HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 1995/07/10 •
CITY COUNCIL
Items Dispensed
Per Consensus
1. Discussion Regarding Silver View Park Ballfield Impacts to Home Owners - per request
from Gene Wagner, President of Silver Lake Woods (15 minutes)
2. Consideration of Stop Sign Petition - Michael Ulrich (15 minutes)
AGENDA
PAGE TWO
JULY 10, 1995
Items Dispensed
Per Consensus
3. Consideration of Water Service Repair Responsibility - Michael Ulrich (10 minutes)
4. Report by Community Oriented Policing Committee - Diane Wuori (15 minutes)
.EKDNJOf' i E' E P E IT
ISSUES
5. Discussion of Anoka County Chamber of Commerce - Cathy Bennett (5 minutes)
AGENDA
PAGE THREE
JULY 10, 1995
Items Dispensed
Per Consensus
6. Discussion of Highway 10 Properties - Cathy Bennett (10 minutes)
CITY COUNCIL ISSUES
CONTINUED
7. Continued Discussion Regarding Pedestrian Bridge (per Councilmember Trude)
8. Update on Safety Lights on County Road I at Pinewood - Samantha Orduno (10
minutes)
AGENDA
PAGE FOUR
JULY 10, 1995
Items Dispensed
Per Consensus
PUBLIC WORKS ISSUES
9: Review of Assessment-Policy - Mike Ulrich (20minutes)
10. Consideration of Water Meter Changeout Proposal -Michael Ulrich (20 minutes)
11. Consideration of Contract Maintenance of County Roads - Michael Ulrich (10 minutes)
12. Consideration of Purchase of New Well Motor Starters - Michael Ulrich (5 minutes)
THIS IS
IT . . . .
For the Week of July 3, 1995 - July 7, 1995
ADMINISTRATION
REMEMBER THE SPECIAL BUDGET WORK SESSION AT 6:00 P.M. MONDAY.
ALSO REMEMBER TO BRING YOUR COPY OF THE FIRST BUDGET DRAFT THAT
WAS DISTRIBUTED ON THURSDAY, JUNE 21.
This has been the kind of week we all like...short. That's not to say it hasn't been
busy, because it certainly has been busy.
******************
Cathy and Lynnette have been on vacation all week (although Cathy came in for a
meeting this am....is that dedication or what?!) So, it has just been Michele and I.
Between the phone calls, meetings, requests for information, responding to internal
and external concerns, we're pooped!
********************
Dawn Postudensek (Pos-tu-den-sek) begins on Monday....thank God! I am meeting
with her tomorrow morning (Friday) to bring her up to speed on some of the things
she'll be working on beginning Monday. So, if she returns on Monday, after hearing
all that needs to be done, it will be a true indication of her "grit".
*********************
Cathy, Bob Thistle, Jim O'Meara, the members of the proposed Bridges Technology
Park development and myself met this morning to discuss the outstanding issues
involved in the proposed development. Those issues being the ones discussed at the
Planning Commission last night:
* Sufficient parking on the site
* Proper screening on the south side (abutting the northern end of
the practice range) where the proposed loading bays are located.
* Placement and construction of the detention pond on Outlot A.
Plus issues of concern to the City:
* Proper screening of the western side of the site where it is
anticipated that the City will one day have passive recreational
activities (natural trails and such)
* TIF of the ponding area for all three remaining lots
* TIF assistance for the development - the request is for $40,000
per year for 8.5 years.
* The proposed phased development - the partners have a purchase
agreementfor the middle lot an the propose pan-is-or an
addition to the current building sometime in the future.
* The need to see the lease agreement between the main tenant,
Midwest I.V. and the secondary tenant, Laser Cutting Technology.
* Financial analysis of the requested per square foot assistance in
present value (needed for a comparison with C.G. Hill)
* Additional financial information in terms of holder of mortgage
and identification of all funding sources (i.e. SBA, TIF,
traditional mortgage).
* Private construction of the detention pond rather than as a
City project (although funding for the construction is
through TIF)
Although the list of concerns and information needs appears lengthy, most of the
items will be resolved very shortly. Meetings are planned in the near future with the
City and developer's engineers to discuss the ponding and among the financial
consultants and staff to refine the TIF request.
The timeframe for the project is:
August 2 Planning Commission review
August 16 Planning Commission action
August 7 City Council discussion of TIF and development
plans
August 28 Council consideration of approving TIF and
development plan
********************
See you Monday!
Samantha
FINANCE
• Dorothy Peterson has sent out meter reading cards in preparation for the
second quarter utility billing.
• Mary Tatarek and Kitty Hickok have been busy checking the first drafts of the
1996 Budget for accuracy of calculations.
• Don Brager has been looking into the managed care option for workers
compensation. Under this option the City selects a managed care provider
that directs the care an employee receives after a work related injury and pays
the medical providers. The LMCIT gives a 5% discount on workers
compensation premiums for Cities that choose this option.
• ON DREAMS: House Majority Leader Armey is asked if his flat-tax plan, which
eliminates mortgage and other deductions, would kill the American dream of
home ownership. With a smile, he quips: "The American dream is not owning
your own home. It's getting your children out of it."
- The Wall Street Journal, July 5, 1996
Don
PUBLIC WORKS
* The Streets Department is continuing to patch the streets in
order to get ready for slurry seal.
* Lead and Copper Testing will begin next week. We are at a
reduced testing mode, meaning we only need to test 30
residents instead of the initial 60 . Lead and Copper
Testing began in 1992 and we have had tremendous cooperation
from our residents.
* The Sewer Department continues to clean and televise the
mains.
* Bill Hanggi was on vacation last week, Bill Hanson will be
on vacation for the next 2 weeks.
* Wally Mortenson is on vacation this week.
Tracy
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
NEW STATE LAW DEALING WITH PLANNING ISSUES
Effective July 1, 1995, a new state law, adopted during the 1995
legislative session, states that a City, County, Township or
other agency must approve or deny any application "related to"
zoning, septic systems or expansion of the MUSA (Metropolitan
Urban Service Area) within 60 days of receipt of a written
request. If the application is incomplete in any way, the agency
must notify the applicant in writing (no phone calls) within 10
days. The law goes on to say that notification (to other
agencies) of an application which requires action by more than
one agency is the responsibility of the agency first receiving
the request - and the 60 day deadline begins when the first
agency receives the application!
The Minnesota Chapter of the American Planning Association
opposed this bill and will be holding a workshop on strategies to
deal with its implementation. The law is of particular concern
to the City of Mounds View in that turnaround time on
applications is a little slower because we use an outside
consultant for engineering services.
Staff wanted the Council to be aware of this new law and will be
updating you frequently on its impacts to City planning reviews.
PHONE BOOK RECYCLING
Recycling Intern Pete Lindstrom has been working on setting up a
collection site for old phone books at the public Works Garage.
Beginning in mid to late July, a dumpster will be located at the
Garage so residents can dispose of their old phone books. The
dumpster will be on site for approximately 4-6 weeks. Although
the exact dates have not been set, please begin to get the word
out about this service. When the dates become more finalized,
Staff will be advertising the service on the City Hall message
board.
Paul
(PARKS, RECREATION AND FORESTRY
PARKS:
* The Regional AAU Baseball Tournament was held this past
weekend without a hitch. Staff met with a representative of
MVAA, Greg Ulrich, who took over the supervision and did a
marvelous job of coordinating the responsibilities amongst
the parents and coaches. The park was clean and staff did
not receive any complaints regarding the use of the park.
* Greenfield Park baseball field was broken into this past
week. Both the chains and lock were broken off the gates
during the night.
* The Parks crew is spending the week preparing for the
Festival in the Park activities which requires a lot of
extra details at City Hall Park, as well as completing
regular parks maintenance.
* The rains have delayed mowing and the athletic fields are
quite soggy. Once dry weather arrives again the parks crew
will strive to catch up on mowing as soon as possible.
RECREATION:
* Sharie and Mary are working Festival activities all week.
The office is the main source for the Medallion Hunt - a
clue given each day. The Cribbage Tournament is being held
Thursday, July 6, as well as the Business' Golf Tournament.
Many other activities will be going on before Sunday which
is Festival Day Parade.
* "Anything Goes" ticket reservations and sales have begun,
which means that the telephone rings much more often than
usual.
* The Adult Softball Leagues have chosen to have year-end
play-offs to decide who represents each league at the
District Tournaments. Mary has been working on standing to
determine the play-off schedules which begin next weekend.
* Summer Playgrounds and trips are on a role. Summer
Playground Supervisor Brad Pellegrino has been busy
facilitating the playground leaders as well as making the
necessary arrangements for events and special activities.
CABLE TV:
* Jerry Skelly Jr and Dale Irving spent some time late last
week to organize tapes and inventory equipment.
* Five applicants have been scheduled for interviews next
Wednesday. Jerry Skelly Sr. , Mary Saarion and Lynette
Morgan will be participating as the interview panel.
GOLF COURSE OPERATIONS:
* Even with the wet weather, golfers have been out golfing the
course. Of course, the better the weather, the better the
turnout. Golf Course staff continue to become familiar with
the new computer reservation and revenue system. Staff
assignments and scheduling continues to be "tweeked" as the
patronage numbers and customer peaks and valleys begin to
stabilize and become more consistent.
* Mary is finalizing part time personnel job descriptions and
staff manuals. Samples have been received from Hennepin
County and St. Paul Parks and other municipal golf course
agencies. We are using bits and pieces of theirs in
preparation of our own unique documents that serve our
particular needs.
Mary S.
POLICE
* The Fedor's Market smash & grab bandit has been arrested. He
was arrested in Mounds View by Sgt. Johnson just prior to
him hitting Fedors for the fourth time. The suspect admitted
to 17 others incidents. Excellent police work by Johnson and
Siluk lead to the clearance of the cases in the other
communities.
* A five year old girl drowned in her grandparent's bathtub
last week. The girl had a history of seizures . Three of our
officers administered CPR but to no avail.
* All members of the Department qualified at range at a
regular scheduled shoot.
* Last week, two Juveniles were arrested . for stealing from
cars. Two of New Brighton's cases were also cleared.. They
were not local kids.
* Tom Baumgart attended a Crime Prevention School last week.
Also, Bob Nelson was in Duluth last week attending a
Death-scene seminar.
* A couple of burglaries have occurred at the Silver-point
Apts. Construction workers have had tools taken. The thefts
have occurred at night with suspects entering the building
via the air-conditioning vents.
• A number of people have taken 'vacationg in the past two
weeks. The list includes Pat M. ,Dave B. ,Tom K. ,Larry S. ,Dave
A. ,and Reed K.
* Jerry Johnson' s mother-in-law passed away suddenly on
Tuesday.
Tim R.
SPECIAL -COUNCIL- WORK SESSION
MONDAY, JULY 10, 1995
6: 00 P. M .
PURPOSE: CONTINUED DISCUSSION
OF FIRST DRAFT OF
1996 BUDGET
SPECIAL COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MONDAY, JULY 10, 1995
6:00 P.M.
PURPOSE: CONTINUED DISCUSSION
OF FIRST DRAFT OF
1996 BUDGET
***REMEMBER TO BRING YOUR FIRST DRAFT
BUDGET!!! !
