housing strategy $15,000
implementation actions for Ring Road $11,000
design theme for Highway 10 $10,000
economic development strategy $ 6,000
design guidelines for Highway 10 $ 7,500
$20,000 grant from Metropolitan Council
$93,200
A summary of the work plan is as follows:
1. Create set of base maps on Geographic Information System
2. Revise the planning district boundaries to better reflect the linear nature of Highway 10.
3. Update population, employment and land use data for each of the planning districts.
4. Conduct a series of community forums on where Mounds View is today, and where is City
going in the future using Commissions as forum leaders
5. Develop a survey to be distributed with Mounds View Matters
6. Prepare plan proposals for the following areas:
• Neighborhood protection and enhancement •
• Housing improvement and preservation with particular attention to:
a. developing life-cycle housing opportunities
b. preventing obsolescence of the housing stock
c. creating links between renters and home ownership options
d. developing programs to address duplexes, fourplexes and
manufactured housing parks
• Economic development and redevelopment
• Creation of a Mounds View City Center
• Special initiatives in the Highway 10 corridor focusing on traffic flow, land use,
buffering, architectural and signage controls, design features and beautification
• Improved transportation connections between home, work, school, shopping and
recreation, including roadways, transit, and trailways
• Protection, utilization and enhancement of natural environmental assets
7. Update City's Local Water Management Plan (which has expiration date of 1996)
8. Update text, maps and graphics
9. Update development ordinances
Attached you will find the grant guidelines, the application form and a more detailed work
program and project budget. There are a few lines in the application we were unable to complete
pending getting additional information. This information will be completed in time for submission
of the application. •
City of Mounds View Staff Report
July 6, 1997
411)
Page 3
Recommendation:
Direct staff to complete the application form and to put authorization for it to be filed with the
Metropolitan Council on the City Council agenda for July 14. Discuss and indicate consensus
regarding the work program and budget.
Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director
N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\SPECPROASP004.96\CPGRANT.CC 1
111
•
JUN-23 97 08:41 FROM: TO:612 784 3462 PAGE:08/09
III
APPENDIX A
APPLICATION FOR
LOCAL PLANNING ASSISTANCE GRANT
Name of Community MOUNDS VIEW, MN
Name of Contact(Contact Administrator)
PAMELA SHELDON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ,
Address 2401 HIGHWAY 10
(City,Zip) MOUNDS VIEW, MN 55112
Telephone and Fax 612-717-4000; 612-784-3,462 FAX •
GRANT AMOUNT REQUESTED
Total amount may not exceed 75%owe total cost of the work program.
FUNDING CRITERIA AND OBJECTIVES
r e.: , ,ee:,mZ'i .'+�rri'W +`��� �`t��iOySiC°�,I.;i_
1. .Relationship to Regibinal Groh'Strategy•linii',R Son9il,3lneprfut. ;. $Wreak.;,. �;; e ma g ��
. ,.. , :.(r.. • ..7 .1.! . 'IyY• rw•ln� i. 1: 3,' »V.�:'S Pii:•�ti':r4�•7 V
(9 •-•;e•••••1•-•slB PoMtr) :;,:rS,-. ,,R:...::iv;r•'. 1;:.`� ",:. ,r�'n• rn.: rt.::a:a:i ,n
.
• Does your community include the Illustrative 2020 MUSA?
NO; Mounds View is within Urban Area
• Does your community include the Urban Reserve?
NO; Mounds View is within Urban Area
• Is your community within the Redevelopment Area or Inner Ring? 30
SMinneaaolis,Saint Paul and adjacent suburbs.) YES _ i
r•3n<:�i a�Q :+'�:re'tfer:k!"-t".��_ '�t.
2.••.Relatioiiisliil„ RegioOilr5ysteias : `i ii,.:,Z, ,'�, {{..""`. '-` '= .' 'i
�,.r. .pF,.. ...: ^if :/..,.e.. Hy;a�::. `.��.�•;:r:.�•���i�Sc::.F..�:e:J..TM.. '�,�''�.t,,. .,.,. f n , 1�r.:T ,tn��-. •�_.x�• �
...(6 possible�otntt)"':,i4'y •,. :e:?•' i ` .,y: -. ';..:i,.;,.,.74 iisvi iiiii.14 tiV7t.r r • 1.'.' . .
• Do you have Regional Wastewater Inflow and Infiltration Reduction
Goals?
• Are you required to prepare a Local Water Management Plan? YES 2
(Only if watershed management organization has completed a management plan) ,
• Have you adopted Transportation Initiatives?(Trails,Transit,Park and
Ride,etc.) YES
c2
3. . Relationship to Innovative'and Creative laitulagi 001 .- Il _, - �• :
•
'..:�
(8 possiblepointa) - ti : :... : ,•.Y.. : :i:s,0�. rc 1 si - a hal .� r_ g .r : E .;;; ,."_
.
• Will you include Compact Design and Mixed Use Development?
YES 4
-
• Will you include Life Cycle Housing? 4
YRS
ent: .w. , u'iK'?S a•" ::411:•1... ..e
to Economic Developm ' `'
4. Relationship !' , i:= ; . :.• .,r
(12 possible points) : : <:''
• Will you include Economic Development in Transportation and Transit
• Corridors? YES 4
• Will you include Economic Redevelopment Plans or Policies?
YES4
• Will you identify Economic Development in Brownfield Redevelopment
Areas? No known brownfields0
5
JUN-23 97 08:42 FROM: T0:612 784 3462 PAGE:09109
APPLICATION FOR III
LOCAL PLANNING ASSISTANCE GRANT
Page 2
,M, ,,. '1i•rr.'•i..y,. t.'gl!S.i.�tiJ�H. 1s•�i".j'''+7 rS..II JyL(( ar:.�..
