Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 1997/11/24 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW • REVISED- COUNCIL AGENDA MONDAY,NOVEMBER 24, 1997 7:00 PM A. CALL MEETING TO ORDER B. ROLL CALL: McCarty, Stigney, Koopmeiners, Quick C. SWEARING IN OF NEW COUNCIL MEMBER-ADMINISTRATIVE OATH BY CITY CLERK. D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Regular meeting of November 10, 1997 E. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: None F. CONSENT AGENDA • 1. Acceptance of Advisory Commission Minutes a. Economic Development Commission Minutes-Aug. 28 and Oct. 28, 1997 2. Approve Just and Correct Claims 3. Approval of Resolution No. 5180, Approving the Execution of a Grant Agreement with the Metropolitan Council for a Local Planning Assistance Grant 4. Set a Public Hearing for 7:05 PM on Monday, December 8, 1997, to Consider Resolution No. 5183, Approving the Silverview Estates Preliminary Plat. 5. Set a Public Hearing for 7:10 PM on Monday, December 8, 1997, to Consider Resolution No. 5184, a Resolution Approving the Development Stage Review for the Silverview Estates PUD. 6. Set Public Hearings for 7:11 PM, 7:12 PM and 7:13 PM, for Monday, December 8, 1997, to consider the renewal and transfer of Malt Liquor 3.2%Liquor Licenses. G. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR 1. Citizens: Before speaking must give their full name and address for the minutes. H. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. Consideration of Resolution No. 5182 to consider the reconstruction of Spring Lake Road County Road I 411 a. public hearing b. consider motion adopting 2. Consideration of Resolution No. 5185 Authorizing the Mayor and the Clerk- . Administrator to execute a Cooperative Agreement, a Joint Power Agreement and a Development Agreement with the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority and MSP Real Estate regarding the Silver Lake Commons Project. 3. 1998 Budget Presentation. L REPORTS J. Next Council Work Session: December 3, 1997- 6:00 PM Next Council Meeting: December 8, 1997- 7:00 PM K. ADJOURNMENT • • • Memo To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Chuck Whiting, City Administrator Re: November 24, 1997 City Council Meeting Date: November 21, 1997 Unfortunately again, I do not have a great deal of time to devote to a packet memo. Monday's meeting will include the swearing in of Sherry Gunn. Best of luck to you Sherry and welcome to the City Council. Item Fl - Spring Lake Road: The main event for Monday evening will be the public hearing regarding Spring Lake Road. I voiced some concern at the November 3 work session about Council direction for this meeting and can only suggest that a contrite dialogue be established with the residents. This possible project has brought many different issues to bare for one street project. There are engineering questions, ability to pay questions, investment of city resource questions, environmental questions, traffic questions, property value questions and public representation questions. There will be no one right answer to a project on Spring Lake Road, only what can be decided and why. I would ask Council members to keep an objective eye and a open ear to the • proceedings. Each question and concern expressed, whether it be by residents or staff, has a flip side which will cost someone something. The City policies have been in place and project calculations for assessments and engineering have been based on those policies. As was discussed November 3, while general displeasure has been mentioned with those policies, Council direction for alternatives have been unclear. Mike has drafted resolution options in anticipation of possible policy changes. Currently policies favor a 50/50 split on costs with residents, engineering criteria that values coordinated drainage and longer term investment value, and an overall interest in maintaining a quality road system within the City's boundaries. These of course are subjective reasons for the policies and while they can be changed, the larger reasons for changing them and the impacts of those changes have not been considered by this Council. Staff will attempt to address those possible issues should they arise on Monday evening. In general, the Council may want to think about these issues as they come up: A. Changing engineering criteria to no curb will generally mean shorting the life of the road and increasing its maintenance -What is fair to both the residents on Spring Lake Road and the other City taxpayers for paying for that shift in policy B. Lowering assessment portions shifts more street cost to • other City taxpayers - What engineering criteria should then be used if the City is to pay for more of this project, in other words, what is a good investment here for other taxpayers in the City IP C. Shifting street aid monies to the resident's share exacerbates issue B above D. Assessment law does favor correlating assessment amount with valued added to a property and the City can may likely be challenged. On the other side, there may be lots with large assess- ments that given their highest and best use are correlated to the added value. This approach can just as easily prove the City right as the property owner. The City's action can create added value to the development potential of a lot, and what is fair to the City taxpayers for paying for that property owner's improved value generally is an issue in other circumstances (i.e. economic development). E. The overall objective of improving streets, to what quality and at what expense is a key component to Council policy and resident support. • F. These issues are Mounds View's issues to address and and resolve. How that is done can either pit people against each other, or arrive at resolution. Mike's memo and the presentation by SEH should help in facilitate the discussion and understanding of the issues that have been reviewed to date. Feel free to call Monday if you have any questions or concerns that staff can try to address before the meeting if you think that may help in addressing the residents and City policies. Item F2 - MSP/MPHA Agreement: Bob Long has been working on this and will present the discussion Monday evening. Item F3- 1998 Budget Presentation: It is very frustrating not knowing if and when the Mounds View Matters will reach residents, and I apologize for the confusion on such a critical matter. We intend to go through the same presentation Monday night as we did last week with some minor style changes. Truth in taxation notices went out this week and more people may be gearing up for the December 3 meeting instead. That's it for now. Have a good weekend and see you Monday evening. • COW OF C 11line 1110 -o Phone: (612)717-4000 P A ' Fax: (612)784-3462 t UgS rers ` Partners\`Q I, Sherry Gunn, do solemnly swear to support the Constitution of the United States and of this State and the discharge faithfully the duties devolving upon me as Council member of Mounds View to the best of my judgement and ability. Name: Date: • • -6 PRINTED WITH 2401 Highway 10• Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 r« SOY INK TM fecYclr Frenal C)nnnrhinity Fmnlnvar ed PaPe uraT, Y.. Page d if • November 10, 1997 Mounds View City Council 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL 9 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 10 RAMSEY COUNTY,MINNESOTA 11 12 Regular Meeting 13 November 10, 1997 14 Mounds View City Hall 15 2401 Hwy. 10,Mounds View,MN 55112 16 ********************************************************************************** 17 18 CALL TO ORDER 19 20 The Mounds View City Council was called to order by Acting Mayor Koopmeiners at 7:00 p.m.on November • 21 10, 1997. 22 23 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 24 25 ROLL CALF 26 27 MEMBERS PRESENT: Council members Koopmeiners, 28 Quick and Stigney 29 30 MEMBERS ABSENT: Mayor McCarty 31 32 ALSO PRESENT: Chuck Whiting,Clerk Administrator 33 Cathy Bennett,Economic Development Director 34 Michael Ulrich,Director of Public Works 35 Bob Long,City Attorney 36 37 A. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: 38 39 Mr.Whiting noted that he would like to have a brief follow-up discussion on the City Hall HVAC System. 40 41 B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 42 43 1. October 27,1997-City Council Meeting: 44 45 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney to approve the minutes of the October 27, 1997 City Council meeting as . 46 presented. 47 48 VOTE: 3 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Page t = ' 'J. 1? a November 10, 1997 • Mounds View City Council 1 2. Canvassing Meeting Minutes of November 5,1997: 2 3 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney to approve the minutes of the November 5, 1997 Canvassing Meeting. 4 5 VOTE: 3 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 6 7 C. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: 8 9 None. 10 11 D. CONSENT AGENDA: 12 13 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. 14 15 VOTE: 3 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 16 17 Mr.Bob Wharton of the Lion's Club was present to answer any questions that the Council may have had in 18 regard to their request in Item 4 of the Consent Agenda. He provided a brief summary of some of the 19 charitable donations that the Lion's Club has made in the past,noting that approximately 80%of the money 20 goes back into the City of Mounds View to families in need or to the school system,and City Hall. • 21 He provided the Council with a list of the charitable donations over the past two years and the amount 22 expended. 23 24 E. RESIDENTS REOUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR: 25 26 Acting Mayor Koopmeiners explained that this is the time for residents to address the council with concerns on 27 items that are not on the Agenda. 28 29 There were no questions or comments from the floor. 30 31 F. COUNCIL BUSINESS: 32 33 1. Ordinance No.605,An Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Electric and Natural Gas 34 Utility Companies for the Operation of the Utility within the City of Mounds View. 35 36 Acting Mayor Koopmeiners opened the Public Hearing at 7:09 p.m. 37 38 Mr. Whiting explained that passage of this ordinance would continue the franchise fee into 1998 at a decreased 39 rate of 2.5%. The past five years,the franchise fee has been at 3%. The franchise fee would sunset on 40 December 31, 1998. 41 42 With no further questions,the Public Hearing was closed at 7:11 p.m. 43 44 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney to approve the adoption of Ordinance No.605,An Ordinance 45 Implementing a Franchise Fee on Electric and Natural Gas Utility Companies for the Operation of the Utility 46 within the City of Mounds View,and to waive the reading. • 47 48 ROLL CALL VOTE: 4. 14 7 1 r 1 77 Page 3 N , a - a 1,...;/ • November 10, 1997 Mounds View City Council 1 Acting Mayor Koopmeiners aye 2 Council member Quick aye 3 Council member Stigney aye 4 5 Motion Carried(3-0) 6 7 2. Second Reading of Ordinance No.606,An Ordinance Amending Cable Franchise Ordinance No. 8 319,Article II,Section 4,Franchise Term. 9 10 Mr.Whiting explained that this item was discussed at a recent Council Work Session as well as the last 11 Council meeting. The existing Cable TV Franchise Agreement expires soon and there will be a time lapse 12 until the new Agreement goes into effect. Therefore it is necessary for the City to extend the term of the 13 existing agreement to January 1998. Staff expects that the new agreement will be in place by that time and it 14 will be brought back to the Council at that time. 15 16 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney to approve the Second Reading of Ordinance No.606,An Ordinance 17 Amending Cable Franchise Ordinance No. 319,Article II,Section 4,Franchise Term,and to waive the 18 reading. 19 20 ROLL CALL VOTE: • 21 22 Acting Mayor Koopmeiners: aye 23 Council member Quick: aye 24 Council member Stigney: aye 25 26 Motion Carried(3-0) 27 28 3. Follow-up Discussion of HVAC System at City Hall. 29 30 Mr.Ulrich,Director of Public Works,explained that the City Hall building experienced a heating problem 31 today which was resolved,however some decisions will need to be made in regard to repair of the air 32 conditioning units and roof. He noted that the roof has a number of holes/leaks which should be repaired as 33 soon as possible. He will be obtaining some cost estimates for these spot repairs. He explained that all air 34 conditioning unit repair/replacement options include re-roofing the building. Staff would like to obtain input 35 from the Council as to how much they feel is economically feasible to put into the building. 36 37 Council member Quick noted that the options basically include replacing the existing units or go with a higher 38 tech system and he would suggest that staff be directed to look at both of these options and get some figures on 39 what it will cost to replace the bad units and what it would cost for a better system. 40 41 Mr.Ulrich noted that the minimal repairs necessary would range from$30,000 to$40,000 which would 42 include the replacement of three defective units and patching of the roof. 43 44 A discussion followed. It was the general consensus of the council members that the roof repairs must be made 45 as soon as possible. It is roughly estimated that this will cost between$3,000 and$5,000. • 46 47 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney to direct staff to proceed with getting bids for roof repairs not to exceed 48 $10,000,and to execute such contract as required(Mayor's signature). Page 4 November 10, 1997 • Mounds View City Council 1 VOTE: 3 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 2 3 G. REPORTS: 4 5 Report of Council members: 6 7 Koopmeiners: No report. 8 9 Stigney: No report. 10 11 Quick: No report. 12 13 Report of Clerk Administrator. No report. 14 15 Report of Attorney: No report. 16 17 IL NEXT COUNCIL WORK SESSION: November 17.1997-6:00 p.m. 18 NEXT COUNCIL MEETING: November 24.1997-7:00 p.m. 19 20 L ADJOURNMENT: 41121 22 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney to adjourn the November 10, 1997 City Council meeting at 7:35 p.m. 23 24 VOTE: 3 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 25 26 Respectfully submitted, 27 28 c4a,rnaiteb 29 30 Tamara D. Saefke 31 Recording Secretary 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 •47 48 • Page 1 fir \i1 October 27, 1997 7 L Mounds View City Council PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY,MINNESOTA Regular Meeting October 27, 1997 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Hwy. 10,Mounds View,MN 55112 ********************************************************************************** CALL TO ORDER The Mounds View City Council was called to order by Mayor McCarty at 7:00 p.m.on October 27, 1997. • PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor McCarty,Council members Koopmeiners,Quick and Stigney ALSO PRESENT: Chuck Whiting,Clerk Administrator Jim Ericson,Community Development Cathy Bennett,Economic Development Director Bob Long,City Attorney ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: There were no additions to the Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 13,1997-City Council Meeting: MOTION/SECOND:Quick/Koopmeiners to approve the minutes of the October 13, 1997 City Council meeting as presented. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried • ACCEPTANCE OF ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES: r .ems �"='T `e.�,� rr�A ' _',..... ..,.1 ry . L L) Page 2 • October 27, 1997 Mounds View City Council There were no Advisory Commission Minutes for consideration. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: Mayor McCarty read the Proclamation for Literacy Day which is scheduled for November 1, 1997. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor McCarty asked that Item 8(C)be removed from the Consent Agenda. MOTION/SECOND:Koopmeiners/Quick to approve the Consent Agenda AS AMENDED. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried C. Adopt Resolution No.5174,A Resolution of Appreciation for Fire Motor Operator Lawrence M. Myslicki,Retiring November 30,1997. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to Approve Resolution No.5174,A Resolution of Appreciation for Fire Motor Operator Lawrence M.Myslicki,Retiring November 30, 1997. Mayor McCarty read Resolution No.5174,recognizing and commending Lawrence Myslicki for his devoted • service as a fire fighter and fire motor operator for the City of Mounds View and,on behalf of the City Council and City, presented him with a plaque in honor of his service. Mayor McCarty asked that Item 11(A)be moved forward for consideration at this time. COUNCIL BUSINESS: A. Consideration of Resolution No.5175,Approving the City of Mounds View's Application for Participation in a Cooperative Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Ms.Bennett,Economic Development Director, explained that SEH is requesting and supporting participation in a cooperative agreement with MnDOT for the proposed signal at Edgewood Drive and Highway 10. The resolution is required to allow the funding for the signal to be considered by MnDot in their upcoming budget cycle. The budget cycle is for 1999,but if approved would be available to Mounds View in 1998. She explained that as a part of the application which is due by November 1, 1997,the City is also required to submit an estimated cost-sharing allocation,traffic study summary and preliminary layout of intersection and roadway alignment. She noted that this is a critical step to assure that funding would be available if the city chooses to implement the signal and re-alignment along with the ring road concept. She explained that the city is not committed until a Cooperative Agreement is signed. MnDot will be reviewing the application in early 1998 and make their recommendation. The city would not be requested to review the agreement until sometime in the Spring of 1998. If the city chooses not to pursue the signal and road alignment,a letter can be written to MnDot asking that they be removed from the list. If funded,MnDot could potentially fund 50%of the signal and 100%of the turn lane and median construction. Ms.Bennett noted that staff is recommending approval of Resolution NO. 5175. 411/ A, , 73 .1.,, ,7 .7*- r TD, A . Page 3 October 27, 1997 Mounds View City Council MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Quick to approve Resolution No.5175,Approving the City of Mounds View's Application for Participation in a Cooperative Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Council member Stigney asked for a clarification on the city's right of way costs. Mr. Glen VanWormer of SEH explained that there should not be any cost as it would go through the city hail parking lot,but MnDot needs to see that the city is responsible for right-of-way costs. Mr. Stigney asked if estimated costs were available for Edgewood Drive and the frontage road construction. Mr.VanWormer explained that this information should be available shortly. Council member Stigney stated he has concerns with where the realignment will fall. Ms. Bennett explained that as it is proposed,it would nick the edge of the city hall parking lot. The plan is to add that parking to the south side of the property. Mr. VanWormer explained that the information provided is a very conceptual sketch. The added parking spaces would be moved into the green area towards Highway 10. Council member Stigney noted that this realignment is tied in with the Ring Road Concept and he has some reservations with that concept. He would prefer to see the city get the plans in place before applying for funding. Because no input has been received from the residents in regard to the possible exchange of land,he cannot support the application at this time. IIIVOTE: 3 ayes 1 nay(Stigney) Motion Carried RESIDENTS REOUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR: Mayor McCarty explained that this is the time for residents to address the council with concerns on items that are not on the Agenda. There were no questions or comments from the floor. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Public Hearing to Consider the Transfer of the Off-Sale Liquor License for Murzyn Liquors,2840 Highway 10 to Khahn Van Duong. Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 7:17 p.m. He asked if there were any residents who wished to address this. There were no comments and the Public Hearing was closed at 7:18 p.m. Attorney Long noted that approval should be conditioned upon evidence of transfer of proper title. MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Quick to approve the transfer of the off-sale liquor license for Murzyn Liquors,2840 Highway 10 to Khahn Van Duong,conditioned upon evidence of transfer of title. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Consider Ordinance No.603,An Ordinance Vacating part of a Drainage Easement over Lots 17 and • 18,Edgewood Square for Good Value Homes(lots fronting Pinewood Circle). Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 7:20 p.m. „ , n 0 n 1...) .; r dd ” Page 4 d ' d F L October 27, 1997 S Mounds View City Council Mr.Ericson,Planning Associate,explained that John Peterson,who represents Good Value Homes,Inc.,is requesting that the city approve a wetland alteration permit and a vacation of a portion of a drainage easement that covers Lot 17 and 18 of Block 1,Edgewood Square. This easement was dedicated to the city as a result of the initial platting in 1982. He noted that in order to build on the two lots,a wetland alteration permit would be needed because work will be done within the City's wetland zoning district. Mr.Ericson noted that there are standards which need to be met for a wetland alteration permit to be granted which were listed in the staff report All of these standards have been met. He noted that this project was reviewed by the City's engineer who found them consistent with the City's Local Water Management Plan. Peggy Little,5539 St.Michael Street,stated she was under the understanding that there would be no more encroachments on the wetland. There are only a few wetlands left and the city needs run-off places. She stated the city agreed before that no more lots would be built on the wetland. Lisa Gilpin,2358 Pinewood Circle,stated as a parent she would like to appeal to the environmental effects of this request. She stated as a family they have spent a lot of time down there and have seen many fox and beautiful birds in there. She does not understand how the wetlands will not be affected by putting houses on those lots. Annette Katzmerek,7730 Edgewood Drive,stated she has concerns about the drainage at 7740 Edgewood Drive. That property and the one directly behind it gets half flooded out after a rainfall. If the wetlands are 410 filled in,where will the water go? Gary Collis,2390 Pinewood Circle,stated the city does not even have the acreage of the wetland. The DNR has informed him that if the wetland is over two acres,it is protected and must be replaced. He inquired as to how much of the land on Lot 18 will be built on. He noted that 2/3 of Lot 18 is in the wetland. Mr.Ericson explained that no work will occur within the wetland. He provided a diagram,showing the wetland and Lots 17 and 18. He noted that the proposal is to dig out an additional hole for additional flood storage capacity. The map which was sent out to residents does not accurately depict where the wetland actually is,according to the Rice Creek Watershed District. The home,as proposed would be 35 feet from the wetland. Because the wetland is not being encroached upon,the DNR requirements do not apply. Mr. Collis commented that there is a lot of wildlife back in the wetlands and that by digging more holes,it will ruin the land for the animals. Joseph Milton Gilpin,2358 Pinewood Circle, stated he has a lot of reservations about this project. The property right next to the proposed lot has an abandoned home on it now(Lot 16). This home has been vacant for a year and a half He thinks perhaps one reason the home is vacant is that it has no back yard,only a swamp,and homeowners cannot sell the property. He feels the same situation could occur if homes are built on the other lots. He stated he is against the project and feels the city should keep the valuable open space. Peggy Haselius,2381 County Road I,stated she is the original owner of the undeveloped land on Edgewood Square. When she sold it,she was told by staff at City Hall that they would take anything over five acres for recreational development. If Mounds View owns the lots,how can Good Value Homes build there and make a big profit? Mayor McCarty explained that the city did not take title of the property,they merely took an easement for surface water management. Ms.Haselius stated she has the certificate of title for those three lots III and she will not give them up. She wants the property left as it is. iipiiyi 9 ' J i , ' • Page 5 October 27, 1997 Mounds View City Council Mr.Ericson stated it was his understanding that Good Value Homes was the owner of the property and that they have been paying the taxes on the property,however this has not been verified with the County. Mr.Little,5539 St.Michael Street, stated he understood that after the original homes were built in that area, there would be some land left over. At the time,they submitted a petition around to have members of the community vote as to whether or not they would be in favor of the development of the land. That request was turned down. He feels the city should do what's right for future generations and that the property should be left as it is. Jim Gryzmala,2374 Pinewood Circle,stated at one time he inquired about purchasing the two lots there,but the Rice Creek Watershed District sent them a letter stating that Lot 17 was subject to drainage easements and that no construction could be placed on it. Tim Meehan,2382 Pinewood Circle,stated he is against the property as he feels it would be destroying the wetlands and that a hole in the ground is not the same as preserving the wetland-it is just a holding pond. The home on Lot 16 has absolutely no background,no grasses,no trees-just a deep hole in the backyard. That is exactly what would happen on these lots. He compared this situation to the Lake Calhoun problem,where continual building has affected the water quality. Now they are trying to convert a lot of the area back into wetlands now. SKathy Gryzmala,2374 Pinewood Circle,stated they looked into purchasing the two lots approximately two years ago and at that time there were back-taxes of over$1,600 on the property. She would propose that rather than building more homes there,residents should be given the option of purchasing it to leave it as it is. Bill Doty,3049 Bronson Drive,stated over the years the designations for wetlands have been ignored. Wetlands were meant to be preserved and not just substituted with a hole in the ground. He understood that Lot 16 was never supposed to be built on. Now a home on that lot stands vacant with a hole in the backyard. He feels the Council should consider the original intent of wetland preservation and leave the lots as they are. When development occurs in wetlands,it is merely substituted with holding ponds and the city needs to preserve what is left. Council member Quick explained that all laws,regulations,covenants and agencies have been satisfied before development has taken place in the City. Leah Hager,2387 County Road I,stated she is not in favor of the proposal. Scott Dumouceoux,2359 Pinewood Circle,stated he also is not in favor of the proposal. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:55 p.m. COUNCIL BUSINESS: B. Consideration of Resolution No.5173,a Resolution Approving the Wetland Alteration Permit on Lots 17 and 18 of Edgewood Square for Good Value Homes. John Peterson,President of Good Value Homes,stated they are the owners of the property and have been for many years. They purchased the property from the original developer of the property. He explained that they do not propose to do anything to the wetlands. The land in Lots 17 and 18 is not wetland. They have walked 11 t 1- j _:, Page 6 • October 27, 1997 Mounds View City Council the site several times with the Watershed Field personnel and gone through the entire Watershed process. They have paid over$10,000 in taxes on the property over many years and the property was platted out into three separate lots with the proposed scenario in mind-it was left to be owned privately. There will be more ponding capacity after the development and they are providing more storage than what is presently provided. Mayor McCarty asked what has changed since the original development so that the City no longer needs the drainage easements. Mr.Peterson stated he believes the land was considered to be wetland in 1982 and that is not so. He wondered why the city would need an easement over upland that is not subject to flooding. He also wondered why the property was platted into three separate lots if it was not for the possibility that in the future the easement may not be needed by the city. If the purpose of the easement was storage,they will provide additional storage. Council member Koopmeiners asked if staff has any idea what the total acreage of the wetland is. Mr.Ericson stated only when the wetland becomes delineated is that information available. Mr.Peterson reiterated that this is totally irrelevant in this case as there is no encroachment into the wetland. Council member Quick asked if the Rice Creek Watershed has signed off on this proposal. Mr.Ericson responded that they had. 11111 After discussion,Mayor McCarty stated he believes there must have been some purpose for the drainage easement in the agreement between the City and Good Value Homes,and feels the city needs more time to check records to determine the validity and purpose of the easement and whether it is tied to storm water and wetland issues. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to table this item in order to obtain additional information. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried PUBLIC HEARINGS: Consideration of Resolution No.5168,a Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Mounds View Business Park East Second Addition for Everest Group. Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 8:15 p.m. Mr.Ericson explained that this plat was originally approved by the City Council on October 24, 1994. Because the plat was not filed with Ramsey County within the time frame allowed,it needs to be reviewed and re-approved by the City Council. The plat was reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 15, 1997 and they recommended approval. The Building N site is approximately 6.89 acres and the proposed building is approximately 100,000 square feet. Mr.Ericson noted that according to the city code,full platting is required for all subdivisions and re-subdivisions. The two issues which need to be considered for any subdivision of land are easements and park dedication requirements. The easement document will be prepared before the plat is finalized. The staff has calculated that the appropriate park dedication fee for this re-subdivision is$56,771 and this has been approved by the applicant. • Mayor McCarty closed the Public Hearing at 8:25 p.m. .tea .n ,-, . 1 r • Page 7 October 27, 1997 Mounds View City Council MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Quick to Approve Resolution No. 5168,a Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Mounds View Business Park East Second Addition for Everest Group,Ltd. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried COUNCIL BUSINESS: C. Consideration of Resolution No.5172,A Resolution Authorizing the Abatement of Nuisances at 2349 Laport Drive. MOTION/SECOND: McCarty/Quick to postpone action on Resolution No.5172,until November 24, 1997 and instruct staff to work with the property owner to develop a voluntary abatement plan. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Council member Quick noted that this item has been before the Council several times and he is concerned that the Council come to some conclusion soon. Council member Koopmeiners also stated his concern as to the upcoming Winter season and the need to get the property cleaned up yet this Fall. • D. First Reading of Ordinance No.605,An Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Electric and Natural Gas Utility Companies for the Operation of the Utility within the City of Mounds View. Mr.Whiting explained that the Franchise Fee for the 1998 Budget needs to be reinstated. The Council discussed the city's preliminary budget and it was decided that the franchise fee needed to be reinstated,but rather than at a 3%rate,it would be at a 2-1/2%rate. This would be a one-year ordinance with the franchise fee sunsetting on 12/31/98(this is actually a one year extension of the franchise fee). Mr.Long explained that the original ordinance(#519)passed on November 20, 1992 made the 3%franchise fee sunset on 12/31/97. The franchise fee change is allowed as per the last clause of the ordinance. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to Approve the First Reading of Ordinance No.605,An Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Electric and Natural Gas Utility Companies for the Operation of the Utility within the City of Mounds View,and to waive the reading. ROLL CALL VOTE: Mayor McCarty aye Council member Quick aye Council member Koopmeiners aye Council member Stigney aye Motion Carried(4-0) E. Consideration of Approving the Cooperative Agreement and Initial Agreement by and between the City of Mounds View and Minneapolis Public Housing Authority for Silver Lake Commons. Mr.Long provided the Council with a quick update on this issue. As discussed,staff was to bring back to the Council a Cooperative Agreement and Initial Agreement in order to move forward on the Silver Lake Page 8 October 27, 1997 • Mounds View City Council Commons project. He has been in discussions with the developer and as of Friday,there was not an agreement on some very important provisions which the Council has been concerned about;this being that the city not have any exposure or liability. He proposed to MPHA that they insert a standard"Hold Harmless Clause". This language was not agreed to by MPHA. The developer offered to enter into a separate development agreement,and a"Hold Harmless"with the city,and cover any additional insurance requirements. However,this would not provide the same kind of security for the city and although the risk may be small,he did not feel it would be in the best interest of the city. Mayor McCarty stated he would not support any agreement that would not protect the City. Milo Pinkerton,of MSP Real Estate asked if the city would be willing to give them more time to try to figure out something. He would like to sit down and come up with an acceptable alternative. Mayor McCarty explained that it is the sole interest of the City Council to protect the best interests of the citizens of Mounds View. There are some significant commitments on the part of the city through the joint powers agreements and they need assurance that the entity that they deal with can hold the city harmless in the case of litigation that is not caused by the city. F. Consideration of Adopting Ordinance No.604,Amending Title 1200,Chapter 1204 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Relating to Park Dedication Fees. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to Approve the Adoption of Ordinance No.604,Amending Title 1200,Chapter 1204 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Relating to Park Dedication Fees,and to waive the reading. ROLL CALL VOTE: Mayor McCarty aye Council member Koopmeiners aye Council member Stigney aye Council member Quick aye Motion Carried(4-0) G. Approval to Authorize Mayor and Clerk-Administrator to Sign Joint Powers Agreement for Northwest Youth and Family Services. Mr.Whiting asked that this item be set aside as the City has not received the final draft of the agreement. IL First Reading of Ordinance No.606,An Ordinance Amending Cable Franchise Ordinance No.319, Article II,Section 4,Franchise Term. Mr.Whiting explained that this Ordinance will amend the existing Cable Franchise Ordinance,extending the term of the Franchise Agreement from November 8, 1997 to January 19, 1998. This is being requested on behalf of the Council for the North Suburban Cable Communications Commission. They are in the process of negotiating a new agreement. q \ J Page 9 • October 27, 1997 Mounds View City Council MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Stigney to approve the First Reading of Ordinance No.606,An Ordinance Amending Cable Franchise Ordinance No. 319,Article II,Section 4,Franchise Term,and to waive the reading. ROLL CALL VOTE: Mayor McCarty aye Council member Stigney aye Council member Quick aye Council member Koopmeiners aye Motion Carried(4-0) REPORTS: Report of Council members: Koopmeiners: No report. . Stigney: Council member Stigney noted that the city-owned lot on Arden is in need of mowing. Quick: No report. Mayor McCarty: Mayor McCarty briefly discussed the legislation which would allow the federal courts to make zoning decisions that impact the communities. He encouraged residents to get ahold of the legislators to let them know that they are not in support of this. Report of Clerk Administrator. Mr.Whiting briefly updated the Council on meetings he had with the Mounds View School District and MAC Officials. Report of Attorney: No report. MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Stigney to adjourn the Council meeting at 8:59 p.m. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Respectfully submitted, JantelAai Tamara D. Saefke Recording Secretary • Minutes of the Economic Development Commission City of Mounds View • Ramsey County, Minnesota Regular Meeting 9 .' :, October 28, 1997 City of Mounds View, Council Chambers 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 6:09 p.m. by Chairperson, Dan Nelson. 2. Roll Call: Members Dan Nelson, Ron Schmidt, Rosemary Goff, Tom Field and Steve Larson were present. Dir. of Economic Development Cathy Bennett and EDA Liaison Duane McCarty were present. Members Cindy Carlson and Brian Sjoberg and Alternate Liaison Gary Quick were absent. 3. Approval Of Minutes: Motion/Second: Goff/Larson moved approval of Minutes from August 28, 1997 as amended by Carlson. Motion Carried 5 ayes 0 nays • 4. Special Business Chair Nelson introduced and welcomed new EDC members Steve Larson and Tom Field. Mr. Larson is filling Delane Welsch's term which expires December 31, 1997 and Mr. Field is filling Bev Tarhark's term which expires December 31, 1998. Mr. Larson is a long term resident who's phone number has been the same since he was a small child. He is a stock broker and has an interest in the business issues in the community and feels he can contribute with is background in business financing. Mr. Field is also a long term resident who is a business banker. He also has an interest in contributing to the EDC and feels confident that he can provide valuable insight with his professional experience. 5. EDC BUSINESS A. Consideration of Tax Increment Request by Pelstring Capital Director Bennett gave a brief summary of the request from Pelstring Capital, acting on the behalf of CALPERS, for a grant of$700,000 to assist in the retention of Portable Products, a division of Fiscars, in the Mounds View Business Park building A. The grant request is to help move Sims Deltec who is located in Building A where Portable Products would like to expand into. Director Bennett explained that staff has met with Pelstring Capital to come up with other alternatives instead of a grant request but, according to CALPERS, who is the owner of the building, there is no other alternative financially feasible for them. Representatives from Portable Products gave a presentation on the company and their need for expansion with the current growth projections and expectations of sales in excess of$50 • million by the year 2001. Pat Pelstring of Pelstring Capital discussed the need for the grant in that the owner of the building, CALPERS, is neutral in the situation since they have signed 1 leases from both Portable Products and Sims Deltec. They have made the request in good faith to retain both companies in Mounds View. Director Bennett discussed the other alternatives mentioned for a loan request, Portable Products moving into alternate space within the building or moving entirely into another building. • Commissioner Field suggested that CALPERS incur the $700,000 moving costs for Sims and work the payback into the expanded lease for Portable Products. Commissioner Larson asked if members of the EDC could have a tour of the business to help in understanding the need for contiguous space. Chair Nelson stated that this is a difficult request since the City has not provided grant funds to companies before, especially when there would be no additional tax revenue to pay for the City's investment. Chair Nelson noted that most of the pay-as-you-go TIF agreements that they have recommended were for significantly less than this and that the amount of jobs per investment is much higher than the State average for justifying assistance. Commissioner Larson asked if lease information was provided to the City TIF Consultant.IVIr. Pelstring stated that CALPERS has agreed to give the Consultant that information if the Commission agrees to review the request. Commissioner Goff noted that since staff has not discussed the request with the principals of Portable Products and Sims Deltec that she was not in a position to make a decision on this matter. Mr. Pelstring thanked the Commission for their time and continued consideration of the request. Motion/Second: Goff/Schmidt moved to table the request and directed staff to work meet with the principals of both Portable Products and Sims Deltec to discuss other options. Motion Carried 5 ayes 0 nays • 6. Reports From Chair, Commissioners and Staff: No reports S 7. Adjournment There being no further business before the Commission, this meeting of the Economic Development Commission adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, D�ten: ,L. - 11/11/1 ti ector of E onomic Development 5 1 r • 2 Minutes of the Economic Development Commission City of Mounds View . Ramsey County, Minnesota '"'"N Regular Meeting August 28, 1997 J U ,U U' LW City of Mounds View, Council Chambers 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 7:35 a.m. by Chairperson,Dan Nelson. 2. Roll Call: Members Cindy Carlson, Dan Nelson, Ron Schmidt, Brian Sjoberg and Delane Welsch were present. Dir. of Economic Development Cathy Bennett and Building Inspector Rick Jarson were present. Member Rosemary Goff, EDA Liaison Duane McCarty and Alternate Liaison Gary Quick were absent 3. Approval Of Minutes: Motion/Second: Welsch/Carlson moved approval of Minutes from July 24, 1997 as amended by Carlson. Motion Carried 5 ayes 0 nays • 4. Special Business New Brighton/Mounds View Area Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Carol Frey gave an overview of the Chamber mission, membership benefits and programs. Ms. Frey passed out materials included the Newsletter,Membership Directory and Marketing Brochure. The current membership includes approximately 140 members. Carol attends the New Brighton EDC meetings and would like to be a more regular guest at the Mounds View EDC meetings. Chair Dan Nelson gave an open invitation to Carol to attend the meetings as they are a public forum. Ms. Frey encouraged the business representatives on the EDC to join as chamber members. She noted that the chamber is an excellent venue to learn business issues and keep in close contact with the businesses. 5. EDC BUSINESS A. Consideration of Application for Marketing Funds through the New Brighton/Mounds View Area Chamber of Commerce Director Bennett passed out a draft of the application for charitable gaming funds through the New Brighton/Mounds View Chamber of Commerce. She explained that the application was for funds in support of the production of the Mounds View Community Profile and an Advertising Supplement to highlight the Mounds View business who was the recipient of the Business of the Year award. The City has budgeted approximately$1,500 for the production of the brochure. The application would be for$2,000 - $3,000 to enhance the brochure and increase the quantity printed. . Chair Dan Nelson asked how the brochure was distributed and suggested that we use the brochure more proactively. Bennett explained that the brochure is handed out to all new residents and 1 businesses and is used in the material for attracting new companies to the area. By increasing the quantity Mounds View will be able to give the brochure to the chamber to mail out to businesses that contact them. Nelson suggested that we increase the amount printed to be able to mail to all Mounds • View businesses. Carlson noted that the brochure could be beneficial to businesses in attracting workers and that we should have enough to assist the businesses in attracting a quality workforce. Nelson suggested that if we do not get the additional funds that the EDA support increasing the budget to allow for the additional quantity to be printed. Ms. Frey, Chamber Executive Director noted that the City may want to use members for printing and designing. Bennett mentioned that they will be using a local printer Action Press. Motion/Second: Nelson/Welsch moved to recommend applying for Charitable Gaming Funds for 3,500 copies of the Community Profile and Advertising Supplement and to encourage the EDA to increase funding for the Profile if needed. Motion Carried 5 ayes 0 nays B. Discussion of Establishing a Loan Program for the Improvement of Multi-Family and Manufactured Homes Bennett explained that City staff is requesting that the EDC review possible loan programs, using TIF, for the rehab of Manufactured Home Additions and Apartments, Triplexes and Duplexes. Building Inspector Rick Jarson gave a brief overview of the current situation in Manufactured Homes Parks with faulty and illegal construction of additions. Carlson talked to a Chamber member who owns a Manufactured Home Park in New Brighton and a member of the Minnesota Manufactured Home Association. She mentioned that trying to assist in the rehab of older mfg homes is very risky. Recently, some lenders have liberalized the financing criteria • for mfg home additions and/or purchases and a larger number of these loans tend to go into foreclosure. Carlson suggested that staff try and develop some criteria for a loan in conjunction with the park owner\manager and that they should buy into and support the City in its efforts to improve the living conditions in the park. Schmidt felt that the loan should not be forgivable and that any work should be supervised by a licensed contractor. Nelson suggested that the Planning Commission review the possibility of revising our code to allow construction of additions following the UBC. Motion/Second: Carlson/Nelson moved to direct staff to draft a loan program with the assistance of Western Bank and Chamber Member Bev Aplikowski to bring back to the commission for review. Motion Carried 5 ayes 0 nays Bennett gave an overview of the change in the tax law that reduces the multi-family tax rate and hopes that this savings will encourage property owners to make improvements. As an additional incentive the City may consider developing a loan program that would be an additional incentive to provide improvements to property. Carlson noted that there are several City programs out there and that we should research other programs prior to developing our own. Carlson also mentioned that both of these ideas are expensive proposals because you must deal with the servicing of the loan, possible foreclosure costs, collection costs and that the EDC needs to take into consideration what the actual benefit the programs will be in relation to the costs. Motion/Second: Carlson/Welsch moved to direct staff to research other City programs and bring back information to the EDC for review. 