AGENDA
1 . Recap of Police Department Program
2. Legislative Services
3. Administrative Services
4. Financial Services
5. Public Works
6. Parks and Recreation
PLEASE REPLACE OLD
PAGES WITH THE
ATTACHED PAGES
DEPARTMENT: POLICE
PROGRAM: ADMINISTRATION
1996 RESOURCE ALLOCATION
EXPENDITURES 1993 I 1994 1995 1996 1996
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET APPROVED
Employee Services 176,903 181,711 190,859 105,023
Materials & Services 6,199 4,879 6,375 5,002
Contractual Services 2,607 16,409 7,147 6,557
Capital Outlay 2,802 8,421 2,000 1,000
TOTAL 188,511 211,420 206,381 117,582
APPROPRIATION
PERSONNEL ALLOCATIONS
POSITION 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET APPROVED
F-T Positions: 2.75 2.75 2.75
CHIEF .80
LIEUTENANT .40
SECRETARY 2.75 2.75 2.75 .30
P-T Positions: .625 .75 .75
SENIOR CLERK .15
TOTAL 3.375 3.50 3.50 1.65
FTE'S
NEW PAGE 40
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET DETAIL- 1996 EXPENDITURES
100-4200 GENERAL FUND POLICE ADMINISTRATION
1993 1994 1995 1995 DEPARTMENT TEAM COUNCIL
ITEM DESCRIPTION ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGE I EU Y.T.D. REQUESTS REQUESTS APPROVES
PERSONNEL SERVICES
010 SALARIES, REGULAR $176,903 $126,265 $133,405 $45,624 $81,619 $0 $0
011 OVERTIME, REGULAR $0 $0 $0 $131 $0 $0 $0
020 SALARIES, TEMP/PART-TIME $0 $18,484 $20,653 $12,596 $4,213 $0 $0
030 PENSIONS $0 $17,406 $17,944 $6,707 $9,886 $0 $0
040 GROUP INSURANCE $0 $13,026 $13,866 $6,418 $6,534 $0 $0
050 WORKERS COMPENSATION $0 $6,530 $4,991 $878 $2,771 $0 $0
TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES $176,903 $181,711 $190,859 $72,354 $105,023 $0 $0
MATERIALS + SUPPLIES
111 STATIONERY $0 $98 $150 $31 $100 $0 $0
121 SUPPLIES, BLDGS+GRNDS $0 $186 $250 $437 $250 $0 $0
1.60 SUPPLIES,OPERATING $6,199 $2,387 $1,400 $1,390 $1,400 $0 $0
170 MOTOR FUELS + LUBRICANT $0 $625 $2,000 $234 $725 $0 $0
210 BOOKS + PERIODICALS $0 $291 $475 $564 $250 $0 $0
240 UNIFORMS + CLOTHING $0 $1,292 $2,100 $1,802 $2,277 $0 $0
TOTAL MATERIALS+ SUPPLIES $6,199 $4,879 $6,375 $4,458 $5,002 $0 $0
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
303 OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERV $2,607 $100 $400 $15 $400 $0 $0
310 TELEPHONE $0 $100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
343 PRINTING $0 $427 $500 $101 $400 $0 $0
361 MEMBERSHIPS $0 $360 $275 $180 $445 $0 $0
363 TRAINING $0 $1,700 $1,658 $979 $2,682 $0 $0
390 GRANTS + SUBSIDIES $0 $12,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
401 RENTAL, EQUIPMENT $0 $912 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
480 INSURANCE&BONDS $0 $0 $3,874 $1,572 $2,230 $0 $0
513 REPAIRS, EQUIPMENT $0 $310 $440 $271 $400 $0 $0
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $2,607 $16,409 $7,147 $3,118 $6,557 $0 $0
CAPITAL OUTLAY
703 EQUIPMENT $2,802 $8,421 $1,000 $1,984 $1,000 $0 $0
704 VEHICLES $0 $0 $1,000 $1,472 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $2,802 $8,421 $2,000 $3,456 $1,000 $0 $0
TOTAL POLICE-ADMINISTRATIC $188.511 $211,420 $206,381 $83,386 $117.582
NEW PAGE 41
DEPARTMENT: POLICE
• PROGRAM: CRIME PREVENTION
1996 RESOURCE ALLOCATION
EXPENDITURES 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996
- -- ACT-UAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET- APPROVED-
Employee Services 17,400 21,445 17,236 23,655
Materials & Services
Contractual Services 224 274 413 266
Capital Outlay 1,000
TOTAL 17,624 21,719 17,649 24,921
4PPROPRIATION
PERSONNEL ALLOCATION
POSITION 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET APPROVED
F-T Positions: .40 .40 .40
DARE .40 .40 .40 .40
OFFICER
SECRETARY .05
P-T Positions:
•
TOTAL .45 .45 .45 .45
FTE'S
NEW PAGE 42
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET DETAIL- 1996 EXPENDITURES
100-4202 GENERAL FUND POUCE - CRIME PREVENTION
1993 1994 1995 1995 DEPARTMENT TEAM COUNCIL
ITEM DESCRIPTION ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED Y.T.D. REQUESTS REQUESTS APPROVES
PERSONNEL SERVICES
010 SALARIES, REGULAR $17,400 $16,660 $13,482 $5,193 $19,422 $0 $0
011 OVERTIME, REGULAR $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
020 SALARIES,TEMP/PART-TIME $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
030 PENSIONS $0 $2,119 $1,536 $667 $2,485 $0 $0
040 GROUP INSURANCE $0 $1,550 $1,584 $455 $1,070 $0 $0
050 WORKERS COMPENSATION $0 $1,116 $634 $111 $678 $0 $0
TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES $17,400 $21,445 $17,236 $6,426 $23,655 $0 $0
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
303 OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERV $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
343 PRINTING $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
361 MEMBERSHIPS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
363 TRAINING $224 $274 $413 $0 $266 $0 $0
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $224 $274 $413 $0 $266 $0 $0
CAPITAL OUTLAY
703 EQUIPMENT $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $0
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $0
TOTAL POLICE - CRIME PREV $17.624 $21.719 $17,649 $6.426 $24.921 IQ
NEW PAGE 43
DEPARTMENT: POLICE
PROGRAM: PATROL
1996. RESOURCE ALLOCATION
EXPENDITURES 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET APPROVED
Employee Services 573,074 580,374 614,918 661,213
Materials &Services 13,220 27,674 13,775 22,489
Contractual Services 6,903 7,317 19,326 21,190
Capital Outlay 23,172 49,682 36,400 41,900
TOTAL 616,369 665,047 684,419 748,612
APPROPRIATION
PERSONNEL ALLOCATIONS
POSITION 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET APPROVED
F-T Positions: 10.6 10.6 10.6
OFFICERS 10.06 10.6 10.6 10.6
CHIEF .05
LIEUTENANT .15
SECRETARY .25
P-T Positions:
SENIOR CLERK .45
TOTAL 10.6 10.6 10.6 11.5
FTE'S
NEW PAGE 44
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET DETAIL- 1996 EXPENDITURES
100-4205 GENERAL FUND POUCE - PATROL
1993 1994 1995 1995 DEPARTMENT TEAM COUNCIL
ITEM DESCRIPTION ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGE I EL) Y.T.D. REQUESTS REQUESTS APPROVES
PERSONNEL SERVICES
010 SALARIES, REGULAR $573,074 $468,817 $486,041 $180,182 $519,622 $0 $0
011 OVERTIME, REGULAR $0 $4,786 $6,000 $6,630 $7,000 $0 $0
020 SALARIES,TEMP/PART-TIME $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,640 $0 $0
030 PENSIONS $0 $56,101 $57,837 $21,823 $63,309 $0 $0
040 GROUP INSURANCE $0 $34,005 $41,976 $17,588 $39,340 $0 $0
050 WORKERS COMPENSATION $0 $16,665 $23,064 $4,058 $19,302 $0 $0
TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES $573,074 $580,374 $614,918 $230,281 $661,213 $0 $0
MATERIALS + SUPPLIES
111 STATIONERY $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
121 SUPPLIES,BLDGS+GRNDS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
160 SUPPLIES,OPERATING $13,220 $602 $600 $451 $600 $0 $0
170 MOTOR FUELS+ LUBRICANT $0 $20,881 $6,300 $301 $16,029 $0 $0
210 BOOKS + PERIODICALS $0 $291 $475 $290 $250 $0 $0
240 UNIFORMS+ CLOTHING $0 $5,900 $6,400 $7,726 $5,610 $0 $0
TOTAL MATERIALS+ SUPPLIES $13,220 $27,674 $13,775 $8,768 $22,489 $0 $0
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
303 OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERV $6,903 $0 $300 $0 $300 $0 $0
310 TELEPHONE $0 $2,240 $2,640 $1,223 $2,640 $0 $0
343 PRINTING $0 $427 $400 $74 $400 $0 $0
361 MEMBERSHIPS $0 $0 $30 $0 $30 $0 $0
363 TRAINING $0 $3,400 $3,076 $624 $2,660 $0 $0
390 GRANTS + SUBSIDIES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
401 RENTAL, EQUIPMENT $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
480 INSURANCE&BONDS $0 $0 $10,950 $2,426 $13,390 $0 $0
513 REPAIRS, EQUIPMENT $0 $1,250 $1,930 $392 $1,770 $0 $0
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $6,903 $7,317 $19,326 $4,739 $21,190 $0 $0
CAPITAL OUTLAY
703 EQUIPMENT $0 $17,615 $15,400 $9,146 $11,900 $0 $0
704 VEHICLES $23,172 $32,067 $21,000 $888 $30,000 $0 $0
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $23,172 $49,682 $36,400 $10,034 $41,900 $0 $0
TOTAL POLICE - PATROL $616.369 $665.047 $684419 $253,822 $746,792 $0
NEW PAGE 45
DEPARTMENT: POLICE
PROGRAM: INVESTIGATION
• 1996 RESOURCE ALLOCATION
I EXPENDITURES 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996
ACTUAL- ACTUAL BUDGET -BUDGET - APPROVED
Employee Services 106,989 111,433 118,903 165,158
Materials & Services 4,399 2,226 5,275 3,199
Contractual Services 1,069 1,329 3,762 4,092
Capital Outlay 925 1,500 2,500
TOTAL 113,382 114,988 129,440 174,949
APPROPRIATION
PERSONNEL ALLOCATIONS
POSITION 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET APPROVED
F-T Positions: 2 2 2
INVEST. 2 2 2 2
CHIEF .15
LIEUTENANT .20
SECRETARY .40
P-T Positions:
SENIOR CLERK .15
TOTAL 2 2 2 2.9
FTE'S
NEW PAGE 46
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET DETAIL- 1996 EXPENDITURES
100-4207 GENERAL FUND POLICE - INVESTIGATION
1993 1994 1995 1995 DEPARTMENT TEAM COUNCIL
ITEM DESCRIPTION ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED Y.T.D. REQUESTS REQUESTS APPROVES
PERSONNEL SERVICES
010 SALARIES, REGULAR $106,989 $89,794 $94,633 $35,881 $132,852 $0 $0
011 OVERTIME, REGULAR $0 $0 $1,000 $262 $1,000 $0 $0
020 SALARIES, TEMP/PART-TIME $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
030 PENSIONS $0 $10,574 $10,902 $4,093 $15,389 $0 $0
040 GROUP INSURANCE $0 $7,440 $7,920 $3,715 $11,484 $0 $0
050 WORKERS COMPENSATION $0 $3,625 $4,448 $782 $4,433 $0 $0
TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES $106,989 $111,433 $118,903 $44,733 $165,158 $0 $0
MATERIALS + SUPPLIES
111 STATIONERY $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
121 SUPPLIES, BLDGS+GRNDS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
160 SUPPLIES,OPERATING $4,399 $98 $1,100 $0 $1,100 $0 $0
170 MOTOR FUELS + LUBRICANT $0 $837 $2,700 $23 $500 $0 $0
210 BOOKS + PERIODICALS $0 $291 $475 $267 $250 $0 $0
240 UNIFORMS+ CLOTHING $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,020 $1,349 $0 $0
TOTAL MATERIALS+ SUPPLIES $4,399 $2,226 $5,275 $1,310 $3,199 $0 $0
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
303 OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERV $1,069 $100 $300 $40 $300 $0 $0
310 TELEPHONE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
343 PRINTING $0 $427 $300 $0 $300 $0 $0
361 MEMBERSHIPS $0 $30 $80 $36 $80 $0 $0
363 TRAINING $0 $772 $866 $762 $1,032 $0 $0
390 GRANTS + SUBSIDIES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
401 RENTAL, EQUIPMENT $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
480 INSURANCE&BONDS $0 $0 $2,066 $1,172 $2,230 $0 $0
513 REPAIRS, EQUIPMENT $0 $0 $150 $8 $150 $0 $0
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $1,069 $1,329 $3,762 $2,018 $4,092 $0 $0
CAPITAL OUTLAY
703 EQUIPMENT $925 $0 $500 $304 $2,500 $0 $0
704 VEHICLES $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $925 $0 $1,500 $304 $2,500 $0 $0
TOTAL POLICE - INVESTIGATIC $113.382 $114.988 $129.440 $48,365 $174,949 I0
NEW PAGE 47
C
DEPARTMENT: POLICE
PROGRAM: MIS
1996 RESOURCE ALLOCATION
EXPENDITURES 1993 1.994 199 1996_ 1996
ACTUALACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET APPROVED
Employee Services
Materials & Services
Contractual Services 51,529 67,602 67,528 69,156
Capital Outlay
TOTAL 51,529 67,602 67,528 69,156
APPROPRIATION
PERSONNEL.ALLOCATIONS
POSITION 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET APPROVED
F-T Positions:
Total F-T
Positions:
P-T Positions:
TOTAL
FTE'S NEW PAGE 48
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET DETAIL- 1996 EXPENDITURES
100-4209 GENERAL FUND POLICE - MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
1993 1994 1995 1995 P
TEAM COUNCIL
ITEM DESCRIPTION ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED Y.T.D. REQUESTS TREQUESTS APPROVES
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
303 OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERV $51,529 $56,333 $56,828 $13,479 $57,956 $0 $0
310 TELEPHONE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
343 PRINTING $0 $0 $0 0 $0$0 $0 $0
$0
361 MEMBERSHIPS $0 $0 $0 $0
363 TRAINING $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0
390 GRANTS +SUBSIDIES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
401 RENTAL, EQUIPMENT $0 $912 $1,020 $373 $1,20 $0 $0
480 INSURANCE&BONDS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
513 REPAIRS, EQUIPMENT $0 $10,357 $9,680 $4,221-_ _$10.180 -
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $51,529 $67,602 $67,528 $18,073 $69,156 $0 $0
CAPITAL OUTLAY
703 EQUIPMENT $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
704 VEHICLES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL POLICE - MIS $51.529 $67,602 $67,528 $18,073 $69,156 $_0 $.(1
•
NEW PAGE 49
DEPARTMENT: POLICE
PROGRAM: EMERGENCY SERVICE
1996 RESOURCE ALLOCATION
EXPENDITURES 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996
ACTUAL -ACTUAL TUAL BUDGET BUDGET APPROVED
Employee Services 15,716 14,861 16,817 16,992
Materials & Services
Contractual Services 332 707 500 750
Capital Outlay
TOTAL 16,048 15,568 17,317 17,742
APPROPRIATION
PERSONNEL ALLOCATIONS
POSITION 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET APPROVED
F-T Positions: .25 .25 .25
EMER SER DIR .25 .25 .25 .25
P-T Positions:
TOTAL .25 .25 .25 .25
FTE'S
NEW PAGE 50
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET DETAIL- 1996 EXPENDITURES
100-4230 GENERAL FUND EMERGENCY SERVICES
1993 1994 1995 1995 DEPARTMENT TEAM COUNCIL
ITEM DESCRIPTION ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED Y.T.D. REQUESTS REQUESTS APPROVES
PERSONNEL SERVICES
010 SALARIES, REGULAR $12,652 $12,011 $13,408 $5,428 $13,896 $0 $0
011 OVERTIME, REGULAR $1,493 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
020 SALARIES,TEMP+PART TIME $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
030 PENSIONS $895 $1,369 $1,643 $619 $1,584 $0 $0
040 GROUP INSURANCE $5 $935 $930 $494 $990 $0 $0
050 WORKERS COMPENSATION $671 $546 $836 $147 $522 $0 $0
TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES $15,716 $14,861 $16,817 $6,688 $16,992 $0 $0
MATERIALS + SUPPLIES
160 SUPPLIES, OPERATING $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL MATERIALS+ SUPPLIES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
303 OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERV $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
310 TELEPHONE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
321 ELECTRICITY $196 $222 $250 $78 $250 $0 $0
363 TRAINING $136 $485 $250 $69 $500 $0 $0
380 MILEAGE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
513 REPAIRS, EQUIPMENT $0 $0 $0 $502 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $332 $707 $500 $649 $750 $0 $0
CAPITAL OUTLAY
703 EQUIPMENT $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 . $0
TOTAL EMERGENCY SERVICES $16 048 $15,568 $17,317 $7,337 $17,742 V V
NEW PAGE 51
DEPARTMENT: POLICE
PROGRAM: COMMUNITY SERVICE
1996.RESOURCE ALLOCATION
EXPENDITURES 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996
-ACT-UAL ACTUAL, - BUDGET BUDGET -APPROVED -
Employee Services 14,588 14,363 15,177 15,521
Materials & Services 515 719 550 700
Contractual Services 1,730 415 2,517 2,000
Capital Outlay
TOTAL 16,833 15,497 18,244 18,221
APPROPRIATION
PERSONNEL ALLOCATIONS
POSITION 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET APPROVED
F-T Positions:
P-T Positions: .5 .5 .5
C.S.O. .5 .5 .5 .5
TOTAL .5 .5 .5 .5
FTE'S
NEW PAGE 52
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET DETAIL-1996 EXPENDITURES
100-4240 GENERAL FUND COMMUNITY SERVICES/ANIMAL CONTROL
1993 1994 1995 1995 DEPARTMENT TEAM COUNCIL
ITEM DESCRIPTION ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGE i tU Y.T.D. REQUESTS REQUESTS APPROVES
PERSONNEL SERVICES
020 SALARIES,TEMP + PARTT1ME $13,188 $11,253 $11,703 $4,567 $11,934 $0 $0
030 PENSIONS $1,185 $1,083 $1,420 $447 $1,448 $0 $0
040 GROUP INSURANCE $0 $1,860 $1,860 $933 $1,980 $0 $0
050 WORKERS COMPENSATION $215 $167 $194 $34 $159 $0 $0
060 UNEMPLOYMENT COMP $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES $14,588 $14,363 $15,177 $5,981 $15,521, $0 $0
MATERIALS + SUPPLIES
160 SUPPLIES,OPERATING $76 $242 $150 $19 $150 $0 $0
170 MOTOR FUELS+ LUBRICANT $323 $455 $250 $0 $400 $0 $0
240 UNIFORMS+CLOTHING $116 $22 $150 $37 $150 $0 $0
TOTAL MATERIALS+ SUPPLIES $515 $719 $550 $56 $700 $0 $0
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
303 OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERV $1,730 $415 $2,517 $102 $2,000 $0 $0
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $1,730 $415 $2,517 $102 $2,000 $0 $0
TOTAL COMM SERV/ANIMAL CT $16833 15,497 $18 244 $6,139 $18,221 $0 V
NEW PAGE53
DEPARTMENT: STREETS
PROGRAM: PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
1996 RESOURCE ALLOCATION
- -
1993-— - --1994- - - -1995- - 1996 -- -1-916- -_ ---
EXPENDITURES ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET EST. APPR'D
Employee Services $51118 $53080 $64827 $66716 $
Materials & Services $9874 $1346 $3674 $4559 $
Contractual Services $489 $8496 $4475 $9075 $
Capital Outlay $47020 $127243 $125500 $131600 $
TOTAL APPROPRIATION $108501 $190165 $198976 $211950 $
... . . . .. . .. ...
PERSONNEL ALLOCATIONS
1993 1994 1995 1996 1996
POSITION ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET EST. APPROVED
F-T Positions:
Operator & 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13
Director of PW
Department Secretary .33
Engineering Tech .33
Total F-T Positions: 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.79
P-T Positions:
Seasonal .25 .25
TOTAL ETES 1.13 1.13 1.38 2.04
NEW PAGE 54
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: SAMANTHA ORDUNO, CITY ADMINISTRAT• ' 4
DATE: JULY 5, 1995
RE: INDEX FOR WEEK OF JULY 10, 1995
MEETINGS SCHEDULED FOR THE WEEK OF JULY 10, 1995
. Special Budget Work Session - Discussion of First Draft
1996 Budget - July 10, 1995, 6:00 p.m.
. Council Work Session, July 10, 1995, 7:00 p.m.
ITEMS PROVIDED IN THIS WEEK'S COUNCIL PACKET
. This Is It!
. Agenda
******************
ADMINISTRATOR'S SCHEDULE
(Please note that this schedule is subject to change
as meetings are scheduled, rescheduled or canceled.
At any time Michele, Cathy or Lynnette will have my
most current schedule and a number where I can be
reached at all times . )
Monday, July 10, 1995
6:00 p.m. Special Budget Meeting
10:00 a.m. Fire Budget Meeting - Blaine (Three City
Officials)
7:00 p.m. Council Meeting
Tuesday, July 11 , 1995
7:30 a.m. AMM Breakfast Meeting
- 2 -
Wednesday, July 12, 1995
10:00 a.m. Fire Budget (Station 1 - City and Fire Reps.)
Thursday, July 13, 1995
8:40 a.m. Bridge--T-echnologer-Par-k_-Meeting _ _ _-_ _- _
Friday, July 14, 1995
MCMA Meeting - 1 :00 a.m.
(247_,i_zelAd it/W-/4
7 / a
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MAY 10,1995 6:00 P.M.
--OUTLINE--
Problem--Balls coming over out-field fences from Silver View Park ball
diamonds and hitting houses of Silver Lake Woods homeowners.
Several pieces of siding and a window have had to be replaced.
Background--Several-meetings and discussions among-SLW homeowners
and city officials have taken place, including at least one
presentation at a City Council meeting.
--City installed an orange "snow-fence" atop the berm in 1994
and again in 1995.
--Gene Wagner (SLWHA Pres.) met with Mary Saarion, Rick
(Forester), and two others atop the berm by the balifield on
May 18, 1995 to review the problem and discuss options.
Solution--All at the meeting on 5-18-95 agreed a "green wall of 15 Black
Hills Spruce, properly placed, would provide an effective and
visually pleasing solution to the problem. The total cost would
be approx. $200.00 per tree or $3000.00 in all.
City Position--There is no money budgeted for this item and the city is not
legally liable for damage to property or homeowners in this
case, therefore, nothing more will be done.
SLWHA Position--Any organization (SLWHA, VFW, Bridgemans or the City of
Mounds View) must assume responsibility for damage
to neighbors caused by the activities allowed or sponsored
by that organization.
--SLWHA members pay approx. $250,000.00 in property
taxes each year with about $45,000.00 (18%) going to the
City of Mounds View and $4500.00 (10%) of the city's
share to the Park Board. We need only about $3000.00
to correct a problem which is serious and is not going to
go away.
--Is it possible to get a copy of the legal opinion which
absolves the City of any liability? Research by SLWHA
legal people indicates this position can be challenged.
Request--Install 15 trees on top of the berm in locations which will provide
a "green wall" of protection for nur SLW homeowners.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 2
STAFF REPORT Report Number: 95-1397WS
1111706
� AGENDA SESSION DATE July 10, 1995 Report Date: 6-2 9-9 5
DISPOSITION
Item Description: Consideration of Stop Sign Petition
Administrator's Review/Recommendation:
- No comments to supplement this report
- Comments attached.
Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.)
SUMMARY;
Staff spoke to a resident in the Groveland neighborhood area regarding a
request for a three way stop sign installation at the intersection of Ardan
Ave. and Fairchild Ave. The resident proceeded to explain of an incident
of a young child entering Ardan Ave. from the pathway that connects LaPort
Drive and Ardan Ave. Apparently this child was nearly involved in an
accident with a motor vehicle.
I explained that it was staff' s opinion that the intersection probably
would not meet the warrants for a three way stop. Staff continued by
explaining the procedure required for the possible installation of
regulatory signs . Since that date staff has received a petition from
residents in the area. Staff explained that the petition would be brought
before the City Council for their consideration. At that time staff would
provide council with all pertinent information available regarding the
intersection and the warrants for a stop sign installation. It would then
be Council' s decision whether to direct staff to conduct a traffic study
of the intersection and surrounding appenditures .