5. Relationship to Life Cycle Housing: ;'',:, ; ':'Ny°:.9•;r:l7J 17nb. �r4 .�.I,.v•d:F:Ot•t:;i.••:::... l {f,•.
i �M1"j
• '•:,r . , ., ";.'f. "•, "''�•;t:�..;�:t• .,;'� " «•'�" .,a�rt.,' "rl= �:?ii•��ri�E':ii 3:' �i;.e•:f.` �s�"� f i
(6 possiblepo�nts} ,
:' 1'.;•• iy..w'. ° r:'t:-��•r.': a..'r ,,i,,: L;:+Fe::fi•e:•';�?i�::tr'�,�-„' ni.E.�_e-`7iaF°W.di ":i:9+
• Are you, or will you be a Livable Communities Participant, or have a Life
Cycle Housing Plan? YES 2
• Will your ordinances provide opportunities for Life Cycle Housing?
YES 2
• Will you develop and implement a plan to make rural development densities
consistent with the Regz'onal Blueprint? .
t 6:1 Relatiorishie to I ;iii h., ter'R.
mar'. •`•„i .: :•-
nEergoveiaiuieiital�'Coordlrnation..'r�• r., � A�:�'"�
„,..p '.,:,::..atti:v. .3 f : cT•A:St,I 'C iffriti��.. -= :vw "E" a aY rni*� r, t r--;r.. r..
""[4Parslblepoiti� r�.;f.Eq r.,e n i i,Rr yl^ w u ? c �yC�w .�.'' .=''S �••+'_.: �� .
:' ,.�,r. -�r..421„•.; ..e h 31.,. ,a...;,•y..� r';..r.rcAe t.*it,:7A-.1 gain r . r '• �'. ...:L•:
• Will you work with neighboring communities to Share Services?
(1 to 3 jurisdictions? More than 3 jurisdictions?) 1
«L", rc ����.. •-1S •t r"i3��f•',Y*. < vra.r•-cr - ar ^f�ik t.
�). 2 li hip"to'Cliiiiiii:P)saaii r: s"" ; a yur_ � �}�1^(':,'J ." = �•. ;'p. °- •. --;:.
1`.n, q�W7ltiOns f •..N•Jra Gl,,D- 9f f •' '�., ,04 `� �r �1 -. r.. '.:,{..-t;PiF'yJj. '
.;i •�'N'arff'�,, :} ��y,::;t,,w.��a it r+..:>.:.. •V 7 v7 3 '� r�,� a 7a� ��..� a"'i.6E5'�'ur�� �.�:;r, i"r� �r:.�.
s•J;. g.CGs''t.., ,.:: it e Hpr: "if'P fs�'.oF..r . ,.:7 r a a. xL_ir..F
::.:',,'N).(2posswiepomis) :.x.:•4,,' ,,... ,,a.4.,,a,.'..RT . n9,,,Ta.f:w ?E . ... wet„t*,.„„ti ,rP�`.?cn5 ir, �,rr :n:1..a°�ur. , .s
• Will you cooperate with neighboring communities to plan for
— Transportation,Sewer,Water or Housing(Other)? 2
u n . "•..�':arra s,,a.1.t�:r� :a.gu un . az ..,,,,,rt- .,..nr w g: 1.1.1... .,ter., .
8. `�Plarining°Assistii ce Loan Regilix '-'a 7r " Its , �' '�w:^'= r� ' ,../` ' "'
''ci•6.w.i::�.i�'�idrJvr �.tr•�..ta7,:fw•i;f2,rs,.»i,7ax.'•�� -� �"��K,�,?�. j•° i.:. e,
q. ••. ..,,i.:; , '7'ri• i' 11 ',.ii a. »is �" sr ;.>:l•• siavw.,a a.+i iy+; r• _ a,rc� •,1..
:i 'i:. •�r: ti :. 7•ti✓f:}'a ,q i r . sm•,A.r_. �!. 4 1e •n�:- E.•. rt`r
•:7:.-,�."�:w�si•2`.ti• ..-.a..���C��x•,11�fiW:•,•»ream,r•i:=X"��s�d:+�'RS9i:�"�: -=.''0.,,�•�.••; .`•ei�.:'i.:�:ir.ri+�r¢.'::r?�,37y�r,'�°'�x',•,,���e,.i�e+. �;.r•,r $, _ � K
• Indicate the loan amount and request loan information by contacting the
staff person indicated below.
Be sure to include the following information:
• • Attachment A-Work Plan and Budget
• Attachment B •Resolution
• Attachment C-Optional Information-Describe unique growth pressures and development issues
within your community.
• Indicate name and title of city officials or staff having signature authority for the grant agreement.
Please submit application to:
Linda O'Connor,Office of Local Assistance
Metropolitan Council, Mears Park Centre
230 East 5th Street., Saint Paul, MN 55101-1634
Telephone (612)602-1098
III
6
III ( `f a
A
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
..•;.,,,
'rps:•ParCnerthIls 1997-1998 WORK PLAN
Introduction
The City of Mounds View is undertaking an update of its Comprehensive Plan, in order to better
address the long run health and vitality of the community, neighborhood and housing conditions,
current development and redevelopment issues, the importance of the Highway 10 corridor, and
to coordinate with regional planning efforts such as the Metropolitan Council's Regional
Blueprint and the I-35W Corridor Coalition Project.
The City of Mounds View is located 10 miles north of Minneapolis and St. Paul directly west of
Interstate 35W on Highway 10. Mounds View is in the northwest corner of Ramsey County and
is bordered by the communities of New Brighton, Arden Hills, Fridley, Blaine, Shoreview and
Spring Lake Park. It is considered to be in the first ring of suburbs developed around the Twin
Cities following World War II, with 30% of the City's housing stock built prior to 1960 and 20%
• of the housing stock built between 1950 and 1959. Mounds View also has three manufactured
housing parks, with a total of XX spaces, and 27% of its housing stock is in rental units. It is
bisected by Highway 10 which provides a direct connection to I-35W and Hwy 694. Highway 10
carries approximately 40,000 trips per day.