41111 2 Motion Carried 5 ayes 0 nays • C. Consideration of Assigning an EDC Member to participate in the Development of the Design Theme for Highway 10 Corridor Bennett explained that staff solicited proposals from over 15 consulting firms to assist in developing design themes for Highway 10. Of the 8 proposals that were received 4 were interviewed by Planning Commission members Jean Miller and Bobbie Brooks. Two firms were chosen to reinterview by a larger group that includes a member of the Council and EDC. These firms were SRF Consulting and Hoisington Koegler Group. The Council delayed taking action on this item until decisions could be made with regards to the ring road concept. If Council decides to proceed with the ring road concept a task force will be formed to work with one of these firms in developing a design theme. Staff is requesting an EDC member to participate in this process. Motion/Second: Nelson/Sjoberg moved to nominate member Ron Schmidt with member Delane Welsch as alternate to represent the interests of the EDC on the task force when it is formed. Motion Carried 5 ayes 0 nays 6. Reports From Chair, Commissioners and Staff Commissioner Welsch mentioned that he will be unable to attend the meetings on Thursday morning since he teaches a class on Tuesday and Thursday mornings throughout November. Bennett mentioned that the Commission could change the meeting to evenings or another morning to accommodate Welsch. Nelson suggested that another morning be chosen. Carlson said that mornings are much easier since she has many other evening obligations. Sjoberg and Schmidt agreed. Motion/Second: Nelson/Schmidt moved to move the EDC meetings to Friday mornings at 7:30 a.m. • through November. Motion Carried 5 ayes 0 nays 7. Adjournment There being no further business before the Commission, this meeting of the Economic Development Commission adjourned at 8:45 a.m. Respectfully Submitted, LG141 Director of En mic Development • 3 3 • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA APPROVING JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS AGAINST CITY FUNDS WHEREAS, the City Council of Mounds View, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 412.241, has full authority over the financial affairs of the City and; WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the claim numbers: 57400 through 57518 in the amount of$ 157,386.43 56485 through 56506 in the amount of$ 121,142.62 through in the amount of$ • through in the amount of$ TOTAL AMOUNT OF CLAIMS PRESENTED $278,529.05 and has found said claims to be just and correct; It was moved that the City Council of Mounds View hereby approved the attached list of claims dated 11/25/97 by the vote ayes nayes Mayor Clerk-Administrator • :AGE 1 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER 21P-C10-01. MOUNDS VIEW VEND/]R CHECK CHECK INVOICE INVOICE DI NO VENDOR NAME NUMBER DATE INVOICE NMBR DATE AMOUNT }826���1ORGAN, LYNNETTE 57400 11/25/97 11/25y97 35.57 �� VENDOR TOTAL 35.57 71102 HARTER, BETTY 57401 11/25/97 10/31/97 40.00 VENDOR TOTAL 40.00 71106 KINNUNEN, VIRGIL 57402 11/25/97 10/30/97 30.00 VENDOR TOTAL 30.00 /1107 OLSON, JOHN 57403 11/25/97 10y31/97 40.00 VENDOR TOTAL 40.00 /1108 PANELCRAFT OF MINNESO* 57404 11/25/97 11y10y97 10.00 VENDOR TOTAL 10.00 /1109 HAMPSON, JOHN 57405 11/25y97 11/10y97 40.00 VENDOR TOTAL 40.00 /1209 THERRES, ROBERT 57406 11/25/97 1717260 11y25/97 22.57 VENDOR TOTAL 22.57 '1210 W.B.L. - POLICE RESER* 57407 11/25y97 11y25/97 25.00 VENDOR TOTAL 25.00 '7207 HIX , DAVID E. 57408 11y25y97 11/17/97 62.50 111 VENDOR TOTAL 62.50 k2700 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR 57409 11y25y97 10/20/97 96.49 57409 11y25/97 06/03/97 124.61 57409 11/25y97 10/20/97 28.24 57409 11/25y97 10y20y97 27.54 57409 11/25/97 10/20/97 13.84 57409 11 /25y97 10/20/97 152.30 57409 11y25/97 10/20/97 78.78 VENDOR TOTAL 521 .80 '5123 AMERICAN OFFICE PROBU* 57410 11y25/97 314893 11y07y97 72.41 57410 11/25/97 314362 10/24/97 172.57 57410 11/25y97 314249 10/24/97 32. 16 57410 11y25/97 314205 10/24/97 153.72 57410 11y25y97 314209 10/31/97 19.92 57410 11/25/97 CM11535 11 /07y97 14. 13- 57410 11/25/97 314799 11/07/97 84.52 VENDOR TOTAL 521 . 17 /7357 ASPEN MILLS 57411 11y25y97 27390 11y10/97 537.35 VENDOR TOTAL 537.35 0212 B S N SPORTS 57412 11/25/97 B686750 11y10y97 219. 18 VENDOR TOTAL 219. 18 `AGE 2 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER )P-C10-01 . MOUNDS VIEW /ENDOR CHECK CHECK INVOICE INVOICE DI NO VENDOR NAME NUMBER DATE INVOICE NMBR DATE AMOUNT �� 3041�N0 6CONELECTRIC 57413 11/25/97 0021929-IN 10/31/97 628.25 VENDOR TOTAL 628.25 32005 BEISSWENGER'S 57414 11/25/97 470050 11/07/97 124. 15 57414 11/25/97 470124 11/07/97 85. 17 57414 11/25/97 470125 11/07/97 95.84- 57414 11/25y97 473696 11 /13/97 2.34 57414 11 /25/97 388143 10/01/97 3.60 57414 11/25/97 469489 11/06/97 21 .21 57414 11/25/97 476312 11/17/97 19.81 57414 11/25/97 467578 11/03/97 3.61 57414 11/25/97 47:3968 11/1:3/97 3.83 57414 11/25/97 467494 11/03/97 33.66 57414 11/25/97 476582 11/17/97 4.61 57414 11/25/97 :375245 09/11/97 43.45 VENDOR TOTAL 249.60 32050 BEST BUY 'CO. , INC. 57416 11/25/97 0110115442 10/28/97 72.98 57414 11 /25/97 0110115592 11/01/97 63.88 VENDOR TOTAL 136.86 33005 BLAINE, CITY OF 57417 11/25/97 • 11/01/97 20.76 57417 11/25/97 11/01/97 25.98 57417 11/25/97 8707 11/18/97 45374.68 ' 57417 11/25/97 8709 11/18/97 1017.61 • VENDOR TOTAL 46439.03 35982 BOYER TRUCK PARTS 57418 11/25/97 658063 11/13/97 9.99 57418 11y25/97 658064 11/13/97 66.86 57418 11/25/97 657865 11/12/97 12. 10 VENDOR TOTAL 88.95 37180 BUMPER TO BUMPER 57419 11/25/97 0263155 10/24/97 3.22 57419 11 /25/97 0263780 10/27/97 73.66 57419 11/25/97 0258226 10/10/97 117,68 57419 11 /25/97 0261729 10/21y97 47,38 57419 11y25/97 0259938 10/15/97 136,05 57419 11/25/97 0261774 10/21/97 :3,51 57419 11/25/97 0258453 10/10/97 45.84 57419 11/25/97 0249723 09/16y97 37. 15 57419 11/25/97 0241882 08/22/97 24.22 57419 11/25/97 C11:338 07/31/97 108.08- 57419 11/25/97 C11153 07/23/97 9.80- 57419 11/25/97 C10857 07y07/97 10. 16- 57419 11/25/97 C11152 07/23/97 15.34- 57419 11 /25/97 C11037 07/15/97 10.85- 57419 11/25/97 C11039 07/15/97 8.52- 57419 11 /25/97 0266790 11/04/97 14,90 57419 11/25/97 0267432 11/05/97 8.50 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIOIIO `AGE 3 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER \P-C10-01 ' MOUNDS VIEW /ENDOR CHECK CHECK INVOICE INVOICE DI NO VENDOR NAME NUMBER DATE INVOICE NMBR DATE AMOUNT ���� 57419 11/25/97 D270191 11/12/97 27.86 �N� 57419 11/25/97 D270547 11/13y97 76.71 57419 11/25/97 D270597 11/13/97 80.51 57419 11/25/97 D271518 11/17/97 36.00 57419 11/25/97 D59773 06/19/97 271 . 11 VENDOR TOTAL 841 .55 ;0590 CAR-X MUFFLER & BRAKE 57423 11/25y97 5789 10/13/97 199.07 VENDOR TOTAL 199.07 ;3016 CHAMPION AUTO 57424 11/25/97 10304 10/22/97 21 . 19 VENDOR TOTAL 21 . 19 ;5841 COMMUNITY PARTNERS IN* 57425 11/25y97 10/31/97 409. 10 VENDOR TOTAL 409. 10 ;6000 COPY SALES, INC. 57426 11/25y97 057773 11/10/97 943.77 57426 11/25/97 057567 10/29/97 15. 12 VENDOR TOTAL 958.89 ;6025 COTTENS INC 57427 11/25/97 240115 10/31/97 9.59 57427 11/25/97 240082 10/31 /97 22.05 VENDOR TOTAL 31 .64 ;7080 CUES, INC. 57428 11/25/97 110815 10/28/97 301 .69 VENDOR TOTAL 301 .69 III )0050 DCA, INC. 57429 11/25/97 98107 10/31/97 158. 10 VENDOR TOTAL 158. 10 )1925 DEHN OIL COMPANY 57430 11/25/97 6272 11/05/97 3355.47 VENDOR TOTAL 3355.47 )4850 DISH NETWORK 57432 11/25/97 10/27/97 5.34 VENDOR TOTAL 5.34 '9020 ERICKSON'S NEWMARKET 57433 11/25y97 8362 10/21/97 45.69 57433 11/25/97 11 /12/97 91 .05 VENDOR TOTAL 136.74 '.9028 ERICSON, JIM 57434 11/25/97 11/01/97 13.20 VENDOR TOTAL 13.20 :9095 EXECUTONE 57435 11/25/97 98910 11/05y97 489.00 57435 11/25/97 98883 10/30/97 170.50 VENDOR TOTAL 659.50 '1925 FEDORS MARKET 57436 11/25/97 6029 10/16/97 3.70 57436 11/25/97 552:3 10/31/97 6. 16 VENDOR TOTAL 9.86 :'AGF .4 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER 4P—C10-01 . MOUNDS VIEW ,ENDOR CHECK'•. CHECK INVOICE INVOICE DT NO VENDOR NAME NUMBER DATE INVOICE NNBR DATE. AMOUNT 2011kEED._R I TE CONTROLS TN* 57437 11 /25/Q7 38263_3 1. 1 /0'•,,`,I' 11.39,94 57437 11/25/ '7 38530 11/:06/=7 6:39_:20 VENDOR TOTAL. 1778. 14 7590.30 FOUR BY FOUR SERVICE 57438 11/25/97 108551 11/17/Q7 30.00 VENDOR TOTAL :30.00 75c/c/5 95 FOX PRODUCTS, LLC 5743Q 4:3Q 11 / '5/Q7 11006 11/03/Q7 =:4 , 19 VENDOR TOTAL 84. 1': 300 FREEWAY TOWING 57444 11/25/Q7 665 11/05,{9; 50.00 VENDOR TOTAL 50.00 :°100 FURST GROUP, INC 57441 11/25,1°7 10/22/'x,7 15.25 VENDOR TOTAL 15.25 30150 G T E DIRECTORIES CORii• 57442 11/25/Q7 11 %05/Q7 12.50 VENDOR TOTAL =3,,5(1 32100 GENERATOR SPECIALTY C* 57443 11/25/Q7 104•° '5 10/20/Q7 146.00 VENDOR TOTAL 146.00 32375 GIFT CERTIFICATE CENT* 57444 11/25/°7 11/01/Q7 162,90 VENDOR TOTAL 162,:9 0 3:24•GLASSMASTERS, INC 57445 11/"5/Q7 00027950 11/12/Q7 40„00 VENDOR TOTAL. 40.00 35700 GOLF MINNESOTA 57446 11/25/Q7 Qen67 11/14/Q7 1575,00 VENDOR TOTAL 1575,00 35835 GOODHUE COUNTY NATION* 57447 11 /25/Q7 5274.6 11/12/Q7 257A08 VENDOR TOTAL 257.08 35880 GOPHER STATE ONE—CALL* 57448 11/25/Q7 7100454 10/D1 /Q7 199,00 VENDOR TOTAL 18''.00 36700 GREAT LAKES WEATHER S* 5744c)4`=9 11t25/'=`7 10/06/Q7 5'7.00 VENDOR TOTAL 527.00 36 755 W W GRA I NGER INC 57450 11 /25/Q7 497-139209-9 11/05/Q7 10b;;5 57450 G J:-,5 n `,"T4Q7-13Q664-5 28. 12 57450 11/25/°7 4Q7-137542-5 i I9 _ . 12 VENDOR TOTAL 67. 1c) 104.75 HAML I NE HARDWARE & PA,'*. 57451 11/25/Q7 184825 08/2t./Q7 127.75 VENDOR TOTAL 127.75 -5847 HORNUNG•`S PRO GOLF SA* 57452 11/25/Q7 Q10061 05/"2/Q7 108.5Q ,'AGE 5 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER )P—C10-01 - MOUNDS VIEW IENDOR CHECK CHECK INVOICE INVOICE DI NO VENDOR NAME NUMBER DATE INVOICE NMBR DATE AMOUNT IIIVENDOR TOTAL :t0859 -17000 HYDRAULIC SPECIALTY C* 57453 11/25/9 22219 11!14/97 41.7 .86 57453 11/25/97 22226 11/14/97 2. , 2 VENDOR TOTAL 96.',:.15 [3000 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 57454 11 /25/97 1.3485A 11/05/97 149n61 VENDOR TOTAL 149.61 [5305 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL D I* 57455 11 /25/97 11/13i/97 4380.53 VENDOR TOTAL. 4880.53 [5375 INDUSTRIAL DOOR CO. , * 57456 11 /25/97 0017855-1N2 09/01/97 201 .25 VENDOR TOTAL 201 .25 1 000 KENNEDY & GRAVEN 57457 11 /25/97 13931 11/13/97 177`F6013 57457 11/25/97 11/25/97 3022.50 57157 11 /25/97 11/25/97 19434.80 5/457 11/25/9/ 11/25/97 8443.80 VENDOR TOTAL 48917.23 _0500 LAKE COUNTRY CHAPTER * 57460 11/25/97 11/01/97 20.00 VENDOR TOTAL , 20.00 .1871 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES I* 57461 11/25/97 11/05/97 22.84 IIIVENDOR TOTAL 22.84 _3545 L I LL I E SUBURBAN NE SP* 57462 11/25/97 11;•25/97 7095 VENDOR TOTAL 70.95 _6500 LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES 57463 11/25/7 524406=7628 11 /02/97 50.48 VENDOR •TOTAL 50.48 10025 M,A.U,M.A. 57464 11/25/97 11/01/9 :::0.00 VENDOR TOTAL 30.00 10245 MPH INDUSTRIES , INC. 57465 11/25/97 550526 09/26/97 74 55.00 VENDOR TOTAL 7455.00 11:320 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO 517446 11/25/97 1196448 11/25/97 8.52 VENDOR TOTAL 8.52 1(6:330 MAC QUEEN EQUIPMENT I * 57467 11/25/97 29710367 11/25/97 ;,5,8{j 57467 11/2S/97 2971076.2 11/25/97 42a _2 57447 11/25/97 .29710744. 11 /25/97 5„69 VENDOR TOTAL 114. 31 10474 MAIL BOXES ETC #1046 57463 11 /25/97 109706 11/25/9'•7 7:3.29 VENDOR TOTAL 73.29 `AGE 6 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER 4P-C10-01 . MOUNDS VIEW /ENDOR CHECK CHECK INVOICE INVOICE DI NO VENDOR NAME NUMBER DATE INVOICE NMBR DATE AMOUNT 107 TERING COMPUTERS, * 57469 11/25/97 MIN9709-101 11y04/97 299.00 �N� VENDOR TOTAL 299.00 12075 MENARDS 57470 11/25/97 99201 11/12/97 30.34 VENDOR TOTAL 30.34 12150 METAL MAGIC PAINTERS 57471 11/25/97 196991 11/25/97 665.00 VENDOR TOTAL 665.00 12164 METRO LEGAL SERVICES,* 57472 11/25/97 760375 11/03/97 12.00 57472 11y25/97 760732 11y25y97 12.00 57472 11y25/97 76:3021 11/25/97 12.00 VENDOR TOTAL 36.00 13439 MIDWEST LUBE, INC 5747:3 11y25/97 007006 11/25y97 96.90 VENDOR TOTAL 96.90 13442 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPO* 57474 11/25/97 27705 11/25/97 33.95 VENDOR TOTAL 33.95 13444 MIDWEST COCA-COLA BOT* 57475 11/25y97 00227749 11/01y97 14.91 57475 11y25/97 614110:37 11y12/97 170. 15 57475 11/25/97 102468735 10/07/97 5.70 57475 11/25/97 103213125 10/07/97 50.00- VENDOR TOTAL 140.76 13441/MIDWEST 134��� RADIATOR, INC* 57476 11/25/97 2319549 11/25/97 249.23 `�N�r . VENDOR TOTAL 249.23 1:3700 MINNEGASCO ' 57477 -11/25/97 11/25/97 7.92 VENDOR TOTAL. 7.92 14()()2 MINN ST HORTICULTURAL* 57478 11/25/97 11/25/97 25.00 VENDOR TOTAL 25.00 15470 MITA FINANCIAL SERVIC* 57479 11y25/97 20350155 11/01/97 102.99 VENDOR TOTAL 102.99 16000 MOUNDS VIEW, CITY OF 57480 11y25/97 97397 08/29/97 .50 57480 11/25/97 97291 07/17/97 .50 57480 11/25/97 97124 09/30/97 19.92 57480 11/25/97 11/01/97 40.00 VENDOR •TOTAL 60.92 q0700 NATIONAL GOLF FOUNDAT* 57481 11/25/97 11/25/97 85.00 VENDOR TOTAL 85.00 '41126 NATIONAL INDEPENDENT * 57482 11/25/97 10/31/97 54.00 VENDOR TOTAL 54.00 II" W3E 7 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER 4P-C10-01. MOUNDS VIEW /END/]R CHECK CHECK INVOICE INVOICE DI NO VENDOR NAME NUMBER DATE INVOICE NMBR DATE AMOUNT 4ORTH STAR TURF, INC 57483 11/25y97 159502 11/25/97 35.00 ��r 57483 11/25/97 153831 11/25y97 89.63 57483 11/25/97 151106 11/25/97 1131 .03 57483 11/25/97 150392 11y25y97 364.23 57483 11y25y97 150016 11/25/97 42.34 VENDOR TOTAL 1662.23 44200 NORTHERN STATES POWER* 57484 11/25y97 521503007305 11/03/97 3986.97 57484 11 /25/97 680027169307 11y03/97 14.37 57484 11/25/97 11/25/97 24.66 VENDOR TOTAL 4026.00 44207 NORTHERN WATER WORKS * 57485 11 /25/97 M177985-1 11/25/97 410.03 57485 11/25y97 M177985 11/25/97 585.75 57485 11/25/97 M173524 11/25y97 3594.38 VENDOR TOTAL 4590. 16 )3350 OFFICEMAX CREDIT PLAN 57486 11/25y97 11/25y97 16.78 VENDOR TOTAL 16.78 )7550 ORKIN EXTERMINATING C* 57487 11/25/97 11 /25/97 41 .54 VENDOR TOTAL 41 .54 `0225 PC WORLD LOTUS EDITIO* 57488 11/25/97 11/25/97 19.97 VENDOR TOTAL 19.97 `20���pEPSI-COLA COMPANY 57489 11/25y97 38828570 11/25/97 189.20 ��mr� 57489 11 /25y97 38828630 11/25/97 191 .05 VENDOR TOTAL 380.25 `3875 PLAISTED COMPANIES IN* 57490 11 /25/97 9422 11/25y97 257. 10 57490 11/25/97 8946 11/25/97 470.81 57490 11y25/97 9204 11/25/97 237.76 VENDOR TOTAL 965.76 '5915 POMP'S TIRE SERVICE, * 57491 11/25/97 323860 11 /25/97 784.20 VENDOR TOTAL 784.20 `7300 PRYOR RESOURCES, INC 57492 11/25/97 5737916 11/05/97 195.00 VENDOR TOTAL 195.00 M65 RAMSEY COUNTY 57493 11/25/97 B0430147101 11/25/97 4930.04 57493 11/25/97 K0282840504 11/25/97 644.02 57493 11/25/97 X0374243119 11y25/97 240.00 VENDOR TOTAL 5814.06 '2950 THE RIBBON DIVISION, * 57494 11 /25/97 164329 11/25/97 50.00 VENDOR TOTAL 50.00 �0555 SAFETY KLEEN CORP 57495 11/25/97 302260 11y25/97 129.40 `AGE 8 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER 1P-C10-01 . MOUNDS VIEW /ENDOR CHECK CHECK INVOICE INVOICE DI NO VENDOR NAME NUMBER DATE INVOICE NMBR DATE AMOUNT IIIVENDOR TOTAL 129.40 0675 ST. PAUL, CITY OF 57494 11/25/97 051274 11/25/97 25.83 VENDOR TOTAL 25.83 ;1001 SAM'S CLUB 57497 11/25/97 999999 11/03/97 95.00 57497 11/25/97 006625 11/03/97 50.43 VENDOR TOTAL 145.43 ;3225 SHORT ELLIOTT & HENDR* 57498 11/25/97 43532 10y27/97 3339.84 57498 11/25/97 43414 11 /25/97 751 .55 VENDOR TOTAL 4091 .39 ;3300 SHRED-IT 57499 11/25/97 15171 11/12/97 49.95 VENDOR. TOTAL 49.95 ;5605 SNYDER'S DRUG STORES,* 57500 11/25/97 11/04/97 4.20 VENDOR TOTAL 4.20 ;5700 SOLEM'S TREE SERVICE 57501 11/25/97 3061 11/25/97 244.95 VENDOR TOTAL 244.95 ;6300 SPRING LAKE PARK LUMB* 57502 11/25/97 1852:34 11/25/97 27.95 57502 11y25/97 181857 11/25/97 29.82 VENDOR TOTAL 57.77 '57 LL GAS & WELDING SU* 57503 11/25/97 566501 11/25/97 5.58 -- VENDOR TOTAL 5.58 '6765 TRAFFIX GRAPHIX 57504 11/25/97 3829 11/25/97 115.00 VENDOR TOTAL 115.00 � 78650 TWIN CITY OFFICE SUPP* 57505 11/25/97 141750 11/25/97 25.21 VENDOR TOTAL 25.21 ]0400 U S WEST 57506 11/25/97 11/01/97 31 .55 57506 11/25/97 11/01/97 117. 