Staff requested traffic reports from the Police Department for the past Two
years for the intersection in question. To date there has been no accidents
at the intersection, although there was a bicycle/vehicle accident, where
the bicyclist ran into a vehicle on Ardan Ave, after entering the street.
Traffic counts have not been taken through this intersection, although in
1993 only 1000 vehicles crossed the intersection of Ardan Ave. at Groveland
Road (both directions) . The warrants for Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for
merely a two way stop sign is 3 , 000 ADT.
Staff did offer to install small stop signs on the pathway at the entrance
to Ardan Ave. These signs are on order, and will be placed on all pathways
that enter streets .
Staff seeks Council direction regarding this petition.
' (
Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works
RECOMMENDATION;
' REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 3.
STAFF REPORT Report Number: 95-1398WS
111706
� AGENDA SESSION DATE July 10 , 1995 Report Date: 7-5-9 5
DISPOSITION
Seu eublic nearing to wusider Ordinauue No.565, Ameucliuy Lixe Muuude View
Item Description: Municipal Code, Chapter 906.04 Entitled "Watermeters", Subd. 4, Entitled,
"Liability for Repairs.
Administrator's Review/Recommendation:
- No comments to supplement this report Alik& 914.,7 114-%
- Comments attached.
Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.)
,SUMM
At the June Council work session, staff was directed to amend the ordinance
relating to the liability for repairs to customer water services . The
amended ordinance will add, that the City of Mounds View will assume
responsibility for the repair or replacement of any impervious surface
damaged or removed, while performing a repair of a leak or break of a
private water service . The property owner will still be responsible for the
entire repair of the service to the City water main.
For Council' s consideration is amended Ordinance 906 . 04 Subd. 4 . Liability
for Repairs :
After the initial connection has been made to the watermain, the
applicant of the occupant of other user of such premises shall be
liable for all repairs between the water main and the structure
located on the premise. The Municipality shall provide repair of amz
impervious surface, should it be necessary in the performance of the
repair of a leak or break of the property' s service . Maintenance of
the curb stop box shall be that of the applicant, owner or occupant
or other user of the premises, and it shall be the responsibility of
said party to maintain the curb stop box at such height as will ensure
that it will remain above the finished grade of the land or property.
Nothing herein will prevent the Municipality from recovering the cost
of repairs from the applicant, owner or other occupant or other user
of such premises or any other party in the event it can be established
that said parties were the cause of the damages requiring the repairs .
(1988 Code 70 . 04)
If this amended version meets with Council approval, staff would recommend
set a public hearing for formal introduction of the ordinance, August 14 ,
1995 .
Should Council have any questions regarding this ordinance, please do not
hesitate to call me .
y,
Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works
RECOMMENDATION;
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4
JULY 10, 1995
Memo to: Mounds View City Council
From: Community Policing Committee
Concerning: A proposed policy concerning Graffiti on city property.
The city of Mounds View shall maintain a zero tolerance toward
graffiti on property under its control. The police will record and
investigate all occurrences of graffiti to city property. The city will
at all times endeavor to clean up graffiti found on its property within
48 hours.
All graffiti will first be reported to the police who will investigate
and keep records of each occurrence and then notify the appropriate
department that the graffiti is ready for clean up. During the police
investigation the Parks •and Recreation Dept. or Public Works Dept.
will make preparations for clean up.
It is understood that some of the city's buildings are difficult to clean
and may at times take longer then 48 hours to clean up due to the
extent of the damage, the type of material to be cleaned, and/or the
type of surface to be cleaned. Cooperative inter departmental
efforts to expedite removal are encouraged and expected.
The use of chemicals will be avoided whenever possible. If
chemicals are used to clean graffiti off of city property the safest
form of chemical will be used and every effort will be made to
safeguard the community during and after its use.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 5
nlorOJR S
STAFF REPORT Report Number: 95-1399WS
Lar Report Date: 7-06-95
AGENDA SESSION DATE JULY 10, 1995
DISPOSITION
Item Description: Discussion of Anoka. County Chamber of Commerce
Administrator's Review/Recommendation: `
- No comments to supplement this report `
- Comments attached.
Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.)
SUMMARY:
Anoka County Chamber of Commerce who represents over 600 businesses has been looking for
a viable site to attract a hotel/conference center. The membership and board have put a high
priority on attracting such a center and they established a Hotel Task Force several months ago.
With no luck in finding a site in Anoka County, the chamber would like to get behind the proposal
for a hotel/conference center in Mounds View on Highway 10. Anoka, County Chamber is willing
to assist in funding a market feasibility study as well as market the idea to their members.
In light of this, Director, Tom Snell, felt it would be appropriate to address the Council on the
activities of the Anoka County Chamber and ask for our support by becoming a member.
Membership in Anoka County Chamber not only opens the door for a more regional approach to
economic development but it also affords some excellent opportunities for our school district.
Mr. Snell and a representative from the board will be in attendance at the work session to discuss
the City's partnership with Anoka County Chamber of Commerce. I believe the suggestion dues
would be $195 annually.
(2,4,A4/ 4 44.4_ e_toAt. e
Cathy Bennett, Economic D4velopment Coordinator
j3.ECOMMENDATION;
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATIONnior Agenda Section: 6.
ODS Report Number: 95-1400WS
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA SESSION DATE JULY 10, 1995
OK
Report Date: 7-06-95
DISPOSITION
Item Description: Discussion of Highway 10 Properties
Administrator's Review/Recommendation:
- No comments to supplement this report A • it.
- Comments attached.
Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.)
SUMMARY;
The following is an update on several properties that were discussed at the work session on June
10, 1995.
2625 Highway 10 (Blue House near Hardees):
I met with the owner of the property, John Hildreth, last week. Mr. Hildreth has been the owner
of the property for over four years; After the fire, which was started in the under grade garage, Mr.
Hildreth decided to convert the single family home into three separate apartments. After making
the improvements, he found out that he was required to improve the driveway and provide garages
for any potential tenants. Subsequently, Mr. Hildreth will be relocating out of the State and is very
interested in selling the property. He is asking $150,000 and has an appraisal on the "triplex" for
$137,000. According to Ramsey County, in 1994 the house had an assessed value of the
following:
Land $24,400
Building $40,000 _
Total $64,400
Total Taxes $910.30/year
City's Portion $164/year
Mr. Hildreth is willing to work with the City. If the council is interested in negotiating with the owner,
it is recommended to have the property appraised as a single family residence.
& 1y �r
Cathy Bennett, Economic Development Coordinator
RECOMMENDATION;
AGENDA
PAGE TWO
JULY 10, 1995
2975 Highway 10
I have contacted Norwest Bank regarding the Auto Central site. The foreclosure process
should begin in mid July and take approximately 6 weeks. Then Norwest would hold a
Sheriffs sale on the property upon which the owners will have a 6 month redemption
period to come current on the mortgage. After the 6 month period, Norwest Bank will
have rights to the property and will put it on the market for purchase. Deb Bisek of
Norwest wank was uffamiliar with the legalities of a Right of First Refusal Agreement-but
outlined our options:
o We can currently negotiate with the owners of the property.
o We can purchase the note from the Bank and pursue foreclosure
proceedings ourselves
o We can purchase the note at the Sheriffs sale but would not have full
control of the property until after the 6 month redemption period.
o Purchase from Norwest once the property is on the market.
I am in consultation with Jim Thomson regarding our options and will relay his opinion
at the work session.
K-Gas Site:
I have been in touch with the owner of the K-Gas Site. We had scheduled a meeting last
week but it was canceled due to a conflict on their part. He does not have an appraisal
on the site but will be forwarding me the most recent status on the environmental
cleanup.
4
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 8
OM OE
STAFF REPORT Report Number: 95-1402WS
Dom`" JULY 10, 1995 Report Date: 7-06-95
AGENDA SESSION DATE
DISPOSITION
Item Description: Update on Safety Lights on County Road I at Pinewood
Administrator's Review/Recommendation:
- No comments to supplement this report
- Comments attached.
Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.)
$TJMMARY;
I spoke with Janet Folsum, District 621 Board Administrative Assistant,
regarding the status of the Board's deliberations on the lights on County
Road I . She recalled that the Board did not make a decision to fund the
lights, but noted that the discussion about the lights was in conjunction
with the construction of additional space at Pinewood. She noted that she
will contact John Ostlund (the District's Operations Manager) and have him
call me on Monday for a more informative update.
I will have that information for you on Monday.
Sart//antha 0 suno, City Adm. istrator
RECOMMENDATION;
CM OF
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 9.
111706STAFF REPORT Report Number: 95-1403Ws
W AGENDA SESSION DATE July y 10 1995 Report Date: 7-6-95
DISPOSITION
Item Description: Continued Discussion of the Assessment Policy
Administrator's Review/Recommendation:
- No comments to supplement this report \r 'V
- Comments attached.
Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.)
,r+UMMARY;
At the June 22, 1995 City Council meeting, staff presented additional
information regarding the Assessment Policy that Council desired more time
to discuss . Among these items, was Staff' s recommendation that the
Preventative Maintenance activities involved the Pavement Management, not
be included the Assessment Policy. The typical expenditures for these
activities has historically been approximately $85, 000 . The reasons it is
not cost efficient to include these cost in the Assessment Policy, is that
it will require an enormous amount of time for all individuals involved.
Public notices and Public Hearing notices (sent to every resident within
300 feet of a proposed street to be sealcoated) , engineering services, and
possible assessments of merely $100 would have to be sent to the County.
These activities make assessing maintenance activities not cost effective
or efficient .
Finance Director Don Brager prepared a memo to me on that Monday estimating
the levy increase required to raise these funds annually. The increased tax
to perform these measures on an average $86, 000 home would be approximately
$20 per year. If all streets in the city were rated at the same level, they
would be sealcoated every 5 - 7 years . At a 2/3 assessed rate the expense
to the resident would be approximately $100 . Theoretically the cost to the
resident is the same either way. This memo regarding the required levy
increase accompanies this report .
Staff also heard from residents, the question, "How much will it cost to
reconstruct my street?" Staff prepared a cost analysis based on the
Sherwood Estates project for Council for the June 12 , 1995 meeting. The
analysis was based on an 2/3 assessment . Comments were heard regarding
lowering the assessed rate . Staff has prepared the same project at various
rates for Council' s review. Should Council choose to reduce the 2/3 rate,
it could be viewed as a comprise, and possibly reduce public concern
regarding the fairness of the assessment rate. This summary is also
included for Council' s review.
Staff is preparing a comparison of the Assessment Policy to Chapter 8 of
the Charter. Flip charts will be available for review to show how the two
documents work together, or conflict with each other. These charts will be
ppr
� esented at the July 17, 1995 council meeting.
J*COMMENDATION;
(over)
In summary, staff is respectfully requesting Council action regarding the assessment rate,
and to consider removing pavement management activities from the Assessment Policy,
and utilizing Ad valorem taxes to perform these activities.
Should Council have any questions or concerns prior to the meeting, please
feel free to call me.
r
-4-)Vjt -&&
Mich el Ulrich, Direct Public Works
cD
R U) U) CCOO N
E d a Ef} Ef}
W <
N W 6 CO
Q C
D
'G) CN 01
co
CN 0) 0 CD
w—) N N Eft E!4
• CO
Q
Cl_Ce
— CO Cl d'
a) Ln r Cf) CD
\° M V' N -O CDEft
-
0 H M d r F. r
p 0 M N Efl
Ea ER
U J a
W
Nr Z y co co O N
I— LU C I— 0Q 69 o• M co CO 0) 115Z (1) ZH N EA Eft EA
O U) 0 0 co)
W Q
LL.
M LO co co
co dr Ps co
W Q LL a c N EA' N 00 M
CC J O H co H CA to 4n.W OoE a
LU .c-
06
} U � a) o 0 o CO to a)
>- H Q o M r r r C) CO Tr
H CC co
J_ W 04170.
t3 cri O
M
I— Q Q
D
LU a) co CO C O co
J M O O r O
M = r r r r
Q y = r r (M r
Q
N
(1) r -0
CO O CO CO N- a)
r
12 I- ti CO CO N- N -p N J
M C O M O a) 0
N r r r U) Rf CO)
W+ () E9 K} 69 63 69 N a)
W N O a)
cc CO To
co a) C W
a)a) U O
C a) a.. O
.c N to
W Q- N O) .