Mounds View has a population of 12,800 people and has grown from a bedroom community to a
bustling suburb with diverse residential neighborhoods and three quality business parks. Much of
the City is in large, tree covered single family lots served by quiet, country-style streets. There is
also a significant concentration of larger-sized rental apartment developments in the central
section of Mounds View on either side of Highway 10. There has been considerable interest
during 1996-1997 in development and redevelopment opportunities along Highway 10, with three
major projects underway. In 1996, the City purchased an existing building which is being
renovated into a community center, and along with City Hall, they form the nucleus of what is
hoped will become the Mounds View City Center, an activity area with entertainment, restaurants,
offices, retail shopping, multiple family housing, and civic and recreational uses.
Status of Comprehensive Plan and Other Planning Activities
The most recent Mounds View Comprehensive Plan was completed in 1979 and adopted by City
Council on July 26, 1982. Several efforts have been undertaken in the intervening years update
this plan, but have not been concluded. The plan is in major need of revision and updating to
better address current community issues, a changing development climate, and regional planning
activities. A comprehensive housing stock analysis was completed in March 1995 and Mounds
• View's Housing Action Plan, prepared in accordance with the Livable Communities Act, was
submitted on June 30, 1996. Both of these reports need to be incorporated into and expanded as
City of Mounds View
II/
1997-1998 Comprehensive Plan Update
Work Program
Page 2
part of this Comprehensive Plan Update. In addition, the City adopted a Local Water
Management Plan on February 10, 1992 which also needs to be updated.
In 1993, the City Council undertook a community visioning process called Mounds View Focus
2000 which resulted in an implementation plan with goals and action steps in 1994. A five year
goal plan was prepared in 1995. This visioning process provides a possible starting point for
developing current community goals as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update.
Several planning efforts have also focused on the Highway 10 Corridor as one of the dominant
elements in the City's physical fabric and economic base. In response to Goal #7 in the Mounds
View Focus 2000 Implementation Plan, a Highway 10 Redevelopment Report was prepared in
1995, and redevelopment priorities were established. This report was followed by the Highway
10-Area 9 Study in 1996 which examined land use patterns, availability of vacant land,
redevelopment possibilities and market trends. Mounds View was one of four cities participating
in the University of Minnesota Design Course conducted in Spring, 1997. The issue selected as a
focal point for Mounds View was the Highway 10 Corridor, and from work done in this course, a
plan for developing a defined activity district or city center along Highway 10 and bounded by a
ring road emerged. The City Council has also authorized the development of a design theme and •
development guidelines for Highway 10. This work needs to be reflected in the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
Mounds View is a participant in the North Metro I-35W Corridor Coalition along with Arden
Hills, Blaine, Circle Pines, New Brighton, Roseville, and Shoreview. An ambitious work program
has been undertaken with immediate attention focused on a cooperative approach to economic
development and joint marketing, transportation system improvements, and development of a
corridor-wide geographic information system. Discussions are ongoing regarding coordination
of comprehensive planning activities, housing programs and sharing of services.
N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\SPECPROJ\SP004.96\CPW ORKPLN
•
• City of Mounds View
1997-1998 Comprehensive Plan Update
Work Program
Page 3
Proposed Work Program
TASK ELAPSED STAFFING
TIME/(HOURS) COST/SOURCE
1. Create set of base maps on Geographic Information System 1 month City Staff/
(40 hours) Consultant
(Plan Sight)
$2,000
Source: General Fund/
Met Council Grant
2A. Revise the planning district boundaries to better reflect the linear nature of 2 weeks City Staff
Highway 10. Create graphics illustrating new district boundaries. (20 hours)
2B. Review revised boundaries with Commissions and City Council prior to 4 weeks
proceeding with Task#2 (20 hours)
' Update population,employment and land use data for each of the planning 4 weeks Master Consultant
strias. (60 hours) $3,200
Source: General Fund/
Met Council Grant
4. Conduct a series of community forums on where Mounds View is today and 8 weeks City Staff/
where the City is going in the future,using the Planning,Economic (80 hours) Commissions/
Development, and Parks&Recreation Commissions as forum leaders Community
5. Include a survey on the shape of Mounds View's future in the November- 12 weeks Consultant
December issue of Mounds View Matters (100 hours) $5,000
- Develop survey Source: General
- Pretest with Commissions, Council,and selected citizens Fund/Met Council
- Prepare insert for Mounds View Matters;printing and distribution Grant
Tabulate and analyze results;prepare summary report
<::::>.:r ttoti betti t JIo.:ar ,areas3>:;>:>::>::>:><:>:::<:;>:>:>::<< :;>:ini:::>:::<::>:>imii :>><:>:<>::»:»::><::::>:::.:><::i:0]:>:><» :<::: >::=»>: :<:« »:><::::a:]:::>
6A. Neighborhood protection and enhancement 4 months Master Consultant
- Conduct property and housing condition assessment (100 hours) $7,500
- Map information and prepare descriptive text
- Identify problem properties and target areas
Prepare game plan and initial priorities
- Create handbook of enforcement tools
- Create handbook for volunteer enforcement teams
•
City of Mounds View •
1997-1998 Comprehensive Plan Update
Work Program
Page 4
6B. Housing improvement and preservation with particular attention to: 4 months Housing Consultant
a. developing life-cycle housing opportunities (200 hours) $15,000
b. preventing obsolescence of the housing stock Source:
c. creating links between renters and home ownership options TIF
d. developing programs to address duplexes,fourplexes and
manufactured housing parks
6C. Economic development and redevelopment 3 months Master Consultant/
a. collation of past studies and data (60 hours) Market Analyst
b. supplemental market study to Towle Report(Area 9) $6,000(TIF)
b. development of maps and graphics illustrating opportunities City Staff