13 57506 11/25/97 11/01/97 164.86 57506 11/25y97 11/01y97 70.24 57506 11/25/97 11/10/97 55.96 57506 11/25/97 11y10/97 1133.56 57506 11/25/97 11/10/97 53.73 57506 11/25/97 11/10/97 20.86 57506 11/25/97 11/10/97 20.86 57506 11/25/97 11 /01/97 82.31 57506 11/25/97 11/25/97 56.01 57506 11/25/97 11 /25/97 337.65 , VENDOR TOTAL 2144.72 J0401 U S WEST COMMUNICATIO* 57508 11/25/97 11/04/97 20.86 :AGE 9 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER VP—•C 1.0•-01. MOUNDS VIEW )ENDOR CHECK CHECK INVOICE INVOICE D I NO VENDOR NAME NUMBER DATE INVOICE NMBR DATE AMOUNT 411 VENDOR TOTAL. 20.84 J2000 ULTRA RIBBON• INC 57509 11/25/97 1.9831.: 11/25/97 517.00 VENDOR TOTAL. 517.00 J2000 UNIFORM UNLIMITED 57510 1. 1/25/9 7 397754 11/25/97 126.43 VENDOR TOTAL. 124.43 J3990 UNITED AGR I PRODUCTS 57511 11/25/97 0019988 11 /25/97 767.33 VENDOR TOTAL. 747.3::: _ J6000 IJN I TGG RENTAL SERVICE* 57512 11/25/97 740103732 11/25/97 49.35 57512 s—.5 5 �r 4 5 ! 1 t a..•.�,�'=7 740108725 1 1/..:..•_�1`_'. 1-'r'�f•n._li_. 57512 11/25/97 74010971.3 11/25/97 184.91 VENDOR TOTAL 37::::.R7 J8305 UNIVERSITY OF M I NNESO* 57514 11/25/97 11/01/9•f 165.00 VENDOR TOTAL 145 a 00 J8306 UNIVERSITY OF MINNEEO* 57515 11 /25/97 11/25/97 50,00 VENDOR TOTAL 50.00 ,4600 VOSS LIGHTING 57516 11/25/97 2006570-00 11/11 /97 64.37 VENDOR TOTAL 44.37 Jo i c wAsTE: MANAGEMENT -- BL.* 57517 1. 1 1 /9;• 899-958547 54•, 11/03/9 7 1243.41 VENDOR TOTAL 1243.41 15701 WGL.D ARCHITECTS AND E- 57518 11/25/97 1 1/25;97 2550.00 VENDOR TOTAL ''550.00 GRAND TOTAL 15738 .43 ,AGE 1 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PRE-PAID CHECK REGISTE 4P-C10-02. MOUNDS VIEW /ENDOR CHECK CHECK INVOICE INVOICE DI NO VENDOR NAME NUMBER DATE INVOICE NMBR DATE AMOUNT / 419 ESTERN BANK * 0 11/20/97 11y20/97 3152.66 ��� * 0 11y20/97 11 /20/97 930.28 VENDOR TOTAL 4082.94 52211 GRAND SLAM 56485 11/06/97 11/06/97 122.50 VENDOR TOTAL 122.50 [0035 I S D #621 56486 11/06/97 11y06/97 320.00 VENDOR TOTAL 320.00 | /2111 NORTH WOMEN'S CENTER 56487 11/06/97 11/04/97 30.00 VENDOR TOTAL 30.00 )8200 MORGAN, LYNNETTE 56488 11/07/97 11y07/97 31 .69 VENDOR TOTAL 31 .69 ~ 31941 SEARS 54490 11/13/97 62-57869-1-2 09/12/97 39.76 VENDOR TOTAL 39.76 14999 MINNESOTA STATE TREAS* 56491 11/13/97 11y13/97 1374.61 VENDOR TOTAL 1374.61 1870 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA C* 56493 11/13/97 11y13/97 40.00 VENDOR TOTAL 40.00 :;70 B FOODS 56494 11y17/97 11/17y97 90 00 ��� VENDOR TOTAL 90.00 :4437 ELAN FINANCIAL SERVIC* 56495 11/17/97 11/17/97 98.93 VENDOR TOTAL 98.93 13535 MN DEPARTMENT OF TRAN* 56496 11/17y97 11/17y97 12.00 VENDOR TOTAL 12.00 :0870 RAMSEY COUNTY DIST. C* 56497 11/17/97 11/17/97 1250.00 56498 11y17/97 11/17/97 3610.00 VENDOR TOTAL 4860.00 `7900 PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREM* 54500 11/19/97 11y19/97 56.25 56501 11/19/97 11/19/97 5515.20 VENDOR TOTAL 5571 .45 `7887 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES INS * 56502 11/19/97 11/19/97 12842.35 VENDOR TOTAL 12842.35 11919 WESTERN BANK 56503 11/19/97 11y19/97 64036.39 56503 11/19/97 11/19/97 21276.61 VENDOR TOTAL 85313.00 0082 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST* 56504 11y19/97 11y19y97 123.02 S ,AGE 2 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PRE-PAID CHECK REGISTE )P-C10-02MOUNDS VIEW /END[\R ' CHECK CHECK INVOICE INVOICE DI NO VENDOR NAME NUMBER DATE INVOICE NMBR DATE AMOUNT VENDOR TOTAL 123.02 ~ ]0300 U S POSTMASTER 56505 11 /20/97 11/20/97 942.37 VENDOR TOTAL 942.37 14200 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REV* 56506 11y20/97 11y20/97 5248.00 VENDOR TOTAL 5248.00 GRAND TOTAL 121142.62 411 410 Item No. F.5 -Staff-Report-No. Meeting Date: 11/24/97 Type of Business: CA WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Resolution approving execution of a grant agreement with the Metropolitan Council for a Local Planning Assistance Grant Date of Report: November 18, 1997 The City of Mounds View has been awarded a Local Planning Assistance Grant in the amount of $5070 by the Metropolitan Council. This grant is to assist with the cost of updating the City's comprehensive plan which is required by the end of 1998. Attached is a copy of the grant agreement which the City must execute to have access to these funds. Also attached is a resolution approving the grant agreement and authorizing the Mayor and the City Administrator to sign the agreement on behalf of the City. • Recommendation: Approve Resolution No.5180 approving the grant agreement with the Metropolitan Council for a Local Planning Assistance Grant (Grant No. SG-97-154) and authorizing the Mayor and the City Administrator to sign the agreement on behalf of the City. Rick Jopke, Community Development Director • N:\DATA\USERS\RICKJO\SHARE\LPAGRES.RPT CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW • COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 5180 RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOCAL PLANNING ASSISTANCE GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has established the Local Planning Assistance Grant Program pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes section 473.867 to assist local government units in the seven-county metropolitan area conduct and implement comprehensive planning activities as required by section 473.864, subdivision 2; and WHEREAS,the City of Mounds View has submitted an application for Local Planning Assistance Grant funds; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has awarded a grant to fund eligible comprehensive planning activities identified in the application; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has submitted a grant agreement to the City • outlining the requirements for the use of the grant funds. NOW, THEREFORE BE RESOLVED THAT the City of Mounds View hereby approves the grant agreement and authorizes the Mayor and the City Administrator to sign the grant agreement on be half of the City. Dated this 24th day of November, 1997. ATTEST: Mayor (SEAL) City Administrator N:\DATA\USERS\RICKJO\SHARE\LPAGRES.RES Grantee; CITY OF.MOUNDS VIEW Grant No.: SG-97-154 • Amount: $5070.00 End:Date...; . December.31,;1998 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL LOCAL PLANNING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM GRANT AGREEMENT THIS GRANT AGREEMENT is made and entered into by the Metropolitan Council ("Council") and the metropolitan-area governmental unit identified above as "Grantee." WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes section 473.867 requires the Council to establish a planning assistance fund for the purposes of making grants and loans to local governmental units to assist local governmental units in the seven-county metropolitan area conduct and implement comprehensive planning activities, including the review and amendment of local comprehensive plans and fiscal devices and official controls as required by section 473.864, subdivision 2; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 473.867, subdivision 4, planning assistance grant funds shall not exceed seventy-five percent of the total costs and expenses of the project, service or activity for which the grant is awarded; and • WHEREAS, in May 1997 the Council issued its Metropolitan Council Local Planning Assistance Grant Guidelines and solicited applications for local planning assistance grant funds; and WHEREAS, the Grantee is a city or town in the metropolitan area as defined in Minnesota Statutes section 473.121, or is a metropolitan-area city, town or county acting in partnership with cities or towns which was authorized to submit a joint application and execute this grant agreement on behalf of the partnership; and WHEREAS, the Grantee submitted an application for local planning assistance grant funds and was awarded a grant to fund eligible comprehensive planning activities identified in the application. NOW THEREFORE, in reliance on the representations and statements above and in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained in this grant agreement, the Grantee and the Council agree as follows: I. DEFINITIONS 1.01 Definition of Terms. For the purposes of this agreement, the terms defined in this paragraph have the meanings given them in this paragraph unless otherwise provided or indicated by the context. • (a) "Comprehensive Development Guide" means the comprehensive development guide for the seven-county metropolitan area adopted by the Council pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 473.145, and the policy plans and other components of the development guide adopted by the Council pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 473, including the Regional Blueprint adopted by the Council pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 473.145. (b) "Comprehensive Plan" means a comprehensive plan which complies with Minnesota Statutes sections 473.858 through 473.865, including those provisions in section 473.859 which require housing elements and housing implementation programs. (c) "Metropolitan Land Planning Act of 1976 " means the land use planning provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 473, including Minnesota Statutes sections 473.175 and sections 473.851 through 473.871, as amended. II. GRANT FUNDS 2.01 Grant Amount. The Council will provide to the Grantee the "Grant Amount" identified at page 1 of this grant agreement which the Grantee shall use for authorized purposes and eligible activities. Any reduction or termination of the match amount required under paragraph 2.02 may result in a like reduction in the Grant Amount. 2.02 Seventy-Five Percent Limit. The Grant Amount provided to the Grantee under this agreement may be used to pay up to seventy-five (75) percent of the total costs and expenses of the projects, services and activities described in the Grantee's work plan and budget. The Grantee shall match the Grant Amount received from the Council on at least a one-for-three basis. The matching funds may include in-kind work or cash and shall be identified in the work plan budget and in the progress reports required under paragraph 3.01. 1111 2.03 Authorized Use of Funds. The Grant Amount provided to the Grantee under this a eement shall be used only for the purposes and eligible activities described in the Grantee's work plan and budget as approved by the Council. A copy of the Grantee's approved work plan and budget is attached to and incorporated into this agreement as Attachment A. Eligible activities are outlined in the May 1997 Metropolitan Council Local Planning Assistance Grant Guidelines and include, but are not limited to, staff pay, consultant and professional services, printing and publishing. Grant funds may not be used for per diem payments to appointed or elected board or commission members. Grant funds also may not be used to purchase or acquire equipment or other tangible, nonexpendable personal property or for activities inconsistent with the Council's Comprehensive Development Guide, the Metropolitan Land Planning Act of 1976, as amended, Minnesota's Critical Areas Act of 1973, as amended, or other applicable state laws. The Grantee agrees to promptly remit to the Council: any unspent grant funds; any grant funds which are not used for the authorized purposes specified in this paragraph; and any interest earnings described in paragraph 2.05 which are not used for the purposes of implementing the work plan activities described in Attachment A. 2.04 Disbursement Schedule. Within thirty (30) days after final execution of this agreement, the Council will disburse to the Grantee ninety (90) percent of the Grant Amount. The ten (10) percent amount withheld will be disbursed to the Grantee upon completion of the work plan activities and receipt of the final progress report described in paragraph 3.01(b). 2.05 Interest Earnings. If the Grantee earns any interest or other income from the Grant Amount • received from the Council under this agreement, the Grantee will use the interest earnings or income only for the purposes of implementing the work plan activities described in Attachment A. - , - III. REPORTING,ACCOUNTING AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS 40 3.01 Progress Reports. The Grantee will provide to the Council's authorized agent a written midpoint progress report and a written final progress report describing the status of the work plan activities described in Attachment A. These reports ensure the Grant Amount made available under this agreement is appropriately expended as described in the work plan and budget. The reports shall be subject to the following content and schedule requirements. (a) Midpoint Progress Report. At approximately the midpoint of the Grantee's work plan activities, the Grantee must submit to the Council a written midpoint progress report which includes: a summary of the work plan activities undertaken and completed to date; a summary of work plan activities to be accomplished during the remaining months of the work plan; and a summary of unanticipated issues and opportunities that affect the work plan, time schedule for project completion, or budget. The midpoint progress report also must include a summary of project costs and sources of funds for those expenditures, and a list of itemized expenditures of funds received from the Council and matching funds by category in the budget. (b) Final Progress Report. Upon completion of the work plan activities described in Attachment A, the Grantee must submit to the Council a written final progress report which includes: a summary of the work plan activities undertaken and completed since the submission of the midpoint progress report; a summary of project outcomes, costs and sources of funds for those expenditures; and a list of itemized expenditures of the Grant Amount received from the Council and matching funds by category in the budget. • 3.02 Accounting and Records. The Grantee agrees to establish and maintain accurate and complete accounts, financial records and supporting documents relating to the receipt and expenditure of the Grant Amount received from the Council. Notwithstanding the expiration and termination provisions of paragraphs 4.01 and 4.02, such accounts and records shall be kept and maintained by the Grantee for a period of three (3) years following the completion of the work plan activities described in Attachment A. If any litigation, claim or audit is started before the expiration of the three-year period, the records shall be retained until all litigation, claims or audit findings involving the records have been resolved or until the end of the regular three-year period, whichever is later. The Grantee will keep proper financial records and other appropriate documents sufficient to evidence the nature and expenditure of the match funds required under paragraph 2.02. 