L
O CB 2 O
U
13 _ f- U)
o O 0 0
as C) L
.Q CV i Q • y,
M N % a)
O (n C O O C O
V as N O .... O L
E aa)) co 0 o 0 a
U) L C) CO .o 4
a) !2 N C N _ N
To
'O C • U) M N
a v) v) 0 CO o v) <
MEMORANDUM
TO: MIKE ULRICH, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
FROM: DON BRAGER, FINANCE DIRECTOR
DATE : June 26, 1995
SUBJECT: TAX LEVY FOR SEALCOATING, PATCHING, CRACK FILLING
Per your—e-quesc I have calculated a property tax Levy of $85 , 000
for sealcoating, patching, and crack filling. Using the 1995
property tax levy as a base, an additional levy of $85, 000 would
increase the tax capacity rate by 1 . 899 . The impact of the
increased tax capacity rate is presented in the table below.
TAX LEVY FOR SEALCOATING ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES
1 Value of riome i ]_995 Tax 1995 Tax + Diff=erence
Sealcoat 1
$51, 500 136 . 19 146 . 12 9 . 93 1
1
$73 , 656 204 . 83 219 . 77
14 . 94 '
$76 , 725 221 . 18 237 . 31 16 . 13
$85 , 932 I 2 70 . 20 1 289 . 91 1 19 . 71
l
s
$97, 185 330 . 13 354 .21 24 . 08
$102 , 300 357 . 371 383 . 43 26 . 06
1
$112 , 530 I 411 . 84 441 . 88 30 . 04
$127, 875 493 . 56 529 . 56 ! 36 . 00
Should you have any questions please contact me .
.
ORDINANCE NO. 560
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 900 BY ESTABLISHING CHAPTER 911
ENTITLED, "PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT POLICY"
The City Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby ordain:
SECTION I. The Public Improvement Assessment Policy as presented on
June 26, 1995 and on file in the Clerk-Administrator's office for public review is hereby
adopted and shall become part of this ordinance.
SECTION II. The Public Improvement Assessment Policy will become Chapter
911 of the Mounds View Municipal Code.
SECTION III. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days (30) days after
the date of its publication.
Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 12th day of June,
1995.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this
day of , 1995.
ATTEST:
Mayor
(SEAL)
Clerk-Administrator
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
ASSESSMENT POLICY STATEMENT
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section I - General Policy Statement 1
Section H - Methods of Assessment 5
Section III - Improvement Type and Cost Apportionment 13
Section IV - Assessment Conditions 15
Section V - Supplemental Assessment Policy Guidelines 17
Section VI - Definitions 21
Exhibit "A" - Summary of Actions and Resolutions 23
Exhibit "B" - Construction Improvement Program Time Schedule 25
Exhibit "C" - Life Cycle for Improvements 26
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
ASSESSMENT POLICY FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS
SECTION I - GENERAL POLICY STATEMENT
A. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Assessment Policy is to provide a fair and equitable manner of
recovering and distributing the cost of public improvements. While there is no perfect
assessment policy, it is important that assessments be implemented in a reasonable,
consistent and fair manner. There may be exceptions to the Assessment Policy when
unique situations or circumstances exist which. may require special consideration and
discretion by the City Council. Therefore, the assessment policy is intended to serve
as a guide for a systematic assessment process in the City of Mounds View.
This policy shall relate only to those public improvements allowable under Chapter 429,
Minnesota Statutes. These public improvements may include the following:
a) Sanitary sewer utility system improvements
b) Water utility system improvements
c) Storm sewer, holding pond and drainage systems
d) Streets, curb and gutters, grading, graveling
e) Pedestrian ways .
f) Tree trimming, care and removal
g) Abatement of nuisances
h) Public malls, plazas and courtyards
i) Service charges which are unpaid for the cost of rubbish removal from
sidewalks, weed elimination, and the elimination of public health or safety
hazards, upon passage of appropriate ordinances
j) Surface water maintenance, ie ditch and pond cleaning
B. PROCEDURE
The procedures used by the City of Mounds View ("City") for levying special
assessments are those specified by Minnesota Statutes and the City Charter, which
provide that all or a part of the cost of improvements may be assessed against
benefitting properties. The procedures for local improvements are summarized in
Exhibit "A".
While establishing the authority by which communities may proceed to construct public
facility projects, the statutes provide no guide as to how costs are to be apportioned.
Therefore, it is the responsibility of the local legislative body to establish a fair and
reasonable method by which properties will be assessed.
Page 2
C. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
Three basic criteria must be satisfied before a particular parcel can be validly assessed.
They are:
1. The land must have received special benefit from the improvement.
2. The amount of the assessment must not exceed the special benefit.
3. The assessment must be uniform in relation to the same class of property
within the assessment area.
The primary test for determining the validity of a special assessment is whether the
improvement for which the assessment was levied has increased the market value of
the property against which the assessment operates in at least the amount of the
assessment. An exception might be a project initiated by a single property
owner/developer where market value increase may not be a relevant factor given the
nature of the improvement.
Another test for determining the validity of a special assessment is whether the
assessment is based on a uniform methodfor all like classes of property. For example,
the use of a front foot assessment for some properties and the use of a per lot
assessment for other properties of the same class for the same improvement could
result in a non-uniform assessment rate which could mean the assessment would be
set aside or could be thrown out by the courts.
D. INITIATION OF IMPROVEMENTS
Public improvements may be initiated in the following manner and is a summary of the
Mounds View Charter, Chapter 8, Section 8.04:
1. Council Initiated. The City Council, on its own motion and without petition,
may order the improvement on at least a 4/5 vote of the City Council.
However, the City must still follow all statutory provisions which are
specified in Minnesota Statutes, 429.021, subd. 3.
Page 5
SECTION II - METHODS OF ASSESSMENT
The nature of an improvement determines the method of assessment. The objective is
to choose an assessment method which will arrive at a reasonable, fair and equitable
assessment which will be uniform upon the same class of property within the assessed
area. The most frequently recognized assessment methods are: the unit assessment,
the front footage assessment and the area assessment. Depending upon the individual
project, any one or a combination of these methods may be utilized to arrive at an
approprrdte costdistribution. City staff—MI consider all methods and weigh their
applicability to the project and present a recommendation to the City Council in the form
of a mock assessment roll (or rolls). A description of each assessment and its
corresponding policy application is presented. A separate section (Section III) will
identify the appropriate matchup of method with a specific type of project and analyze
why each is generally used.
The purpose of assessment formulas is to allocate assessed costs among benefitted
properties without an actual determination, on a property-by-property basis, of special
benefits received. However, the formula should result in a allocation of assessments
which is reasonably related to the benefit received. Any one predetermined formula will
not be appropriate in all cases because of circumstances unique to the relationship
between the specific project and the specific properties benefitted. When considering
an assessment method or formula for any given project, it may be necessary to
combine assessment methods or to modify the methods described below. Therefore,
the following description of methods of assessments should be regarded as guidelines,
which may not be appropriate in all cases.
Page 3
2. Property Owner Petition. The City Council may decide, by simple majority,
on an improvement after receiving a petition for said improvement from the
owners of not less than twenty five (25%) of the properties abutting on the
streets named in the petition benefitting from the improvement. In
addition, all owners of real property abutting upon any street named as the
location of any improvement may petition the City Council to construct the
improvement and to assess the entire cost against their property. However,
as required by the City code, a public hearing shall be conducted on such
improvements prior to adoption of a resolution ordering the improvement.
The-City-Council may-decide-not to proceed-with-anassessment unless
it receives an agreement, signed by all affected property owners, agreeing
to the amount of proposed assessments and waiving their rights to appeal
such assessments.
3. Developer Request. A developer who is the owner of all the property
within the proposed subdivision may petition the City Council to construct
the improvement and to assess the entire cost against the developer's
property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. However, a developer's
agreement, including a valid and enforceable waiver of its right to appeal
the levy of special assessments, shall be negotiated and executed prior to
said authorization. It may also be advisable to conduct public hearings on
the improvement to avoid misunderstanding by the petitioners and to also
inform the general public about the nature of the project.
E. PROJECT COSTS
Project costs shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
1. Construction costs (day labor or contractual).
2. Engineering and consulting fees.
3. Administrative fees.
4. Right-of-Way acquisition/condemnation costs.
5. Legal fees.
6. Capitalized interest.
7. Financing costs.
Page 4
The entire project shall be considered as a whole for the purpose of calculating and
computing an assessment rate. However, project costs for work of a dissimilar nature
(ie., where a project contains different types of work such as street resurfacing in one
project area and street reconstruction in another area) shall be calculated separately
and assessed separately according to benefit received.
If City staff has doubt as to whether or not the costs of the project may exceed the
special benefits to the propertythe City_Council should obtain_such appraisals as_rnay
be necessary to support the proposed assessment. Appraisals may be obtained
anytime after the improvement has been ordered including prior to actually awarding
the bid or entering into a contract for the work. The City Council may also conduct
assessment hearings and actually adopt the assessment roll anytime after the
improvement hearing and before a contract for the work is awarded.
The Assessment Policy, in brief summary, consists of six (6) main sections addressing
General Policy Statement, Methods of Assessment, Improvement Type and Cost
Apportionment, Assessment Conditions, Supplementary Guide section and Definition
section.
Page 6
a. Unit Assessment. A unit assessment shall be derived by dividing the total
project cost by the number of Residential Equivalent Density (RED) units
in the project area. A RED unit is defined as a single family residential unit.
All platted and unplatted property will assigned RED unit values equivalent
to the underlying zoning. When the existing land use is less than the
highest and best permitted use, the Council may consider the current use
as well as the full potential of land use in determining the appropriate
number of RED units. Otherwise, the following RED chart will apply on a
per unit basis, subject to adjustment by the Council for any inequities:
Single Family 1.00 RED
Duplex 1.00 RED
Condominium 0.80 RED
Multifamily (3 units or more) 0.80 RED
Townhouse 0.80 RED
Commercial 2.00 Units
Industrial 2.00 Units
The unit approach has proven to be the best method in those instances
whereby the improvement largely benefits everyone to the same degree
and the cost of the improvement is not generally affected by parcel size.
b. Area Assessment. The assessable area shall be expressed in terms of the
number of acres or the number of square feet subject to assessment.
When determining the assessable area, the following considerations will
be given:
1. Ponding Assessment Consideration. Lakes, ponds and swamps
may be considered a part of the assessable area of a parcel.
2. Road Right-of-Way Assessment Consideration. Up to 20 percent
(20%) of the gross acreage may be deducted for street right-of-way
purposes within unplatted parcels of five acres or more depending
upon the parcel configuration and is only applicable to single family
residential use. Parcels of less than five acres may not qualify and
may be assessed full acreage. The reason for this size restriction
is that, in most instances, parcels of less than five acres cannot
support an internal public road system.
3. Park Dedication Assessment Consideration. When park land is
dedicated as part- of a residential development, as required by
Subdivisions Code - Chapter 1204.02, the developer shall not be
assessed an acreage charge on the portion of land dedicated.
Page 7
c. Front Footage Assessment. The actual physical dimensions of a parcel
abutting an improvement (ie., street, sewer, water, etc.) will generally not
be construed as the frontage utilized to calculate the assessment for a
particular parcel. Rather, an "adjusted front footage" will be determined.
The purpose of this method is to equalize assessment calculations for lots
of similar size. Individual parcels by their very nature differ considerably
in shape and area. The following procedures will apply when calculating
adjusted front footage. The selection of the appropriate procedures will
be determined by the specific configuration of the parcel. All
measurements-will be-scaled-from-available-plat-and-section-maps and-will - -
be rounded down to the nearest 1/2 foot dimension with any excess
fraction deleted. Categorical type descriptions are as follows:
1. Standard Lots
2. Rectangular Variation Lots
3. Triangular Lots
4. Cul-de-sac Lots
5. Curved Lots
6. Irregularly Shaped Lots
7. Corner Lots
8. Flag Lots
9. Double Frontage Lots
•
The ultimate objective of these procedures is to arrive at a fair and
equitable distribution of cost whereby consideration is given to lot size and
parcels are comparably assessed.