c. development of strategies and policy proposals
6D. Creation of a Mounds View City Center 1 month Consultant
a. create sketch plan for activity center at Edgewood Drive and (15 hours) $1,500
Highway 10
6E. Special initiatives in the Highway 10 corridor focusing on traffic flow,
land use,buffering,architectural and signage controls,design features
and beautification
Implementation of Ring Road including intersection, 3 months $11,000(Consultant
road realignment study;wetland permits Source: TIF
Development of Highway 10 Design Theme 3 months $10,000(Consultants)
Source: TIF
Development of Highway 10 Design Guidelines 3 months $7,500(Consultants)
Source: TIF
Preparation of Capital Projects Plan for Highway 10 2 months City Staff
(160 hours)
6F. Improved transportation connections between home,work,school, 4 months City Staff
shopping and recreation, including roadways,transit,and trailways
Meet with Metro Transit
Develop transit plan,revised transit routes;coordinate with
transportation portion of I-35W Corridor plan
Update trailways plan
6G. Protection,utilization and enhancement of natural environmental assets 4 months City Staff
Inventory of natural features
Update wetland zoning district maps with new delineations
Create sketch plan of natural features and linkages
Feed results to master consultant,trailway plan
Develop design guidelines to protect&utilize natural features
• City of Mounds View
1997-1998 Comprehensive Plan Update
Work Program
Page 5
7. Update the City's Local Water Management Plan 3 months Consultant(SEH)
$6,500
8. Update text,maps and graphics 3 months Master Consultant
$6,500
9. Update development ordinances 6-12 months Master(?) Consultant
$12,000
Summary Budget:
AMOUNT/SOURCE OF FUNDS
TASK GENERAL FUND/ TIF CITY STAFF NOTES
MET COUNCIL
1.Create base maps $2,000 Yes $10,200 1997 Budget Year
$14,000 1998 Budget Year
. 2.Ping district boundaries Yes $20,000 Grant from Met Council
J.Update data $3,200 $44,200
4. Community forums Yes TIF FUNDS:
$15,000 Housing Programs
5.Community Survey $5,000 $34,500 Highway 10
$49,000
Plan Proposals
Total Project Cost: $93,200
6A. Neighborhoods $7,500 Total City Contribution: $73,200
Met Council $20,000
6B. Housing Strategy $15,000
City Contribution= 78.5%
6C. Econ Development $6,000
Met Council Contribution=21.5%
6D. City Center $1,500 Met Council Limit= 75%
-Ring Road $11,000
-Design Theme $10,000
-Design Guidelines $7,500
-Capital Projects Yes
6F. Transportation Connections Yes
6G.Environmental Assets Yes
7. Water Management Plan $6,500
4110.
Update text,maps,graphics $6,500
9.Update ordinances $12,000
TOTALS $44,200 $49,500
U
C:7
M
i-
U
O
G
•
l...1
v
..a
ti
ti
Z
}
<
2
c.c.
s
IIM
w
aRa
i >€ _
U1t3.:
cilo
f<
:ice: _=>
d
1,1 O
a.
a
CU
EC Ili gsli:;
•
Ls:
-0O
�o oo co _ ._
ch 2
t.�,,, C. y 'v y T J C
Y `° 7 C 3 o G S. y e
QN O o0 C 3 `. y O v = u O
C 00 'O C F ,- C ,.., T m :_O 00 U
< _21.
4. 2 U U C. Z J c y y c E... g2 �- u
< — epi .+i a < '0 U ^ ',., 'W ^ ^ • :i o C.. m
e vi ,F •.:..•ti < 3
ant y,
•i
z
2 <ts
cx
L::
y U
174
O •
-o
4.7
a v
• O1 00 a� C
C ' Y vi O d O L
U 3 ate. E D: y _ c
y C•O .E U M
'y c O0
io 61 0 U m
t T L 7
f<- O 7:3 =U ;n
JUN-23 97 08:40 FROM: T0:612 784 3462 PAGE:02/09
1144 Metropolitan Council
Working for the Region, Planning for the Future
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
LOCAL PLANNING ASSISTANCE
GRANT GUIDELINES
MAY 1997
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Mears Park Centre,230 East,5th Street,Saint Paul,MN 55101
Publication No. 78-97-024
•
JUN-23 97 08:40 FROM: TO:612 784 3462 PAGE:04/09
_• LOCAL PLANNING ASSISTANCE GRANT GUIDELINES
PURPOSE
The purpose of the planning assistance grant and loan program is to assist local governmental units in the
Metropolitan Area in implementing the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. The funding is intended to
provide communities with incentives to review and amend local comprehensive plans, fiscal devices and
official controls, to reinforce regional goals and to create more livable communities. These grant program
guidelines outline the Council's funding objectives, criteria and the disbursement schedule. These grant
guidelines also are intended to implement the provisions of 1996 Minnesota Law chapter 464, article 1,
section 9,subdivision 2.
AUTHORITY •
The Metropolitan Council is authorized to prepare and adopt guidelines establishing uniform procedures for
the award and disbursement of planning assistance grants under Mitmesota Statutes, sections 473.854 and
473.867. Amendments to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act require local communities to update their
comprehensive plans and official controls by December 31, 1998.
In 1996, the Legislature authorized the Council to transfer up to $1 million from solid waste bond proceeds
to the planning assistance grant and loan program to assist local communities in meeting comprehensive
planning requirements. The planning assistance fund includes this SI million available for grants and
approximately$770,000 available for interest free loans.
FUNDING OBJECTIVES
The Council will distribute planning assistance funds based on communities' efforts to meet the Council's
regional goals and policies, and on the communities' demonstrated need and available financial resources.
Funding priority will be directed toward communities located within the Illustrative 2020 Metropolitan
Urban Service Area (MJSA) which are expected to have the highest growth and redevelopment. The
Council will utilize the planning assistance funding to reinforce the following regional objectives:
• Target planning dollars to communities that include the Illustrative 2020 MUSA and are projected to
have high growth or redevelopment.
• Provide incentives to communities to implement comprehensive planning activities that reinforce the
Regional Blueprint(December. 1996) goals which reduce sprawl,preserve agricultural areas, revitalize
the urban core and target job growth.
• Encourage effective planning that creates more livable communities and implements the Council's
Metro 2040 policy goals.
FUNDING APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
• The following criteria are tailored to meet the Council's Metro 2040 Regional Strategy goals. Applications
must describe: the activities for which the grant will be used; the persons which the applicant plans to use in
performing the grant contract; the services and activities which will be paid for by funds of the applicant;
and the applicant's need and ability to pay for the contract services.