3.03 Audits. The above accounts and records of the Grantee shall be audited in the same manner as all other accounts and records of the Grantee and accounting shall be in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards covering financial and compliance audits. The accounts and records may be audited or inspected on the Grantee's premises, or otherwise, at any time by individuals or organizations designated and authorized by the Council or by appropriate state or federal agencies, following reasonable notification to the Grantee, for a period of three (3) years following the completion of the work plan activities described in Attachment A. 3.04 Authorized Agent. The Council's authorized agent for purposes of administering this grant • agreement is Terrence Kayser, or another designated Council employee. The written reports submitted to the Council should be directed to the attention of the authorized agent at the following address: - 3 - Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street • Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-1634 IV. GRANT AGREEMENT TERM 4.01 Term and End Date. This grant agreement is effective upon execution of the agreement by the Council. Unless terminated pursuant to paragraph 4.02 or extended by written agreement pursuant to paragraph 4.03, this agreement will expire on the "End Date" identified at page 1 of this grant agreement, or upon completion of the work plan activities described in Attachment A and submission of the final progress report required under paragraph 3.01(b). 4.02 Termination. This agreement may be terminated by the Council for cause at any time upon fourteen (14) calendar days' written notice to the Grantee. Cause shall mean a material breach of this agreement and any amendments of this agreement. Termination of this agreement does not alter the Council's authority to recover funds on the basis of a later audit or other review, and does not alter the Grantee's obligation to return any funds due to the Council as a result of later audits or corrections. If the Council determines the Grantee has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of this agreement, the Council may take any action to protect its interests, may refuse to disburse additional funds and may require the Grantee to return all or part of the funds. 4.03 Amendment. The Council and the Grantee may amend this agreement by written mutual • consent. Amendments, changes or modifications to the Grantee's approved work plan and budget shall be effective only on the execution of written amendments signed by authorized representatives of the Council and the Grantee. V. GENERAL PROVISIONS 5.01 Equal Opportunity. The Grantee agrees it will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, membership or activity in a local civil rights commission, disability, sexual orientation or age and will take affirmative action to insure applicants and employees are treated equally with respect to all aspects of employment, rates of pay and other forms of compensation and selection for training. 5.02 Conflict of Interest. The members, officers and employees of the Grantee shall comply with all applicable federal and state statutory and regulatory conflict of interest laws and provisions. 5.03 Liability. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Grantee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Council and its members, employees and agents from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of or resulting from the conduct or implementation of the funded work plan activities. This obligation shall not be construed to negate, abridge or otherwise reduce any other right or obligation of indemnity which • otherwise would exist between the Council and the Grantee. The provisions of this paragraph shall survive the expiration or termination of this agreement. This indemnification shall not be construed -4 - as a waiver on the part of either the Grantee or the Council of any immunities or limits on liability provided by Minnesota Statutes chapter 466, or other applicable state or federal law. • 5.04 Compliance with Law. The Grantee agrees to conduct the work plan activities in compliance with all applicable provisions of federal, state and local laws. 5.05 Acknowledgment. The Grantee shall appropriately acknowledge the funding assistance provided by the Council in promotional materials, reports, publications and notices relating to the project activities funded under this agreement. 5.06 Warranty of Legal Capacity. The individual signing this agreement on behalf of the Grantee represents and warrants that the individual is duly authorized to execute this agreement and that this agreement constitutes the Grantee's valid, binding and enforceable agreements. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantee and the Council have caused this agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives. This agreement is effective on the date of fmal execution by the Council. Approved as to form: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL By: Associate General Counsel Thomas C. McElveen, Deputy Director Housing, Development and Implementation Community Development Division • Date: GRANTEE By: (Signature ofAuthorized Representative) Name: Title: Date: By: (Signature of Authorized Representative) Name: Title: Date: COMPGRNT.DOC 10/97 - 5 - ATTACHMENT A •Grantee's Work Plan and Budget This Attachment A comprises this page and the Grantee's work plan and budget as approved by the Council. • - 6 - 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 g with Task#2 (20 hours) Update population,employment and land use data for each of the planning 4 weeks Master Consultant districts. (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) $5,000 Develop survey Source: General Pretest with Commissions,Council,and selected citizens Fund/Met Council Prepare insert for Mounds View Matters;printing and distribution Grant Tabulate and analyze results;prepare summary report r:.•r:;:.i':::+vi:+•iik�:•:v•i:•ii:L:•i:{+:':' X?•iiriWJ.•iiiir»i:i:4iii:'/?x:•iYf:.:,••?,: ""• '••• "•'• ••••• ,vyrx::•nv::�•:::::: ... :n rvnr vvri;Hiirri•ivr.•roiif iiii:rr.:rrr...v rrorowr rrvwvw+viw::ro...ror.rrr:rorrrrrro/%'r r ..: .:v:{r::::�:}v:::.+.:•:::�.: :?+f-.;::?:v.:;?•:v.:.•::$vy•: i::..:. .:v....,......r...... .........:w.: r:r$::.:• ... .... .. .. ?.•. .... ..... ..... I..... ...L..r.....:nv:x.r:rorr:n•..rvii:.:..ro:ro..�J::..l.r/:::is �T ... % ::;, .. ...... r.:.;.�:.::.}::{.•{:�.:.rirN::.q^/frl.%?v::�:''fn':ti:{•:ro:.9:is?••:•'i.O:tiOiiv:{•'•i•3..ii;.•:{.}}i'+:.... 8 �8 r:r:vr:• rr�r?//?�ii:;YFi:.::i::::.i:•ii: :f?? ii�'Fii}f.%i?l i::%:':;'fi;ii::: .1?t ?...:.....?:;til.-':'J'Y?.?{ti:.:v:6;•:;x,.:3i:{?i:?.i}} r:•?rrr%'r r......'.v:::::: ..vi:;:iii};.:v:." :..?:•:•{hiiiF n;.:::.... .................. ...:.:...: .........: :..... :..:.:......... ..:... r.:ur. ..r.. 1....:.??i......... .::w::;;.:?i-:'??1..? .? r... .v. .r: {v/••.: 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 •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 6C. Econ Development $6,0City Contribution= 78.5% Met Council Contribution=21.5% 61D. 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 , *Update text,maps,graphics $6,500 9. Update ordinances $12,000 TOTALS $44,200 $49,500 n r x t L < Z • CHY.n.r55Y`LW < ,fit Fsa .•L":r,;:>,;N.i ¢ Eby..,, e`''''',•n..' .. Y r�''"3i /.Y ir C I . s sE "+V,ir 1.0.4 a .„...„ , „;,.........,„,:,..„..,,i, • P, 1 i iia` ..�'r., • 01 9�'$Q3 :.,,,,',,,v,,,,-7: •Y '/ > ,Twp '? Z g3 p rte.g. ,,y a>.- d k O L .y Ili .r- . 0 g i a S 0OEb . g � � & z.X &I —e kr ° p .§, '1,- F: m 5, & '3 2 5 Z U F1 "2 $ u a. = c� u 5 4 © •U :: ,Ti d a cv E,. r; U {{ fn • -41 cn S • m •J • L•` 0 z 0 as cn a � .y C 3 °' > c ` 0 • ih 0 00 00 a 0 �.. °' a � o m = U co IE C " 5 e • a I = =�' Z t Item No. F Type of Business: CA WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; 1111 CA: Consent Agenda;CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mayor and City Council From: Lynnette Morganno Item Title/Subject: Set public hearings for Monday, December 8, 1997 to consider the renewal and transfer of on/off sale 3.2% Malt Liquor licenses Date of Meeting: November 24, 1997 ■ Set a Public Hearing for Monday, December 8, 1997 at 7:11 p.m. to consider the renewal of the 3.2% on-sale malt liquor license for the Bridges Golf Course, 2850 82nd Lane. • Set a Public Hearing for Monday, December 8, 1997 at 7:12 p.m., to consider the renewal of the 3.2% off-sale malt liquor license for Tom Thumb Food Markets, 2408 County Road I. • . Set a Public Hearing for Monday, December 8, 1997 at 7:13 p.m., to consider the transfer of the 3.2% off-sale malt liquor license for Super America to Retail Joint Venture, 2640 County Road I. • S Item No. 14 I waf t-N.s* Meeting Date: November 24, 1997 • Type of Business: P.H. WK: Work Session; PH:Public Hearing; CA:Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing to Consider the Reconstruction of Spring Lake Road and County Road I Date of Report: November 19, 1997 To date Council, staff and the residents have been involved in numerous informational meetings, and discussions at various Council meetings to discuss the proposed reconstruction of Spring Lake Road and County Road I. At the public hearing, staff will present information which will be considered in determining the construction design, estimated cost, and assessments levied. After the public hearing staff will request action on a resolution to consider the project. This staff report is accompanied by a previously submitted report relating to the proposed project. The report was presented at the November 3, 1997 Council Work Session. Staff would request that Council review this report for further consideration and reduce duplication of most . of the report. Council has also requested additional information be presented to the public at the hearing. The following information will be presented on November 24, 1997. I Pavement Management a)Mounds View Program b)Degradation Curve c)Cost Benefit II Curb&Gutter a) Purposes b)Drainage c)Type III Street Width a)Functions of Street b)Other Uses(Parking,etc.) c)Safety d)Efficiency IV Sidewalk/Trails a)City System b)Safety V Proposed Construction a)City Standards b)Alternative Construction Designs The final item presented, prior to Council questions will be alternative construction designs. A number of alternatives that deviate from the City's current policy will be presented for Council's consideration. Construction cost estimates have been obtained for each. City of Mounds View Staff Report November 19, 1997 Page 2 Construction32!w'%C&G 3O'w C& a$SLRwfcg °26`iw C8tal' 28' CIR No dk- Design 8 sidewalk. 8 sidew 2+�Co xw cgs 8`side C & G Options °ParkrrigloneF No Parkin min. 9`wall No Par ng s min. 9' walk slden g a fif e ; Est. Const. $ $1,592,543 $1,553,309 $1,373,700 $1,349,776 $743,314 Rate per FF $41.27 $41.27 $39.30 $38.40 $25.50 The shaded alternatives will allow for MSA funding, although only the first option will permit parking on one side. It is staffs opinion that the project should include parking on Spring Lake Road. It is almost certain that problems will arise for the current residents as well as future residents if parking is not allowed on the street. While it is true that the residents requested no parking, I think activities such as graduations, parties, and the winter season will require parking on the street. However, if the Council were to deviate from the current standard, to a design that would appease more residents, staff would recommend the design outlined in the earlier mentioned staff report. This would be option number three, from left to right. The last option on the far right represents the minimal project. This option would entail a Cold In-Place Recycling (CIR) of the exiting asphalt, with an additional new bituminous surface. The street would be widened from 24 feet to 28 feet. The minimum recommended bituminous path would also be installed on Co. I from Pleasant View to Silver Lake Road and on Spring Lake • Road from Co. Ito Hillview Road. This option will not qualify for State Aid Funding. If chosen the City would only utilize Ramsey County Turn Back funds and assessments for the project. One option that does not appear in the table is to do nothing with the streets other than to perform further maintenance on the pavements. If this were the case, the Pavement Management Program could be eliminated. Staff would recommend purchasing a small paver(approximately $50,000), adding one more full time Streets employee (approximately $50,000) and additional funding approximately $30,000 to $40,000) for small overlays not only on these streets, but many others in the City. The repairs that will be required by not proceeding with timely reconstruction projects will exceed the existing resources available to the City at this time. As mentioned in the earlier staff report, funding methods ie, Assessment percentages, MSA, and Turnback funding is or will be another issue that could be addressed at the hearing. Should Council choose to lower the assessment percentage, staff would recommend an amount of not less than 30% of the current policy as alternative. Utilizing full MSA and Turnback funds to the maximum is still preferable. Staff has prepared an outline for the Public Hearing. The purpose of the outline is to provide as much information initially to the Council and residents, prior to addressing any questions and/or comments. S City of Mounds View Staff Report November 19, 1997 Page 3 • I. Open the Public Hearing II. Verification of Notice and Introductions III. Pavement Design Methods IV. Review of Project and Feasibility Study V. Presentation of Staff Report VI. Questions and Comments of Council VII. Questions and Comments of Residents VIII. Close the Public Hearing IX. Council Discussion X. Consider Resolutions Upon closure of the Public Hearing and Council Discussion, staff request Council consider three possible resolutions for the proposed project. Since this project has receive many comments regarding the design and assessments, staff has prepared alternative resolutions for Council's consideration. The first resolution was written to reflect the City's current standards and assessment policy. The second resolution reflects the design alternatives outlined in the November 3, 1997 staff report. The last resolution will allow for a custom design and can be filled in at the hearing. Please bring your feasibility studies that were previously distributed with you. • If Council has any questions or comments regarding this report, or anything related to this project, please feel free to call me. .40C/- Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works • Item No. 3 Staff Report No. Meeting Date: November 3, 1997 Type of Business: W.K. WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA:Consent Agenda; CB:Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works Item Title/Subject: Spring Lake Rd., Co. Rd. I Construction Design Date of Report: November 3, 1997 Conversation and debate over the design and assessment of the proposed Spring Lake Road/ County Road I project has been a controversial topic since its inception. Staff directed SEH to prepare the feasibility study based on current City Policy. As you are aware of by now, this design is a street that is a minimum of thirty (30) feet wide from face of curb to face of curb. (This project is anticipated to receive MSA funding, in which case, standards for design must be adhered to in order to qualify for funding.) The standard curb and gutter design is B618, barrier curb. Surmountable curb D418, has not been accepted in recent projects because the driveways are currently established. Barrier curb also provide a substantial edge for the snow plow to contact, lessening the chance of damaging boulevard turf areas. Ms. Haake has circulated a questionnaire with various options that the residents have completed. Council has received copies of the results of this survey. • The majority of the residents that completed the survey, requested that if the road were to be widened, they would prefer 26 feet to 30 feet wide. Residents also spoke very strongly in their objection to the inclusion of a sidewalk/trail way in the project. A high number of votes were cast to include some type of walking/bicycle lane on the edge of the pavement. In an effort to compromise and initiate a project that may receive the most approval, staff is making the following recommendations for the project: The following segments would be constructed 28 feet wide with no separate sidewalk: 1. Spring Lake Rd. from Co. J to TH10 2. Spring Lake Rd. from Co. Ito Co. H2 The following segments would be constructed 26 feet wide with a separate 9' sidewalk: 1. County Rd. I from Pleasantview Dr. to Silver Lake Rd. sidewalk on the north side if approved by St. Paul Water. 