Page 8
SECTION III - IMPROVEMENT TYPE AND COST APPORTIONMENT
A. Street Reconstruction Including Curb and Gutter. The cost of street
reconstruction shall be recovered by the adjusted front footage method. The
front footage rate shall be determined by dividing the project cost by the total
number of adjusted front feet in the project area x the individual adjusted
fr_ont_fQotage_xJwo-thirds__(2/3). The assessments per adjusted front foot maw___
vary depending on the underlying zoning of a parcel. Assessments for residential
properties which are on collector or arterial streets shall be adjusted so that the
amount of the assessment shall be the same as if the project were constructed
to residential street standards as provided in Section V.H.1. of this policy.
The remaining cost shall be recovered by means of the general ad valorem
property tax paid by the entire community or by other funds that may become
available to the City for infrastructure cost recovery.
B. Street Resurfacing. Street resurfacing is commonly known and referred to as
street overlaying whereby a new bed of road material such as bituminous is
installed over an existing paved road to a specific thickness. Assessments shall
be determined by the adjusted front footage method.
C. Sidewalk. Sidewalk improvements may be done in conjunction with a street
reconstruction or as a separate project. In any event, cost of sidewalk
improvements shall be recovered by means of the general ad valorem property
tax paid by the entire community or by other funds that may become available
to the City for infrastructure cost recovery.
D. Sealcoating. Sealcoating shall be treated as a general maintenance expense and
shall be assessed in the same manner as street reconstruction.
E. Sanitary Sewer and Water Mains. Repair and replacement of sewer or water
mains is usually done in conjunction with a street reconstruction project and the
cost of this work should be included as part of the total major street project cost
and should also be considered to be included in the rate assessed for street
reconstruction. If it is determined that the repair and replacement work results
in a greater benefit to some properties and not to others, the Council should
consider establishing a different assessment rate based on the benefits received.
Page 9
F. Sanitary Sewer and Water Trunk Improvements. Trunk sewer and water mains
are usually designed to carry larger volumes of flow than are necessary within an
immediate property area in order to serve additional properties beyond the area
of their immediate placement. Therefore, 100 percent (100%) of the cost of trunk
improvements will be assessed on a unit basis to all properties within a district
deemed to be benefitted from the trunk improvements.
G. Sewer and Water Services. Individual sewer and water services benefit only the
properties-they-serve-arrdH 00-percent-(-1-00%-) of-their cost-shali-be as-sessed-to
the property for which they are installed.
H. Drainage Improvements. Storm drainage and ponding/basin systems are usually
constructed to serve a specific drainage or "watershed" district. The cost of
drainage improvements shall be two-thirds (2/3) assessed. The remaining cost
will be paid for by the Storm Water Surface Utility and/or by an ad valorem tax
basis to the properties within the district as provided by Minnesota Statutes.
Storm sewer reconstruction normally takes place together with street
reconstruction projects and the costs shall be assessed in accordance with the
assessment policies related to street improvements. Site specific improvements
would be assessed at a two-thirds (2/3) rate, to the benefitting properties.
Special Conditions. Special consideration shall be given to the "age" of a street
or utility system when determining the proportion of cost to be assessed to
benefitted properties. If it is necessary to reconstruct or resurface a street or
perform major repair/replacement work on sewer and water utilities, before a
reasonable amount of time (10 to 12 years for resurfacing, 12 to 17 years for
partial reconstruction and 17 to 25 years for total reconstruction) the assessment
shall be calculated on a pro-rata basis. The remaining cost shall be recovered
by means of the general ad valorem property tax paid by the entire community
or by other funds that may become available to the City for infrastructure
cost recovery.
Page 10
1. Standard Lots. In this instance, the adjusted front footage for rectangular
lots will be the actual front footage of the lot. The frontage measured shall
be the lot width at the front lot line.
MAIN AVP .
;o• .90' Adj. Front Footage
EXAMPLES
i Lot A-50'
-of 90
2. Rectangular Variation Lots. For a lot which is approximately rectangular
and uniform in shape, the adjusted front footage is computed by averaging
the front and back sides of the lot. This method is used only where the
divergence between front and rear lot lines is 20 feet or less.
MAIN AV E. Adj. Front Footage
/ 90' 7(7" I. EXAMPLES
- Lot A-90: 110 = 100'
r 2
in
Lot B-70 : 80 = 75'
tic' so'
2
3. Trianc uiar Lots. For a triangular shaped lot, the adjusted front footage is
computed by averaging the front and back lot lines. The measurement at
the back lot line shall not exceed a maximum distance in depth of 150 feet.
M A I i\1 ;_` V/E.
ICCr -1-...r-1-...r ,1� • Adj. Front Footage
\ EXAMPLES —_ Lot A-100 : 40 — 70'
isb
o' A I \� 2
Lot B-40 : 130 = 85'
• 2
_r_ 44• r 12c' �ci — — _ — Lot C-120 - 0 = 60'
2
Page 11
4. Cul-de-Sac Lots. The adjusted front footage for those lots that exist on cul-
de-sacs will be calculated at the midsection of the lot at the most
reasonably defined and determinable position. This line will be computed
by connecting the midpoints of the two side lot lines. Or, if the lots are
similar in nature and configuration, a common lot width, such as the
standard set back of 30' may be assigned based upon an evaluation of
typical lots within the subdivision.
AIN CIRCLE Adj. Front Footage
M , EXAMPLES
o Lot A- 75'
m' Lot Lot B-110'
Lot C- 80'
7s-•
iio _ __-
A 8
5. Curved Lots. In certain situations such as those where lots are located
along meandering trail system streets, read patterns create curvilineal
frontages. In such instances, the adjusted front footage will be the width
of the lot measured at the midpoint of the shortest side lot line.
�' Adj. Front Footage
-• . EXAMPLES
/ Lot A- 70'
/ /' ���' Lot B- 90'
i __�� ___ Lot C-150'
c'-
- I
Page 12
6. Irregularly Shaped Lots. In many cases, unplatted parcels that are legally
described by a metes and bounds description are irregular and odd
shaped. The adjusted front footage will be calculated by measuring the
lot width at the 30 foot building setback line.
•
MAIN A V E. Adj. Front Footage
c ins 1s-� 12-7 — � EXAMPLES
Lot B-140'
A B C Lot C-125'
•
7. Corner Lots
a) On a corner lot, 100 percent (100%) of the adjusted front footage
of the short side will be assessed and 25 percent (25%) of the adjusted
front footage of the long side will be assessed for improvements
benefitting the respective sides. The length of the property sides and not
the orientation of the principal building shall determine adjusted front
footage in this case. A series of lots (two or more) under common
ownership shall be considered as one parcel or lot for determining which
is the short or long side of a property. However, this shall only apply to
series of lots on which only one principal building is situated.
Adj. Front Footage
I I EXAMPLES
Lot A-Side 1 = 43.75'
Side 2 = 95'
a, Lot B-Side 1 = 87.5'
Side 2 = 125'
• I'- In
Lei
IZS �� I ��
,11AIN AVE. ( =• -i
Page 13
b) General Commercial Zoned Corner Lots. No allowance relief will be
granted because of the higher inherent property value associated with
improved traffic frontage and greater visibility along business district
and industrial park intersections. The adjusted front footage shall be the
entire frontage measured along the setback line comprising the building
envelope.
Adj. Front Footage
EXAMPLES
Lot A-2-0'
4 Lot B-390'
- 2.5,
,a 1 0 I QQ
'i a I-
A in
f =
1
cl
iso � j 17S - - - - - - ---
- O 0
^i m
is..• MAIN 300' r. E.
8. Fiaq Lots. Properties which utilize a narrow private easement or
maintain-ownership of access to their property exceeding a minimum
length of 125 feet, thereby having a small frontage on a street, will be
assigned an adjusted front footage of 75 feet. This dimension is consistent
with the subdivision ordinance which prescribes such length as the
minimum lot frontage along a public roadway. The adjusted front footage
for flag lots whose driveway access is under 125 feet will be measured at
the building setback line from the access terminus.
Adj. Front Footage
EXAMPLES
:o �.lAIN AV.":. Lot A-75'
Lot B-90'
I30'
7-1
is
1.Q; EQ
I
Page 14
9. Double Frontage Lots. If a parcel, other than a corner lot, comprises
frontage on two streets and is eligible for subdivision, then an adjusted
front footage assessment will be charged along each street. For double
frontage lots lacking the necessary depth for subdivision, only a single
adjusted front footage will be computed. The frontage with driveway
access to front of house, shall be assessed.
Adj. Front Footage
,V►A ;,v AVE. MAIN AVE EXAMPLES
Ito' ao' Lot A-220'
�o Lot B- 80'
` N
N A
n •
Ira'
Page 15
SECTION IV - ASSESSMENT CONDITIONS
A. Terms of Assessment. The term of special assessments shall normally be for a
ten (10) year period. However, in some cases the project costs could warrant
either shorter or longer terms. Some major reconstruction projects where
several types of improvements are involved could lead to a very high assessment
which could create a financial hardship if assessed for a ten (10) year term. A
twenty (20) to thirty (30) year term may be appropriate in this case. In any event,
the assessment term should never exceed the potential life of the improvement.
B. Interest Rate. The interest rate charged on assessments for all projects financed
by debt issuance shall be two percent (2%) greater than the net interest rate of
the bond issue or debt used to finance the improvement, or the general rate of
interest available to the City for municipal borrowing if the project is funded
internally. This is necessary in order to ensure adequate cash flow when the City
is unable to reinvest assessment prepayments at an interest rate sufficient to
meet the interest cost of debt or when the City experiences problems of payment
collection delinquencies. Interest on initial special assessment installments shall
begin to accrue from the date of the resolution adopting the assessment.
Owners must be notified by mail of any changes adopted by the City Council
regarding interest rates or prepayment requirements which differ from those
contained in the notice of the proposed assessment.
C. Payment Procedures. The property owner has five available options when
considering payment of assessments:
1. Tax Payment. If no payment is undertaken by the property owner, then
special assessment installments will appear annually on the individual's
property tax statement for the duration of the assessment term.
2. Full Payment. No interest will be charged if the entire assessment is paid
within 30 days of the date of adoption of the assessment roll.
3. Partial Payment. The property owner has a one-time opportunity to make
a partial payment reduction of any amount against his/her assessment.
This option may only be exercised within the 30-day period immediately
following adoption of the assessment roll.
Page 16
4. Prepayment. The property owner may at any time prior to November 15
of the initial year, prepay the balance of the assessment with interest
accrued to December 31 of that year. The property owner may also
choose to pay the remaining assessment balance at any time, with the
exception of the current year's installment of principal and interest.
D. Appeals Procedures. No appeal may be taken as to the amount of any
as-sessment adopted unless a-written objection-signed bythe affect-d-p-roparty
owner is filed with the City Clerk's office prior to the assessment hearing or
presented to the presiding officer at the hearing. The property owner may appeal
an assessment to District Court by serving notice of the appeal upon the City
Clerk within thirty (30) days after the adoption of the assessment and filing such
notice with the District Court within ten (10) days after service of the appeal upon
the City Clerk.
E. Reapportionment Upon Land Division. When a tract of land against which a
special assessment has been levied is subsequently divided or subdivided by plat
or otherwise, the City Council may, on application of the owner of any part of the
tract or on its own motion, equitably apportion among the various lots or parcels
in the tract all the installments of the assessment against the tract remaining
unpaid and not then due if it determines that such apportionment will not
materially impair collection of the unpaid balance of the original assessment
against the tract. The apportionment shall be done on the same basis as the
original assessment unless another method of apportioning can be done with the
owner's acceptance and if the apportionment will not materially impair collection
of the unpaid balance of the assessment against the tract of land. In any case,
the City Council may require furnishing of a satisfactory surety bond in certain
cases as specified in Minnesota Statutes Section 429.071, Subd. 3. Notice of the
apportionment and of the right to appeal shall be mailed to or personally serviced
upon all owners of any part of the tract.