1
JUN-23 97 08:40 FROM: TO:612 784 3462 PAGE:05/09 '
Council staff will evaluate funding requests using these criteria in order to target funding to the priority
areas and to achieve the regional objectives. The Council encourages communities to take a proactive
approach to these planning issues as a part of their comprehensive plan update process.
FUNDING CRITERIA
1. Regional Blueprint and Growth Strategy Criteria
• Location includes the Illustrative 2020 MUSA 30 Points
• Location includes the Urban Reserve 30 Points
• Redevelopment Area within the Urban Core and Suburbs* 30 Points
(*Refers to Minneapolis.Saint Paul and adjacent suburbs.)
2. Regional Systems Issues Criteria
• Wastewater Inflow and Infiltration Reduction Goals 2 Points
• Local Water Management Plan 2 Points
• Transportation Initiatives 2 Points
3. Innovative and Creative Planning Criteria
• Compact Urban Design and Mixed Use Development 4 Points
• Life Cycle Housing 4 Points
4. Economic Development Criteria
• Transportation and Transit Corridor Planning 4 Points
• Redevelopment 4 Points
• Brownfield Restoration 4 Points
S. Life Cycle Housing Criteria
• Life Cycle Housing Plan,or Livable Communities Act Participation 2 Points
• Modify Ordinances to provide Life Cycle Housing 2 Points
• Rural Area Densities Consistent with Blueprint and Growth Strategy 2 Points
6. Intergovernmental Coordination Criteria
• Shared Services with 1 to 3 Jurisdictions I Point
• More than 3 Jurisdictions 3 Points
7. Cluster Planning Criteria
• Cooperative Transportation, Sewer, Water and Housing Planning 2 Points
•
2
--:JUN-23 97 08:41 FROM: TO:612 784 3462 PAGE:06/09
410
WORK PLAN AND BUDGET
The Metropolitan Land Planning Act, Minnesota Statutes section 473.859 specifies the required
components of local comprehensive plans. Comprehensive plans include policies, background, a land
use plan (land use analysis, housing, water resources management,historic site preservation, solar access
protection), a public facilities plan (transportation, aviation, wastewater, parks and open space, water
supply) and an implementation program (official controls, capital improvement program). Refer to the
Council's Local Planning Handbook (May, 1997) for detailed information on comprehensive plan
content. Local comprehensive plans should reflect the Council's regional growth strategies as set forth in
the Council's Regional Blueprint.
Applicants should include a work plan itemizing specific planning activities and a budget identifying
planning activities funded by the planning assistance grant. A work plan and budget (Attachment A)
must accompany the funding application. Activities eligible for funding include costs and expenses
directly related to the planning activities specified in the work program and may include staff pay,
consultant and professional services, printing and publishing. Activities not eligible for funding include
per diem payments to appointed or elected board or commission members,and equipment purchases.The
local government should include a resolution (Attachment B)authorizing application to the Metropolitan
Council for planning assistance grants.
0 FUNDING AWARDS AND TIMING
Applications for funding(hard copy)must be received at the Council's offices by 4:30 n.m.,Friday.Yulv 18,
1997. Council stall'will review applications,assign points and make appropriate funding awards consistent
with Council-adopted criteria. Funding awards will be forwarded to the governing body of the Council for
information. Preliminary funding decisions will be made within 45 business days of the date of application
receipt, at which time the Council will commit not less than 80 percent of the grant amount for qualifying
applications. Final gent awards and amounts will be made following the submission and review of all grant
.applications. Applicants will be notified in writing of their preliminary and final award status.
The Council will execute a grant agreement with the local unit of government. The agreements address the
funding disbursement schedule, the authorized use of funds, progress reporting requirements, accounting
and records,audit procedures and grant amendments.
MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF GRANT
Grants may not exceed 75 percent of the total costs and expenses of the work plan, service or activity for
which a Want is awarded. (Minnesota Statutes section 473.867, subdivision 4). The maximum grant
amount allowed for each community is approximately S20,000.
PARTICIPATION BY WOMEN/MINORITY/DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS
ENTERPRISES
• Grant recipients and their contractors are encouraged to take affirmative action to utilize women, minority,
or disadvantaged businesses in their assisted planning activities.
3
JUN-23 97 08:41 FROM: TO:612 784 3462 PAGE:07/09
•
PLANNING ASSISTANCE LOAN PROGRAM
In addition to planning assistance grants, communities may apply for planning assistance loans. The
planning assistance loan program is a 3-year, interest free, revolving loan fund. Communities may use the
attached application and simply indicate their interest in a loan (see application). If a community exceeds
regional housing benchmarks and goals established by the Council (regional growth standards including
Council forecasts and housing mix/density)by more than 20 percent during the term of the loan, the Council
may forgive the final loan repayment.
•
•
4
Item No. 1 61
Staff Report No.
Meeting Date: July 7, 1947
• Type of Business: Work Session
WK.: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing;
CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Pamela Sheldon,Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Discussion of Policy on Removal of Driveways
Date of Report: July 6, 1997
Summary:
Staff is requesting direction from City Council on how to proceed with enforcing the requirement that
single family residential lots be limited to one curb cut.
Background:
At your last meeting, the City Council had two conditional use permit applications for oversized
garages where both properties had more than one curb cut. In both cases, staff was recommending that
one of the curb cuts be removed as a condition of approval. This recommendation was based on
Section 1121.09 Subd. 5.e. of the Mounds View Zoning Code which states in part that"All property
shall be entitled to at least one curb cut. Single-family uses shall be limited to one curb cut access per
property unless, upon application for a variance of this restriction, the Board of Adjustment fmds that it
4110 is in the interest of public safety to waive such." There was some discussion of the timing for
compliance. Staff also noted that direction is needed on how to enforce this provision.