2. Spring Lake Road from County Rd. I to Hillview, sidewalk on the west side. • Staff's opinions that this design, while is does not allow for any parking, will be acceptable for the driving public and pedestrian/bicycle traffic. Although the two, twelve (12) foot driving lanes could be striped, no additional painting or signage would designate walkways or bicycle lane. A combined 68% of the residents preferred painting of the driving lanes over a separate sidewalk. Staff cannot recommend a reconstruction project without the addition of curb and gutter installation. City of Mounds View Staff Report November 3, 1997 . Page 3 The minimum street width, barring extenuating circumstances would be 28 feet wide, from face of curb to face of curb. This width, for a residential street classification, will allow for two way traffic, although random parking could restrict the use of one lane when two vehicles approach each other. This design may prove to be more palatable to the residents in the future. Percentage of streets at various widths: 27 feet 8.3% 28 feet 29.3% 29 feet 19.4% 30 feet 4.9% Total 61.9% This report attempts to summarize some of the major issues brought before Council and staff. It is potentially impossible to change the policy prior to the next project. Any changes to the policy can be adopted during the project and in effect prior to the assessment hearing in the fall. A cost estimate and mock assessment for the project has already been-prepared per charter. Any possible changes to the assessment formula or percentages will likely lower the final assessment. While it is probable, that short of no assessments for public improvements, the residents will always have some objection to reconstruction improvements. Should Council decide to revise the current policy this objection will be lessened. If assessments are lowered, resulting in fewer funds available for future projects, then these projects might have to be extended. 1110 In conclusion, as statedreviousl , many residents have voiced their negative comments P Y regarding the existing assessment policy. It is probable that they also do not know the extent of the deteriorating street network and the amount of money that it will take to rehabilitate the system in the future. Assessment policies are developed in many communities, in part, according to the City's ability to fund the capital improvements. The possible revisions to the policy discussed both in this report and at various meetings could soften the financial burden to the residents involved in individual projects, thereby increasing the funding required by the entire community. It is evident that many of the roadways in the City of Mounds View will require major repair or reconstruction in the future. It is staff's opinion that after the CIP is developed and adopted, the City would proceed with the projects as identified. If the residents of the community voice objection to the project or assessment, they can invoke their right to vote down the improvement through the provisions in the Charter. Should this situation arise, staff would move on to the next project on the schedule, and greatly reduce repairs and maintenance dollars on the project that was rejected. The rejected project would then be move to the end of the CIP, and will be initiated after all remaining projects were completed or the petitioning residents submit an affirmative petition requesting the project. Staff is requesting to move forward on the proposed project and for Council to provide a decision for the design based on the previously mentioned recommendations. Future design standards and assessment issues may be finalized in the near future and hopefully be more acceptable for a longer period of time. If Council has any questions or comments regal..'n )Tort, plea e fee ee to call me. Michael U rich, I irector of Public Works 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE,200 SEH CENTER,ST.PAUL,MN 55110 612 490-2000 800 325-2055 ARCHITECTURE • ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL • TRANSPORTATION October 30, 1997 RE: Mounds View, Minnesota Preliminary Report Spring Lake Road and County Road I Street and Drainage Improvements SEH No. A-MOUND9706.00 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Mounds View Attention: Mike Ulrich 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 As requested,we have prepared this letter Supplement to the Preliminary Report for the Spring Lake Road/County Road I Utility and Street Improvements in Mounds View. This Supplement,requested by the Council at the October 13, 1997 presentation of the Preliminary Report, will address the costs and feasibility of constructing a 26-foot wide load along the entire length of Spring Lake Road and County Road I. This supplement also provides the costs for the construction of the Bituminous Trail as recommended in the Report. The cost of the minimum staff recommended trail was not broken out for the Council. At the October 13, 1997 Council Meeting, the Preliminary Report for the above improvements was presented to the Council and residents. It was noted that the cost estimates presented in the Report were for a 32-foot wide urban road, and included a trail along the total length of the improvement area as noted on the City's Trailway Plan. We noted that, as a minimum, the City should construct the bituminous trail along County Road I and along Spring Lake Road from County Road I to Hillview Road. There was discussion about the roadway width, and the desire to determine the cost of the construction of a 26-foot road along the total length of the improvement area and the use of a"D" style mountable concrete curb in place of the recommended"B"style barrier curb. Our discussions with curb contractors, and our experience with projects that we have bid, indicates that the cost for the "D" style curb with the 18" gutter, will not be significantly different than the cost of the same width"B"style curb. The Estimated Project Cost for the various size roadway improvements is as follows: 26 Foot Roadway 30 Foot Roadway 32 Foot Roadway Estimated Construction Cost • $1,178,266.00 $1,242,647.00 $1,274,034.00 25%Associated Costs 294,567.00 310,662.00 318,509.00 Estimated Project Cost . $1,472,833.00 $1,553,309.00 $1,592,543.00 Estimated Street Assessment Rate per FF $38.20 $41.27 $41.27 SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC. MINNEAPOLIS.MN ST CLOUD.MN CHIPPEWA FALLS, WI MADISON,WI LAKE COUNTY,IN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Honorable Mayor and City Council October 30, 1997 Page 2 These costs include the construction of the Trailway system along the total length of the project. If the Council decides to reduce the trail to the staff recommended minimum locations, along the entire length of County Road I, and along Spring Lake Road between County Road I and Hillview Road, the estimated Project costs will be reduced by approximately $110,000. The assessable rate would not change since the City does not assess the sidewalk or trail costs. The construction of a 26-foot wide roadway along the total length of Spring Lake Road and County Road I is feasible. We will present this at the Public Hearing on November 24, 1997. If you have any further questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. -bkr - -1) Barry C. Peters Project Manager 11110 sah F:\PROJECTS\MN\M OU ND\97O6\CIMAYOR.03U i RESOLUTION NO. 5182 • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION CONSIDERING THE RECONSTRUCTION OF SPRING LAKE ROAD AND COUNTY ROAD I WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mounds View is considering to reconstruct Spring Lake Road from County Rd H2 to County Rd. I, from County Rd. Ito Hillview Rd., from TH 10 to County Rd. J and County Rd. I from Pleasant View Drive to Silver Lake Road; and WHEREAS, both Spring Lake Road and County Road I are proposed to be designated Municipal State Aid Roads (MSA) and must be constructed to MSA standards; and WHEREAS, two public informational meetings were conducted with the affected property owners to consider public input, discuss design standard requirements, and preliminary estimated assessments; and • WHEREAS, this project will include complete street reconstruction (width of_feet no parking allowed on Spring Lake Road from County Rd. H2 to County Rd. I and TH10 to County Rd. J. and 26 feet wide from County Rd. Ito Hillview Rd. County Rd. will be _feet wide, no parking, from Pleasant View Drive to Silver Lake Rd.) including B618 curb and gutter, sidewalk construction(9 feet wide on County Rd I from Pleasant View Drive to Silver Lake Rd. and on Spring Lake Rd. from County Rd. I to Hillview Rd.), minor water main installation, minor construction of storm sewer; and WHEREAS, this project is proposed to be assessed to the benefitted properties in accordance with Chapter 202 of the Municipal Code and the City Charter in that the amount assessed will be revised to_% of one half of the street and other assessment formulas will remain the same; and WHEREAS, the City's engineers have conducted a investigation of the proposed project and determined that the abovementioned segments of Spring Lake Road and County Rd I are feasible, prudent and cost effective for reconstruction; and i • Page 2 Resolution No. 5182 WHEREAS, public hearing notices were mailed to affected properties and publication of the proposed project was advertised in the official City newspaper according to Chapter 202 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on November 24, 1997 to consider public input regarding the proposed project. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council authorizes the City's consulting engineers, SEH, to proceed with development of plans and specifications for approval. Adopted this 24th day of November, 1997. ATTEST: MAYOR • (SEAL) CITY ADMINISTRATOR • RESOLUTION NO. 5182 4111 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION CONSIDERING THE RECONSTRUCTION OF SPRING LAKE ROAD AND COUNTY ROAD I WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mounds View is considering to reconstruct Spring Lake Road from County Rd H2 to County Rd.I, from County Rd. I to Hillview Rd., from TH 10 to County Rd. J and County Rd. I from Pleasant View Drive to Silver Lake Road; and WHEREAS, both Spring Lake Road and County Road I are proposed to be designated Municipal State Aid Roads (MSA) and must be constructed to MSA standards; and WHEREAS, two public informational meetings were conducted with the affected property owners to consider public input, discuss design standard requirements, and • preliminary estimated assessments; and WHEREAS, this project will include complete street reconstruction (width of 28 feet no parking allowed on Spring Lake Road from County Rd. H2 to County Rd. I and TH10 to County Rd. J. and 26 feet wide from County Rd. I to Hillview. County Rd. will be 26 feet wide, no parking, from Pleasant View Drive to Silver Lake Rd.) including B618 curb and gutter, sidewalk construction(9 feet wide on County Rd I from Pleasant View Drive to Silver Lake Rd. and on Spring Lake Rd. from County Rd. I to Hillview Rd.), minor water main installation, minor construction of storm sewer; and WHEREAS, this project is proposed to be assessed to the benefitted properties in accordance with Chapter 202 of the Municipal Code and the City Charter in that the amount assessed will be revised to 30% of one half of the street and other assessment formulas will remain the same; and WHEREAS. the City's engineers have conducted a investigation of the proposed project and determined that the abovementioned segments of Spring Lake Road and County Rd I are feasible, prudent and cost effective for reconstruction; and Page 2 • Resolution No. 5182 WHEREAS,public hearing notices were mailed to affected properties and publication of the proposed project was advertised in the official City newspaper according to Chapter 202 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on November 24, 1997 to consider public input regarding the proposed project. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council authorizes the City's consulting engineers, SEH, to proceed with development of plans and specifications for approval. Adopted this 24th day of November, 1997. ATTEST: MAYOR (SEAL) CITY ADMINISTRATOR RESOLUTION NO. 5182 • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION CONSIDERING THE RECONSTRUCTION OF SPRING LAKE ROAD AND COUNTY ROAD I WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mounds View is considering to reconstruct Spring Lake Road from County Rd H2 to County Rd. I, from County Rd. Ito Hillview Rd., from TH 10 to County Rd. J and County Rd. I from Pleasant View Drive to Silver Lake Road; and WHEREAS, both Spring Lake Road and County Road I are proposed to be designated Municipal State Aid Roads (MSA) and must be constructed to MSA standards; and WHEREAS, two public informational meetings were conducted with the • affected property owners to consider public input, discuss design standard requirements, and preliminary estimated assessments; and WHEREAS, this project will include complete street reconstruction(width of 32 feet, parking on one side) including B618 curb and gutter; sidewalk construction(7 feet wide), minor water main installation, minor construction of storm sewer; and WHEREAS, this project is proposed to be assessed to the benefitted properties in accordance with Chapter 202 of the Municipal Code and the City Charter; and WHEREAS. the City's engineers have conducted a investigation of the proposed project and determined that the abovementioned segments of Spring Lake Road and County Rd I are feasible, prudent and cost effective for reconstruction; and WHEREAS, public hearing notices were mailed to affected properties and publication of the proposed project was advertised in the official City newspaper according to Chapter 202 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on November 24, 1997 to consider public input regarding the proposed project. • • Page 2 Resolution No. 5182 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council authorizes the City's consulting engineers, SEH, to proceed with development of plans and specifications for approval. Adopted this 24th day of November, 1997. ATTEST: MAYOR (SEAL) CITY ADMINISTRATOR • S Ethics Committee Meeting Minutes October 13, 1997 i Chair Person: Chuck Whiting Secretary: Cathy Bennett Members Present: Tim Brennan, Mike Ulrich, Mary Tatarek, Cathy Bennett, Chuck Whiting Absent: Steve Dazenski Discussion: An overview of the comments regarding the mission and vision statement was presented. General agreement that the statements are sufficient but concern that the ideas in the statements were not being carried out or followed by Council, Staff and the Community in dealing with difficult issues. There was discussion regarding the ambiguity of mission and vision statements and how these are forward thinking which is difficult when dealing with fiscal concerns. The committee discussed the relationship between taxes and the mission and vision statements. Do people understand the relationship between what they pay for and what they get? There was general discussion regarding the government process and relationship of the Council, community and staff. A"progressive community" is difficult when the government process tends to be time consuming due to the diversity of the community needs and wants. • Questions were asked regarding what some of the statements in the mission and vision mean. What does progressive community and leader