F. Senior Citizen Deferral. Chapter 202.13 of the Mounds View City Code allows the
City Council, at its discretion, to defer the payment of any special assessment for
local improvements constructed by the City when it determines by a three-fifths
(3/5) vote that the property being assessed is homestead property and that one
or more of the owners of the property is sixty-five (65) years of age or over and
that the payment of the assessment would be a hardship for the owner thereof.
The interest for senior citizen deferral shall be at the same rate that the City sets
for other property owners for the improvement.
Page 17
SECTION V - SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENT POLICY GUIDELINES
A. Areas Partially Served by Utilities. Any tract of land, lot or parcel whereby a
project improvement, such as sewer or water lateral or ending street terminus,
does not extend fully past or beyond the property shall be considered served,
benefitted and assessed accordingly. The current special assessment shall be
subject to an adjusted front footage not to exceed 150 feet and a maximum
current acreage of 2.5 acres, provided said assessment does not exceed the
special benefit conferred upon the affected property. If an improvement benefits,
non abutting properties-which maybe served-byrtheimprovernent-when later
extensions or improvements are made but are not initially assessed, the City may
reimburse itself for all or part of the costs incurred by assessing those non-
abutting properties at the time of the later extensions or improvements. However,
proper notice must be given of that fact at the time of making the extensions or
improvements to the previously unassessed non-abutting properties. The City
may also establish "hookup" charges to recover costs of sewer and water main
improvements not initially assessed.
B. Preliminary Plat Consideration. Land could be considered for assessment based
on preliminary plat consideration. This consideration will occur only when the
following scenarios exits: (1) the City Council has approved a preliminary plat,
and (2) a public-hearing ordering the improvement project has not yet occurred.
In the event this exists, assessment frontages may be calculated based upon the
proposed lot configuration within the preliminary plat. Road right-of-way within
the proposed street alignment will not be subject to assessment.
C. Tax Exempt Property. Other than land under City ownership, there are three
categories of tax exempt properties. Said properties shall be assessed as
follows:
1. Churches and schools shall be assessed in the same manner as
commercial and industrial zoned property, as long as the assessments do
not exceed the special benefits conferred. Acreage assessment shall be
based upon the gross acreage of the site. Adjusted front footage shall be
similarly calculated along the building setback line in its entirety.
2. State land is subject to assessment based upon procedures set forth in
Minnesota Statutes, Section 435.19, subd. 2.
Page 18
3. County land is subject to assessment and shall be assessed in the same
manner as if it were privately owned, subject to the limitations set forth in
Section 435.19, subd. 1, as long as the assessments do not exceed the
special benefits conferred.
D. Municipal Praoerty__As-sesements. City owner_-_prop_erly is dividedintothree
classifications for the purpose of determining assessment participation. They are:
1. Public Facility Land
2. Public Right-of-Way
3. Park Land
Public facility property is defined as land utilized for public buildings such as city
halls, fire halls, libraries, maintenance garages, municipal parking lots, etc. Public
facility property within a project area will participate in the total assessable cost
of an improvement and will be treated in the same manner as any other
benefitted parcel.
Public right-of-way property consisting of all City acquired easements, subject to
fee title, for the specific purpose of utility placement or street construction will be
assessed and treated in the same manner as any other benefitted parcel.
Park land assessment eligibility is further categorized according to the following
descriptions:
1. "Community Parks" are characterized by a higher degree of intense public
use and are relatively large in area size. They are normally associated with
athletic events and sporting activities, ie, softball, football, baseball, hockey,
etc. Park lands of this nature will be subject to assessments. Because
community parks provide citywide benefit, the cost of these assessment
shall be recovered by a special levy upon the ad valorem taxes.
2. "Neighborhood Parks" accommodate open space objectives within
residential development and are passive in use as indicated by such
features as playground structures. Because neighborhood parks are
commonly used by the immediate residents of the area, such park land will
not be assessed if it comprises less than 25 percent of the aggregate
project area. Larger parks representing an area greater than 25 percent of
the aggregate project area shall participate in the assessment process in
the same manner as community parks.
Page 19
3. "Parkland Dedication" is required either in the form of cash in lieu of land
or a land grant. The developer shall be responsible for the payment of all
special assessments existing at the time of dedication. Depending upon
the amount of land involved, the development shall not be assessed trunk
acreage for that portion exceeding the minimum percentage dedication
requirement for park purposes.
E. Tax Eo_rfeitur_e Assessments. When a-parcel of-tax-forfeited-land-is returned-to
private ownership, and the parcel is benefitted by an improvement for which
special assessments were canceled because of the forfeiture, the City may, upon
notice and hearing as provided for the original assessment, make a reassessment
or a new assessment as to the parcel in an amount equal to the amount
remaining unpaid on the original assessment.
F. New Subdivisions
1. The improvement costs of new subdivisions shall be the sole responsibility
of the property developer except consideration shall be given for assessing
any other properties that receive special benefit from the improvements.
G. Street Standards •
1. Minnesota State Aid Road Funds (MSA). The City is eligible for and
annually receives funds from the State for the construction of roadways
and related systems which are designed to specific standards. The State
Aid procedures do not dictate how the City expends its annual
appropriation, but rather it approves proposed City expenditures for eligible
projects. Therefore, the City has the latitude to define how much MSA
funding could be used in a given project. Stated differently, the City has
the ability to define a project's assessable cost, and if the assessable cost
is below the project cost, fund the difference with MSA monies.
The MSA Board has extensively researched design standards for
roadways. The City has approximately eight (8) miles of MSA designated
streets. These streets are classified minor collectors and must be
constructed to MSA Specifications to received funding.
Page 20
•
Page 21
SECTION VI - DEFINITIONS
ADJUSTED FRONT FOOTAGE The number of feet actually_utilized in calculating an
assessment for a particular property. This may differ
from the actual front footage of the property.
ASSESSMENT -The dollar amou charged-ag-ainsta-property receiving
an improvement benefit.
CONDOMINIUM Individual ownership of a unit in a multi-unit structure
(similar to an apartment building). A special
relationship exists whereby the individual owns the
actual air space within the physical confines of the unit
but not the barrier walls themselves.
DRAINAGE DISTRICT An area defined by the City Engineer which shall form
the physical boundaries where benefit exists within a
storm sewer project. Property to be included within
a district shall be all land which contributes to storm
water runoff, as well as land serving as a collector
basin for storing such water. Natural geographical
•
features normally form these boundaries.
LATERAL A lateral sewer is designated to collect the sewage
from a project area for conveyance to a trunk facility.
A water lateral is sized to provide water in
sufficient volumes and pressure as required to serve
a defined project area.
MULTIFAMILY A structure of more than two (2) units, the primary
purpose of which is to provide rental or leased living
space to the general public. Building characteristics
include common hallways for access purposes and a
common parking lot.
NUISANCE ABATEMENTS The elimination of a nuisance whereby the City acts on
behalf of the property owner as authorized by
ordinance to eliminate problems such as junk, weeds,
• dead trees, etc. The City may collect the charges for
all or any part of the cost of eliminating any such
nuisance by levying a special assessment against the
property benefitted.
Page 22
OVERSIZING A pipe which is designed and constructed larger and/or
deeper than necessary to serve a specific project area.
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT A project undertaken by the City under the authority
granted in MSA 429.021 for the purpose of installation
of improvements such as street, curb and gutter,
sewer, water, etc. A public hearing shall be conducted
to determine the necessity and common good of the
project as it affects the community. Upon
authorization, the City will proceed with construction
and administration of the project.
TOWNHOUSE Single family attached units in structures housing three
(3) or more contiguous dwelling units, sharing a
common wall, each having separate individual front and
rear entrances; the structure is that of a row-type house
as distinguished from multiple-dwelling apartment
buildings.
UTILITY IMPROVEMENT A defined area within which all properties are deemed
AREA to have been served by an important project and are
considered to receive the benefit.
Page 23
EXHIBIT "A"
SUMMARY OF SCHEDULE OF ACTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS FOR LOCAL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
1. Initiation of proceedings either by the Council or by petition of affected property
owners.
Owners may waive public hearing and submit "Agreement of Assessment
and Waiver of Irregularity and Appeal".
Adopt Resolution "Declaring Adequacy of Petition and Ordering preparation of
Report" (should be published because of appeal process) or, if not using
petition, "Ordering Preparation of Report on Improvement" (need not be
published).
2. Preparation of report on the proposed improvement, submission to and
approval by Council, Council then accepts the report and orders a public
hearing. (When a petition signed by 100% of the landowners requests the
improvement, the Council may order the improvement without a hearing.)
Adopt Resolution "Receiving Report and Calling Hearing on Improvement"
(need not be published).
3. After a public hearing, or if hearing is waived, adopt following Resolution:
Adopt Resolution "Ordering Improvement and preparation of Plans and
Specs".
4. After submission to and approval by Council the following Resolution is
required:
Adopt Resolution "Approving Plans and Specifications, Ordering Improvement
and Advertisement for Bids".
5. After receiving bids, Council will adopt the following Resolution awarding the
bid:
Adopt Resolution "Accepting Bid" (Need not be published.)
6. Issuance of Bonds to finance improvement.
Page 25
EXHIBIT "B"
EXAMPLE OF IMPROVEMENT SCHEDULE
1. The financing of public improvements in existing developed areas shall be in
accordance with Chapter 429 of the Minnesota Statutes and the Mounds
View City Charter. The following is a summary of the steps required under
these laws:
A. Initiation of proceedings either by Council or petition of affected
property owners.
B. Preparation of a feasibility report.
C. Public hearing on proposed improvement.
D. Ordering of Improvement and preparation of plans.
E. Award of contract.
F. Issuance_of bonds to finance the improvement.
G. Performance of work under contract.
H. Levy of special assessments after public hearing on proposed
assessments.
Page 26
EXHIBIT "C"
LIFE CYCLE FOR IMPROVEMENTS
The following public improvements may be financed by the City to serve existing
developed areas. The life cycle for improvements for assessment purposes is:
A. Trunk sanitary - 30 years
B. Lateral-sanitary-sewers-=0-years
C. Storm sewers - 30 years
D. Bituminous street with concrete curb and gutter - 25 years
E. Sidewalks - 20 years
F. Watermain trunk lines - 40 years
G. Watermain lateral lines - 40 years
H. Drainage ditch cleaning - 10 years (City jurisdiction)
::'-:•,;„,.-..;-:::',.'-„,,...;.........;•.,:„,•_:-.7-,::-..,,,t,,To ,
Mayor Jerry l trike
1=
Council -members hylic Btanchard, Sue i artkn rL Cary Eek, Julie T'r d
}ek Acmiriistretor Satmanthe Arduna-
r
Y
Mile:ere,wring to you;all to-.indicate our strong opposrtron to the proposal to widen
-
TQiunds 'die resider jai-strse
s
S
we have listener!carefuily'to aargnments fOr an i against"the proposal We do nOt
believe that any lives''orr homes tyre going to be o t rf 1launds View restderfttal streets
i',..cr.;:.,;!?::::::::,,,f.f.ij_,T..:,i:::)‘:,:::,.:.::::,..'...;_.:,,.,:t:,..!:are not widened
Visit old town in Stockholm,. Sweden,;or Eieecon Hill in Boston Greer-,'„,‘-.4-.611".y..::::6,-.::: -.-..:---,--,-
toh Villag'el n
- ew; 'ork City ox the oncienttstreets around;a�ny European cath• edral town from
Oerflerbury or rnchester to Vatica7. n C People:have ted long and rich Jives rn these
and countless other quaint;t eigh onc�i xls fo'centuries without 32 foot wide streets
{
We .here tri Mounds View can do the seine Don't rip,:-',2-'-'-'p,'96,r trees, shrubs and lawns
unnecessarily while burdei rig reslctents-with costa for impro ements" that we€neither
need nor;went And•we certainly don't'wnt to increase the risk of another oak blight
outbreak, nrhioll could!be the direct result of tearing coot matufe trees along our
.'•.:,,,,„... .,-.-,....y--_,•:,:•,,.'„-i Aolle. • ,_,-,,,-..',;,.!'„,--.:,.,.:::-•,-,-,.•=-",-‘,' ...--...,,.----,.,'-‘''-,,,,:,..-:•-.,'..,..;.:,;
beai tif`ral.streets:'What would Morunde iiew�:t a like without any oaks'
;:-:-....:'.•:':;;:-i::1:,-,,„„,....
lsn'tthe clarion 4call for fess government these days, not more? Save the green trees,
as well as:tt�e=gteenba 'dollarsi'
Torn Nordby y-
Qeb Heuwinkel
90
',7 s�astwc�od��Road ,
Mounds.View
I {
+f S _
( -
r3
4- ` K
8406 Red Oak Dr.
Mounds View, MN 55112
June 12, 1995
Dear Mayor and Council Persons:
I want to address the issue of wider streets in Mounds View. I do not feel a need to have Red Oak
Dr. widened. It is now 30 feet wide. We have already given up much of our wet lands and have
created a problem with run-off, we certainly can't afford to continue in such a manner. This
project would 1 to the communitY of-thequret type neighborhoods-we now have. The streets
would, (or could), become drag strips for fun loving drivers. One side of street parking would be
much more acceptable than wider streets. I have yet to find a street so crowded that I can't pass
safely. If emergency vehicles are having difficulty then I propose to have one-side parking on
those streets.