This provision was added to the Zoning Code by Ordinance 259 on February 14, 1977, so it is a
longstanding provision of the Code. There are many single-family residential properties in Mounds
View with two curb cuts. As far as we know,there has not been a systematic program for bringing
these properties into compliance. Staff typically becomes aware that there is more than one curb cut in
' the following situations:
• when we receive nuisance code complaints and inspect properties
• when a property owner, who is violating the nuisance code, is sent a letter notifying them that
they need to remove a curb cut, and they note other properties with the same situation
• when property owners apply for conditional use permits or variances
• when staff is conducting field inspections and notices properties with more than one curb cut
Staff feels it would be helpful if the City Council set a policy regarding how to deal with this issue. We
also feel it is appropriate to ask, at this point, whether the City wants to require people to remove
second curb cuts and leave this provision in the Code. We are unsure why the provision was added.
Staff has noticed that in some cases having large driveway areas results in an unusually large number of
cars being parked on properties and the accumulation of equipment and other items being stored.
Sometimes the second driveway is in poor condition or leads to an area where debris accumulates. In
other cases, driveways are kept in an attractive manner.
• We have adequate provisions in the Code for obtaining removal of equipment and stored items. The
City Council may want to consider a limit on the number of vehicles parked outside as a separate issue.
With respect to the number of curb cuts, there are several approaches which could be taken:
City of Mounds View Staff Report
July 6, 1997
Page 2
4110
Option#1
Make an attempt to determine when the driveway was built, and then allow curb cuts to remain which
predate 1977. Allow property owners to sign an affidavit attesting to when the driveway was built.
There may be no City records which prove or disprove when and how the driveway was built, other
than the initial building permit for the residence. Undertake a systematic program for closing curb cuts
where the initial building permit was later than 1977.
Option#2
Undertake a systematic program for obtaining compliance from property owners, similar to how the
requirement to put trash dumpsters in enclosures was done.
Option#3
Require compliance whenever the situation comes to the attention of the City, e.g. when building or
nuisance code inspections are done or the property owner is applying for an approval of some type.
Include removing the second curb cut as a standard item in letters notifying people of nuisance
violations, in conditions of approval on conditional use permits and variances, and in plan reviews for
building permits.
Option#4
Limit the amount of driveway surface allowed on lots, in proportion to the distance from the street to
the garage or the size of the lot, and let the property owner spend the allotment however they want.
Excessive driveway surface would have to be removed.
a •
Option#5
Create an incentive program, to go along with Options #1-4.
All of these approaches have advantages and disadvantages. The approach taken depends on how
important the limitation to one curb cut is to the City, and how quickly the City wants to achieve
compliance. Does the City believe it is important enough to provide financial incentives? The usual
response from citizens is that they do not understand why the City wants the second curb cut closed,
and why, when they are applying for a permit to improve their property, the City is requiring that they
remove an improvement they want to keep or that will cost them money to remove.
Recommendation:
Discuss the five options presented, and other options as desired by City Council. Provide direction to
staff as to how to proceed with enforcing the requirement that single family residential properties be
limited to one curb cut. Staff will prepare a policy for adoption at the July 14, 1997 meeting based on
direction received.
knt,Ub- kbh-CLe,L0 —_
Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director
N:\DATA\US ERS\PAMS\SHARE\CITYCOUN\CC-REP\T W O DRI V.REP
r Item No. 110
Staff Report No.
1110
Meeting Date: July 7, 1997
Type of Business: Work Session
WK: WorkSession;PH:Public Hearing;
CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Discussion of Policy on Requiring Surety .
Date of Report: July 5, 1997
Issue:
Staff has prepared a suggested policy and some ordinance changes on requiring surety for certain
types of development projects, and to guarantee compliance with conditions of approval.
Background:
At the last City Council meeting, there was some discussion on whether to require surety from
homeowners who have requested approvals from the City, to assure that the conditions of
approval are met. The particular case in point was a request for a conditional use permit to
construct an oversized garage, which also involved the removal of an existing driveway, the
paving of the new driveway, and the removal of a shed from the property. Staff original
• recommendation was to require the applicant to furnish a check to the City for $1,000, which
would be held and returned upon completion of the work, to assure that these three items were.
done. The homeowner objected to tying up this amount of money. There was also some
discussion about whether the homeowner could obtain a surety bond or a letter of credit, in lieu of
providing the check.
Since then staff has done some research on the availability and cost of various forms of surety, in
order to develop alternatives for the City Council to consider. In addition, we have resurrected an
ordinance amendment from August, 1996 which has been waiting for attention, that is also related
to this issue, and we are suggesting that a new section be added to the Subdivision Regulations to
address surety as well.
Discussion:
• How Surety Works
Staff spoke with Fidelity Bank and Western Bank, and with the Fairfield Company which offers
surety and performance bonds to learn what types of surety are available and the costs involved.
We wanted to know how difficult and expensive it is to get various types of surety for both
developers and for homeowners, such as the homeowner who wants to build an oversized garage
and needs to remove a shed.
Companies providing surety and performance bonds are in effect guaranteeing that they will pay
41,
for the improvements if their client defaults. So they require their applicants to provide financial
statements and a credit report, and evidence that the money for the work exists and is being held
City of Mounds View Staff Report
July 5, 1997
Page 2 •
for this purpose. The typical charge is 2-1/2% of the value of the bond, with a minimum charge
of$300. The percentage charged slides downward as the size of the bond increases.
Consideration is given to the credit worthiness of the client. They typically deal with contractors
and developers, and not with individual homeowners. This type of surety does not appear feasible
for small homeowner projects. The cost of the fee alone may be equal to or larger than the cost
of the work needed to be done.
Letters of credit issued by banks include a specific description of the work or list of improvements
which is now guaranteed by the letter of credit. If the person giving the letter of credit to the City
fails to perform, then the City can present the letter of credit to the bank, and the bank will pay
the amount of the letter of credit to the City. Banks usually require collateral to issue a letter of
credit, which could be the assets of the applicant's company or cash or a certificate of deposit
where the applicant places an equivalent amount of money on deposit with the bank in exchange
for the letter of credit. Banks charge between 1% and 2% annualized for issuing letters of credit,
with a minimum fee of$100. For large projects, the City can notify the bank as improvements
are completed and the amount of the letter of credit can be lowered, thus reducing the fee. For a
homeowner, however, the most likely situation is that they will have to put money in an account
with the bank to get the letter of credit, which will tie up the funds until the project is complete.