mean? Is this meaning the same for each segment of the community? Many of the statements are value driven therefore it is very difficult to define. These are individual feelings rather than overall statements. It was suggested that new mission and vision statements be developed that have a more defined meaning and served a larger portion of the community. Discussion focused on how to create new mission and vision statements. Should this be community wide, at the council level, at staff level. Each member was asked to think about a strategy regarding the mission and vision statements. Should separate mission and visions be developed for the Council, for Staff etc? Next meeting: Monday, November 10 at 9:00 a.m. in conference room A. Editorial Board Meeting Minutes Tuesday, November 18, 1997, 10:00 am 1. Call to Order Meeting was called to order at 10:10 am. Present: Mary Johnson, Tracy Sanchez, Rick Jopke, Mike Ulrich. Absent: Dave Brick, and Chuck Whiting. II. Mary discussed the advertisement numbers for 1996 and 1997. In 1996 (starting with the May/June Newsletter) there was 20 total ads that brought in revenue of $1450.00. In 1997 there were 60 total ads that brought in revenue of 2433.32. The average revenue per ad was $72.50 in 1996 and $40.55 in 1997. The committee decided to continue to include advertising in the newsletter because it is seen as revenue that offsets printing costs. Mary will put together a proposal letter to be sent to all business solicitating there advertisements. Also will try to set up a time to meet with the Chamber of Commerence to solicitate ads from their members. III. The 1998 Calendar was reviewed and set. A copy of the calendar will be given to all department heads to post in their departments. All deadlines listed in this calendar are hard deadlines, therefore all articles must be in on the dates listed. IV. Next Meeting set for December 4 at 10:00 am • V. Adjournment at 10:45 am Respectfully submitted, Mary Johnson i ; ONLY I Editorial Board Meeting Minutes Monday, October 13, 1997, 10:00 am I. Call to Order • Meeting was called to order at 10:00 am. Present: Mary Johnson, Tracy Sanchez, Dave Brick, Mike Ulrich, and Chuck Whiting. Absent: Rick Jopke II. November/December newsletter update: No group has stepped forward to hand deliver, thus brochure will go out bulk mail. Budget newsletter will be included in this brochure, it will be located in the middle of the newsletter, printed on a different colored paper. III. Mary reviewed the bidding specifications for the newsletter. With a few minor changes, the group approved specifications to go out for bidding and eventually approved by the council upon soliciation of a vendor. A copy of bid specifications will go to Chuck before bids are mailed out. IV. Advertising - Mary will do som analysis of existing advertising revenues too consideration of current advertising fees and possibilities. V. Calendar of newsletter work for next 14 months. The calendar lays out the schedule for getting articles in, printing schedules, and related decisions. newsletter. • IX. Adjournment at 10:45 am Respectully submitted, Chuck Whiting mljj SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING • Tuesday, November 18, 1997 8:30 a.m. CALL TO ORDER: Lynnette Morgan called the meeting to order. ROLL CALL: Members present: Larry Decheine, Tracy Sanchez, Lynnette Morgan, and Mary Saarion. Members absent: John Hammerschmidt, Dave Brick, Tim Pittman and Rick Jarson. MEMBER RECRUITMENT: Lynnette Morgan inquired about the need to recruit additional members for those that do not show up for meetings. It was decided that the only additional member representative would be from the Police Department. It was suggested that Dave Brick be requested to provide a person to serve on this committee. Tracy Sanchez offered to request this. FORMS: Lynnette distributed folders to all Department Heads and committee members which included forms for first report of injury and supervisor reports in addition to a memo to Department Heads requesting that they inform employees of their departments the whereabouts of these forms. Lynnette requested comment from the committee regarding this information. All agreed that the folders were complete. Tracy Sanches agreed to remind Department Heads to 41) inform their employees. SAFETY GRANT: Lynnette reminded committee members that a safety grant is available to apply for matching grant costs of safety equipment. Golf Course and Public Works has items for submittal. Mary Saarion said that she has miscellaneous items if grant cap is not reached with the other requests. VIDEO REVIEW: Lynnette showed a 10 minute video that provided information on making good safety decisions during a normal work day. The group thought that better videos are available. Lynnette said that she would continue to send for videos to review in hopes of finding good pertinent ones that can be shown to employees. Lynnette will also copy the video table of contents so that Department Heads can review and choose some that would be good. TRAINING CALENDAR: Lynnette suggested that the committee prepare a training calendar that can be implemented throughout the year. It was suggested that committee members reflect on this and come with suggestions for dates and topics that would fit with work being done. NEXT MEETING: Next meeting is scheduled for Monday, December 15, 1997 at 9:00 a.m. in Conference Room B. MEETING ADJOURNED lavdd ad 1 MANAGEMENT MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, November 5, 1997 @ 10:00 AM • L Call to Order Meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. Present: Whiting, Kessel, Bennett,Ulrich, Ramacher, Jopke, Saarion, Sanchez. Absent: Hammerschmidt and Zikmund H. Department Reports - Saarion reported that two property owners share a diseased tree that needs to be removed and neither party will take responsibility. Whiting stated that a certified letter should go to each resident stating that they have 10 days to remove the tree or the city will have it removed and each resident will share the cost. The tree is located at 5293 Raymond. Ulrich reported that Best Buy has RAM on sale and Jim Hess will look into the purchase upgrade. Ramacher reported that the Mounds View High School has four to five computers to donate and his department will use two or three. Saarion stated Orkin is no longer needed at the Community Center. Whiting asked for comments on the Ring Road meeting. Saarion stated that the Park and Rec Commission like the concept. Whiting talked about SRF evaluating Mounds View Drive to address concerns presented by residents. Whiting stated that the theater development appears to need a coordinated approach towards all issues; and the ring road may be a plan guideline. Whiting reported the council work session regarding Spring Lake Road needs more policy work. III. Unfinished Business -Budget: Whiting talked about council members prefering franchise fees versus property taxes. There will be a special work session on Monday, November 17. . Kessel will get budget updates to council and department heads. IV. New Business-Personnel Policies: tabled until next meeting. Council Staff Relations: Whiting asked to discuss concerns regarding council/staff relations and whether unclear direction is coming from council at work sessions. Whiting stated that this tends to be a norm for some city councils and that the issue needs to be explored. He will take into advisement concerns and discuss with council members. Ulrich and Whiting reviewed the WOLD report on city hall HVAC. Heat went out on election day. Whiting asked if there was other space the city could lease if there is an ongoing problem. Ramacher stated that the Police department is having problems with their boiler. V. Adjournment- There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:45 a.m. Next meeting is Wednesday, November 12 at 10:00 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Tracy Sanchez, Recording Secretary copro ,ATInm 11V-✓ a �a L MANAGEMENT MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, November 12, 1997 @ 10:00 AM • L Call to Order Meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. Present: Whiting, Kessel, Ulrich,Hammerschmidt, Ramacher, Saarion, Sanchez. Absent: Jopke and Bennett H. Department Reports - Whiting stated that Sherry Gunn will be sworn in on the November 24 at the city council meeting. Hammerschmidt reported that tarps are on the greens and the course is closed. Litigation is going well. The city will receive full the amount of money back regarding board walk issues. A person from Florida will check out a preliminary agreement and cost for lighting the golf course. The golf course checked out okay with MNDOT regarding permits. Hammerschmidt discussed lighting revenues and how it would pay over the years. Zikmund reported a house fire in Blaine. They evacuated three people and a dog. The fire department was successful recruiting a volunteer from Blaine. Ramacher and Saarion reported that Greenfield and Silverview were hit by graffiti and believe it is a new group of kids. III. Unfinished Business-Building Status: Ulrich reported that the city will purchase three new HVAC units and patch the city hall roof, hoping to resolve some problems. IV. New Business -Personnel Policies: Ramacher stated that the policy needs clean language to make it more understandable regarding workers comp, bank/sick leave and severance options. Whiting asked for a memo of what options are in the policy now and department heads will look 41, for solutions. Whiting also brought up for discussion other leave policies. They will further discuss policies at the next meeting. V. Adjournment- There being no further business, they adjourned the meeting at 12:20 p.m. Next meeting is Wednesday, November 19 at 10:00 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Tracy Sanchez, Recording Secretary INFORMATON ONL • 1 ' I •—• 4""s 7-'s '‘ 1 n _iir, , :, -, -....i , ,..„ ,, ,, ,,,..), , , . . ., uilivl, Aksit-, i , ��1 , ‘111 *11°I"7:: iy-a-1,-,. Off the Beaten Path . An 4iiiillAIL informational publication from RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd. November 1997 Vol. 1, No. 1 Responding to Requests for Stop Signs W elcome to Off the Individually,highway user costs Determine the Problem Beaten Path, a for each stop are minimal; technical publication however,when the costs are added When a request fora stop sign is designed to provide together for all users over a one made,be sure the reason for the you with new ideas, to year period,they are substantial request is clear. The main let you know about (see below). purpose of a stop sign is to assign things you might not right-of-way at an intersection. If be aware of, and to Annual Highway User Costs the problem to be addressed is not keep you informed on related to right-of-way,(per 1,000 vehicles stopping at stop then a stop issues related to sign on a 35 mile per hour street) sign is not the answer. civil engineering. $18,000 in excess vehicle In many cases,stop signs are operation costs requested to curb speeding on a street. Numerous studies have been conducted examining the One of the most common highway- 1,400 hours of lost time effect of stop signs on speeding. 0 related requests received by City, These studies have consistently County,and Township officials is 3,800 gallons of extra fuel shown that stop signs are poor for the installation of stop signs. speed control devices. Stop signs This bulletin offers suggestions on 8,400 pounds of carbon do reduce speeds at the point of how to respond to these requests monoxide emissions installation,but the effect of this well as information to be speed reduction is gone in a very considered in determining whether 600pounds of hydrocarbon short distance(in less than 200 or not to install a stop sign at a Y particular location. emissions feet). 600 pounds of nitrogen oxide Conduct Studies Why Nat Just Give Them emissions What They Want? Once you have determined there is a potential problem that may be When you consider that the More than cost,the primary corrected by a stop sign,the next average cost to install a stop sign consideration in approving a stop step is to conduct studies to is less than$200, it seems difficult sign request is to make sure that a document the problem. Generally, to believe that any stop sign stop sign is the most appropriate these studies involve one or more request is ever turned down. The and effective solution to the of the following. cost of installation,however, is problem. Stop signs do not rarely a major factor in necessarily make an intersection 1. Traffic accident considering such a request. safer. Studies of low volume study-Traffic intersections with less than one accident reports are The true cost of a stop sign accident per year have shown that reviewed and includes not only installation,but adding stop signs does not reduce analyzed. It is a 0 also highway users costs,such as the accident rate;this is especially good idea to look at excess vehicle operation costs,lost true in cases where unnecessary reports for several time,and increased pollution. multi-way stops are created. years(at least the Page 2 last three)to make solution to the • sure you are getting problem. a reasonable picture of the area. Local If the problem is not significant police departments, enough to warrant a stop sign, county highway explain this to the person departments,and/or requesting the sign. Assure them the department of that the situation will be transportation are reviewed on a periodic basis and action will be taken should the :: the usual sources � > • for accident data situation change. If more effective solutions to the problem 2. Traffic volume exist,explain the alternatives and Where to use a stop study-Traffic count what action will be taken to sign: data is collected and correct the problem. If a stop Intersections with a analyzed by putting sign is the best solution to the • traffic count problem,give the person demonstrated accident machines on each requesting the sign an accurate problem involving approach to an estimate on how long it will take right-angle turn and intersection for a 48 before the sign is in place. left-turn accidents. hour period during Usually stop signs must be the week(Monday- approved by the local • Intersections with sight Friday). commission,council,or board, obstructions on the which may meet only once or approaches that restrict 3. Sight distance study twice a month. sight lines of -Sight lines for conflicting traffic. • traffic approaching Keep Good Records Uncontrolled the intersection are • reviewed and All requests for stop signs should intersections with much analyzed using field be documented,whether or not heavier traffic on onestreet than on the other. measurements. they result in the installation of a stop sign. These records are useful for future inquiries about • Intersections with heavy on Determine the Solution why there is or is not a stop sign heavy traffic aon at a particular location. Keeping proaches. After conducting the appropriate good records(and simply having studies,you may find the a good record system)is a key following: factor in successfully defending Problems that cannot your agency in any legal action be addressed with 1. You could not that may arise. stop signs: verify the problem Reducing speeding or the problem is Prepared by George Calebaugh. • not significant P.E.,Senior Transportation enough to justify Engineer with RLK Kuusisto,Ltd. • Eliminating cut- any action. through traffic on residential streets. For more information,contact one 2. There is a problem, of our four offices: • Providing a safer but there are more for effective solutions Minnetonka (612)933-0972 environment than the installation St.Paul (612)645-0393 pedestrians. of a stop sign. Hibbing (218)262-5528 . Twin Ports (218)720-6219 3. The requested stop 121—.1‹ sign is an effective