They will also have to pay a fee.
Both of the bank representatives suggested alternatives for small projects, such as removing of •
sheds or driveways. The homeowner would provide cash, bank money order or a certified check •
to the City which would be deposited in an escrow account, and either returned when the work is
completed or used to complete the work: A money order costs $4.00; a certified check costs
$10.00. The City has an agreement form which specifies that the funds are to be held, and
returned upon completion of the work with interest. (See Attachment 1). All of these
alternatives require money to be put in escrow or held, to guarantee the improvements. There is
no other way to get a guarantee. Certified checks are usually good for six months, so the City
could hold the check and not cash it, if the project was expected to take less time. If a certified
check or money order is not deposited, it could be signed over to the homeowner when the
project was done, and they could re-deposit it in their account. During this time, however, the
bank has moved the money from the homeowner's account into an escrow account because the
bank has guaranteed it will pay on demand. Therefore, the funds are not available for the
homeowner's use.
It appears from our research, that the most cost effective way to deal with guarantees for small
projects is to require cash, a bank money order or certified check to be deposited in an account
with the City where the funds are held until the project is completed. We would not recommend
a guarantee for the actual project itself, as is discussed in the next section, but for other work
needed to bring the site into compliance with current codes.
• Current Code Requirements
Section 1006.06, Subd. 4 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires a developer to enter into •
a development contract prior to final approval of any subdivision, rezoning, special use permit,
City of Mounds View Staff Report
July 5, 1997
1111
Page 3
license or any building permit required for the construction, alteration, expansion or improvement
of land. Such contracts shall include provisions for supervision of details of construction by the
City and grant to the City authority to inspect all work performed to assure satisfactory
performance and completion of the work. The typical contract includes a provision for posting
surety to guarantee the completion of improvements.
In addition, Minnesota State Law on subdivisions includes the following provision:
The regulations may permit the municipality to condition its approval on the
construction and installation of sewers, streets, electric, gas, drainage, and water
facilities, and similar utilities and improvements or, in lieu thereof, on the receipt
by the municipality of a cash deposit, certified check, irrevocable letter of credit, or
bond in an amount and with surety and conditions sufficient to assure the
municipality that the utilities and improvements will be constructed or installed
according to the specifications of the municipality...The regulations may permit the
municipality to condition its approval on compliance with other requirements
reasonably related to the provisions of the regulations and to execute development
contracts embodying the terms and conditions of approval. The municipality may
enforce such agreements and conditions by appropriate legal and equitable
remedies. (Section 362.358. Subd. 2a.)
III The Mounds View Subdivision Regulations do not include this provision, although the section on
�
Development Controls noted above includes subdivisions as one of the items requiring a
development contract.
It is stars understanding that one of the reasons for requiring development contracts and posting
of surety is to assure that improvements are completed, and conditions of approval are met.
There are usually three circumstances under which surety is needed:
• In new development, such as in a residential subdivision, to assure the completion of
public improvements such as roads, sewer and water lines, and drainage improvements.
Other examples would include building acceleration and deceleration lanes, and installation
of traffic signs and street lighting for a new commercial development.
• In new development or redevelopment of a site, to assure completion of on-site
improvements such as parking lots and landscaping.
• For homeowners, who have been given permission to make improvements, to assure that
conditions of approval of met such as removing buildings or driveways that are no longer
allowed.
The current wording in the City's Municipal Code states that development contracts are required
• for a much broader set of circumstances, and if followed to the letter of the law, staff would be
requiring development contracts to be signed for every building permit. This is not being done,
City of Mounds View Staff Report
July 5, 1997
Page 4 •
and we do not regard it as practical. The only time development contracts are being required now
is for projects which have been through City Council approval and a condition requiring a
development contract is included in the approval.
There are some practical difficulties with the current wording in the Municipal Code, and staff is
suggesting the following revisions.
Public Improvements: Most developers are accustomed to providing surety for public
improvements, and staff would urge that this practice continue to protect the public interest. Staff
would suggest that the provision from Minnesota State Law be added to the City's Subdivision
Regulations (Section 1200) so it is clear that surety is required for public improvements in land
subdivisions. For someone unfamiliar with the City's Code, it appears that the City does not
require such guarantees unless one knows to look in the section on Building and Development
Regulations (Section 1000).
Staff would also suggest that acceptable surety be defined as a cash deposit, certified check or
letter of credit, and not a surety bond because they are more difficult to collect.
Private On-Site Improvements: Staff does not regard it as necessary, however, to require surety
for private, on-site improvements which will completed during the course of construction of the
project unless they are unfinished at the time the developer wants an occupancy certificate. Most .
developers regard a requirement to post surety for such improvements as illogical since they need
the funds to build the improvements, and the only practical time to build them is during the
construction of the project. To require them to reserve money before the project starts means
they will have to tie up twice as much money as the project requires. The City continues to have
the occupancy permit as a means to assure that improvements are done. Only if the developer
wants the occupancy permit in advance of completing improvements should surety be required.
The ability to post surety in lieu of completing improvements should be limited to items affected
by weather such as landscaping, concrete work and asphalt paving, and only if delaying these
improvements does not create a safety hazard. Otherwise the project should be complete upon
occupancy.
Homeowner Improvements: These situations are the most difficult, because applicant's financial
resources are smaller, and the City must balance between encouraging property improvements to
be done and making sure that the work gets done. Some of the problems evident at the last
Council meeting could be overcome if staff explains the requirement for a development contract
and surety early in the process. There is no escaping, however, that if the City wants a guarantee,
it will involve tying up funds for a period of time.
Staff is suggesting that the Municipal Code be revised as follows:
• Surety always be required for public improvements, and the surety be cash, certified funds
or letter of credit. A section be added to the Subdivision Regulations to make this •
requirement clear.
City of Mounds View Staff Report
July 5, 1997
III Page 5
• Drop the requirement for development contracts at the time of building permits and
licenses unless:
- A previous approval by Planning Commission or City Council requires a
development contract.
- The project involves redevelopment or rework of the site to bring it into
compliance with current codes, as determined by a previous approval or by the
Community Development Director.
• Require a development contract for rezoning, subdivision, conditional use permits,
development reviews, and variances unless waived by the City Council or Planning
Commission at the time of approval of the application or unless assigned to a later step in
the development process.
In addition, our procedures could be improved by staff discussing the requirement for a
development contract and surety with the applicant at the beginning of the process. The
development contract and surety amounts would be drawn up before the Planning Commission
meeting so all parties know what is recommended. Staff, Planning Commission and City Council
• should make sure the applicant understands the conditions of approval and the development
contract.
Recommendation:
City Council direct staff to bring forward ordinance changes discussed in this report for adoption
at the next City Council meeting on July 28, 1997.
Pivnitik,LL ituLtt-e-ii- . .
Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director
N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\SPECPROAS P007.96\SP-007.CC2
0
Development Contract •
Planning Case No. :NAME OF PROJECT
Development Contract#:
Page 5
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
DEPOSITORY AGREEMENT
In the event that all conditions of the preceding development agreement are satisfied, the City
of Mounds view agrees to pay the Developer( ), the original amount of the deposit
required by the preceding agreement ( ) plus interest thereon compounded
monthly.
The interest rate to be paid to the Developer will be the interest rate paid to the City of
Mounds View on its deposits in (the City's
depository).
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 1997, by and , the Mayor
and City Clerk-Administrator, respectively, of the City of Mounds View, a municipal corporation,
on behalf of the City.
111
N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\FORMS\DE VAGREE.W PD
•
ATTACHMENT 1
5
Item No. {'1
Staff Report No.
III Meeting Date: July 7, 1997
Type of Business: Work Session
WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing;
CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Discussion of Policy on Temporary Events ,
Date of Report: July 6, 1997
Summary:
Staff is requesting direction from City Council on how to handle periodic requests for outdoor events
and sales, often for charitable purposes. Staff is also asking for clarification whether activities
requiring a peddler's license or license for rides, carnivals and circuses must also obtain a conditional
use permit.
Background:
On occasion, staff receives requests from businesses and community groups to hold an outdoor event,
usually for fundraising purposes. These events are typically one or two days, and occur in the parking
lot of a business or church. Usually staff receives the request only days before the group wants to hold
• the event, or the event happens without any request being received. The most recent request was for an
outdoor event at Roberts Off Ten to raise money for a family in need, which was related to an
employee at the restaurant. Staff in this case told them no because of the longstanding sensitivity of the
adjacent neighborhood to activities at this restaurant, and the fact that there was insufficient time for
them to request a conditional use permit. Roberts Off Ten would not qualify as a religious or charitable
organization, but the event was proposed for charitable purposes.
The Mounds View Zoning Code (Section 1100) allows for"open or outdoor service, sale and rental as
a principal or accessory use and including sales in or from motorized vehicles, trailers or wagons" with
approval of a conditional use permit in the B-3 and B-4 districts. Section 504 of the Municipal Code
requires a license for peddlers, solicitors and transient merchants. This section exempts religious and
charitable organizations which solicit upon streets, in office or business buildings, by house-to-house
canvass or in public places. It does not give an exemption for the organization's own parking lot. All
of the churches in Mounds View are in residential zoning districts, rather than B-3 or B-4, so obtaining
a conditional use permit for outdoor services and sales is not an option. Section 408 of the Municipal
Code requires a license for rides, carnivals and circuses. A strict reading of the Zoning Code would
also require a conditional use permit for such activities.
Staff is seeking direction on the following points:
• Does the City want to allow religious and charitable organizations to be able to hold events in
their own parking lots? In parking lots owned by businesses? If so, should they be exempt
IIIfrom review both under the peddler license section and the conditional use permit section?
City of Mounds View Staff Report
July 6, 1997
Page 2 •
Suggested approach: Staff would recommend the creation of a temporary event license to
handle events in an organization's own parking lot. The license review would address logistics
like parking,noise, music, sanitary facilities, and site clean-up, and preventing significant,
adverse impacts on the adjacent neighborhood. The license would be issued by the City
Administrator's office. The Zoning Code would be amended to clarify that such events are
allowed in all districts and are exempt from the conditional use permit requirement. If the
event is to be held in a parking lot not owned by the organization, they would need to go
through the conditional use permit process.
• Does the City want to allow for businesses to hold charitable events in their parking lots? What
constitutes a charitable event? Should these types of events have a simpler review process or
should the City continue the requirement for a conditional use permit for all outdoor services
and sales.
Suggested Approach: Staff would recommend that these types of events, even if for charitable
purposes, continue to fall under the requirement for a conditional use permit for outdoor
services and sales because there is potential blending of business and charitable purposes, and a
higher likelihood of noise, music and crowds.
• Should rides, circuses and carnivals be required to obtain both a license and a conditional use
permit? At present, the Zoning Code does not mention where such activities are permitted
other than the allowance for outdoor services and sales in B-3 and B-4 districts. It would be •
helpful if the Code were clarified, and the I-1 and PUD districts added. The license required
could substitute for the conditional use permit; both are not needed. The significance of
requiring a conditional use permit is that it requires public hearings and the process is longer.
Staff is seeking direction whether this type of review process is desired.
Suggested Approach: Determine whether a license procedure or conditional use permit
procedure should be used for these types of events. Determine what zoning districts should
allow rides, circuses and carnivals. Staff would recommend a conditional use permit process
for parking lots or sites within 500 feet of residential districts, and a administrative approval for
parking lots or sites more than 500 feet from residential districts.
Recommendation:
Direct staff to prepare a policy for adoption at the July 14, 1997 meeting based on the discussion at the
worksession, which would provide direction to staff on an interim basis. Direct staff to also prepare the
necessary ordinance amendments to implement the policy.
Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director
N:\DATA\US ERS\PAMS\SHARE\CITYCOUN\CC-REP\TEMPE VET.REP
110