Sincerely,
Jo Huhne
THIS FLYER WAS DISTRIBUTED TO RED OAK RESIDENTS
THIS
WEEKEND BY AN UNKNOWN SOURCE•
SHERRY NELSON BROUGHT IT IN TO CITY HALL FOR
THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
REDOAK DRIVE RESIDENTS
CITY HALL IS CONCERNED FOR YOUR WELL BEING... AGAIN.
THEY WANT TO WIDEN REDOAK DR. TO A WIDTH OF 40 FEET.
THEY WANT TO INSTALL NEW STORM SEWERS ON REDOAK DR.
THEY WANT TO INSTALL SIDEWALKS AND CURBS ON REDOAK DR.
WHAT DO YOU WANT AS A RESIDENT OF REDOAK DR. ?
YOU WILL HAVE A HIGHER VOLUME OF AUTO AND TRUCK TRAFFIC.
YOU WILL HAVE THE TRAFFIC CLOSER TO YOUR FRONT DOOR STEP.
YOU WILL HAVE STORM SEWERS THAT WILL TAKE CARE OF STORM
WATERS FROM OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY AND ELSEWHERE.
YOU WILL BE PAYING FOR THIS UNNECESSARY PROJECT OUT OF YOUR
POCKETS.
AS REDOAK DR. RESIDENTS WE CAN VOICE OUR OBJECTIONS TO THIS
PROPOSAL AT THE COUNCEL MEETING MONDAY 6/12/95 7PM, CITY HALL.
YOUR VOICE AND SUPPORT ARE IMPORTANT IN THIS MATTER!
CITY OF
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 10.
11106 STAFF REPORT Report Number: 95-1404WS
DEW AGENDA SESSION DATE July 10, 1995 Report Date: 7-3-9 5
DISPOSITION
Item Description: Continued Discussion of Watermeter Changeout Proposal
Administrator's Review/Recommendation:
- No comments to supplement this report
- Comments attached.
Explanation/Summary (attach supplement s •eta as 'ecessary.)
SUMMARY;
Staff has researched the possible funding options for a city wide water
meter changeout as directed at the June work session. Funding sources
identified were, the Water Access Charge Fund (WAC) , and the Special
Projects Fund. Noted at previous council work sessions the Water Utility
is currently losing approximately $30, 000 per year, through inaccurate
meters . This loss will continue to increase until these meters are
replaced. Three options are available for Council consideration. An outline
of the funding will follow the options .
* The first option is to changeout the current water meters, and install
the most current meter reading technology of automatic phone reading.
Option #1 Changeout of all meters to phone read
Total cost of project : $830, 000
WAC Fund Contribution: $330, 000
Special Project Loan : $500, 000
07 interest loan, 12 years
Projected Increased Revenue $31, 500
Possible meter charge / quartr:
Residential - 5/8" $3 . 00
* Commercial - 1" $3 . 60
1 1/2 " $6 . 00
2" $7 .40
3" $19 . 00
* Represents the percentage of cost of meter and
installation over the residential 5/8"meter, with a
starting fee of $3 . 00 .
This scenario would produce $70, 381 toward an annual loan payment of
$62 , 951. The balance of the revenue could remain in the water fund for
future projects, or future meter replacement .
** The second option would be to install new meters and phone, or radio
read on all the commercial accounts, and install new meters and touch read
on the residential accounts . This is somewhat of a lesser system, but will
be a significant improvement in reading and billing. This system would also
relieve the City of the problems related to scheduling meter readings,
security risks of entering residences, incorrect readings, scheduling final
readings when the customer is at home, and an enormous amount of staff time
related to all of the aforementioned items .
(over)
Option #2 Changeout Commercial accounts to phone read, residential to
touch read.
Total cost of Project : $505, 914
WAC Fund Contribution: $305, 914
Special Project Loan : $200, 000
07 interest loan, 10 years
Projected Revenue Increase $31, 500
Annual loan payment $26,613
Contracted Meter Reading $ 5, 880 (includes 4 readings)
* 1 9 9 5
Budgeted amount for 1 contracted reading, $4, 095 .
- -- ---Possible-metercharge quarter -potentia-llynot-necessary
---
A meter charge is not necessary for the loan repayment, although
Council may wish to initiate a charge to create a fund for
future meter system upgrades, or system wide water related
improvements, similar to the Vehicle and Equipment Replacement
Fund.
Also at the June work session, Councilmember Trude suggested an
alternative system that would not be as high tech, but would address
all of staff' s and Council' s concerns, and not burden the customers
of the City any more than necessary. While not fully automated, the
second option will accomplish this and address the current dilemma of
dealing with a aging meter system. This system, will increase
productivity, virtually eliminate data input for billing, and will
provide a substantial base for a future upgrade to a totally automated
meter reading system.
*** The third option would be to do nothing, and continue to lose potential
revenue.
Option #3 Do nothing to the water meter system.
Water Enterprise Fund will lose approximately $30, 000 this
year, and through aging meters, resulting in decreased
accuracies, the fund will continue to lose increasingly
more revenues in the future.
It should be noted, that these figures are based on calculations of a
random selection of water meters, for percent accuracy and projected
revenue estimates. Not all commercial accounts will be capable of phone
read. In this case radio read equipment will be install, which is slightly
higher than phone equipment in price .
As mentioned earlier, the Water Department is an Enterprise Fund, which
should by design, be self funded through it' s revenue earned. Currently the
fund is not receiving all of it' s potential revenue. Operating the
Department, or City, as if it were a business, which was one of the Focus
2000 goals, may suggest that this is an opportune time to recoup revenue
earned, and prevent potential loss of future earnings .
(over)
This proposal has been before the City Council for a vast amount of
effective debate. Staff and vendors have spent a considerable amount of
time and effort in testing, researching methods, options, and financing.
Staff respectfully requests a closure to this proposal .
Should Council have any questions or concerns that staff may address prior
to the Work Session, please feel free to call me .
Michael Ulrich, Directorfof Public Works
MY OF
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 11.
STAFF REPORT Report Number: 95-1405ws
11170S
� AGENDA SESSION DATE July 10, 1995 Report Date: 6-2 9-9 5
DISPOSITION
Item Description: Consideration of Providing Contract Maintenance to Proposed
Ramsey County 'irnback Roads
Administrator's Review/Recommendation.
- No comments to supplement this rep. t r °:c% ± x+.-.<
t
- Comments attached. )
Explanation/Summary (attach suppleme. sheets as ecessary.)
SUMMARY;
Staff met with representatives from Ramsey County on June 28 , 1995 to
further discuss the possibility of the City of Mounds View providing
contract maintenance to the proposed turnback roads . Summarizing the
meeting, Ramsey County will reimburse the City for all maintenance
activities performed on the proposed turnback roads to the time in which
the City has accepted the turnback. The amounts payable can and will
include labor, materials, equipment, and any overhead.
The discussion of this proposal was initiated to increase the service level
of the County' s winter maintenance, and to the City' s sidewalk snow removal
program. Staff' s opinion is that this agreement is fair and equitable for
all parties concerned. Staff does not anticipate that any additional staff
will be required to perform the maintenance of these roadways . One
additional piece of snow removal equipment would be beneficial for both the
additional turnback miles, and the City' s current street mileage. The funds
received from Ramsey County can help subsidize the purchase of this
equipment .
This agreement is an excellent example of intergovernmental cooperation,
to improve service levels to both agencies, for the betterment of the
community.
Staff has attached the proposed agreement from Ramsey County for Council' s
review. Should Council have any questions, or concerns, prior to the agenda
session that staff may address, please feel free to call me .
Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council accept Ramsey County' s proposal for the City of Mounds View
to provide contract maintenance of proposed turnback roads .
DRAFT
AGREEMENT NO. "P"P"'
AGREEMENT FOR ROAD MAINTENANCE SERVICES
This agreement is entered into between the City of
Mounds View, Minnesota, a municipal corporation, hereinafter
referred to as the "City" , and the County of Ramsey, a
political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter
referred to as the "County" .
WHEREAS, the County, through Ramsey County Public Works
Department, is responsible for the maintenance of certain
ro-adways ±h inheCity-; a-nd -
WHEREAS, the City has the staff, equipment and proximity
to these roadways to provide the routine maintenance
necessary on the roads.
The parties mutually agree as follows:
1. Services: The services which the City shall perform
are as follows:
a. The city shall provide routine and winter
road maintenance on 3 . 63 miles of County roadways,
as described below.
County Road H2 from W. County Line to T.H. 10 -
1. 26 miles
County Road I from W. County Line to Silver Lake
Road - 0. 43 miles
Pleasant View Drive from County Road H2 to County
Road I - 0.45 miles
Spring Lake Road from T.H. 10 to North County Line
- 0. 69 miles
Spring Lake Road from County Road H-2 to 79th St.
- 0. 80 miles
b. The term "routine road maintenance" shall mean to
keep the aforesaid portions of County roadways
reasonably smooth and in reasonably good repair
for the passage of vehicular traffic and
reasonably free of all obstructions and
impediments to traffic. This maintenance shall
include such preventative maintenance services as
may be reasonably required to preserve the roadway
in its present operating condition including, but
not limited to, proper and timely crack sealing,
patching, joint repair, street sweeping, rubbish
removal, cleaning and repair of drainage
facilities, mowing of grassed areas, and trimming
of bushes, trees, and shrubs within highway
right-of-way.
c. The term "winter road maintenance" shall mean to
keep the aforesaid portions of County roadways
reasonably free and clear from ice, snow and
debris, and undertake proper sanding and/or
salting when necessary. It shall be the City's
responsibility to maintain the through traffic
lanes to their full width during the winter
months.
d. The City shall furnish all equipment, materials
and staff necessary to provide routine and winter
road maintenance.
2 . Payment: The County shall pay the City as follows:
a. The County shall pay the City for actual expenses
incurred maintaining said County roadways. This
expense shall not exceed an amount based on the
following: The unit cost of reimbursement shall
be on a square yard road surface basis. The unit
price will be based on square yard of pavement
maintained by County forces. Area calculations
identified in the Ramsey County Pavement
Management Program will be the basis for
determining total square yards maintained by each
agency.
FORMULA
COUNTY SQ. YR. COST = TOTAL COUNTY COST FOR ROUTINE MAINT
AND SNOW & ICE CONTROL/TOTAL SQ. YD. OF ROAD
SURFACE
CITY REIMBURSEMENT = COUNTY SQ. YARD. COST X CITY SQ. YD.
MAINTAINED
b. The County shall pay the City for these services
on submission of a billing detailing expenses at
the end of each year.
c. On the effective date a County roadway is
transferred to the jurisdiction of the City, the
County shall no longer be responsible for the
payment for routine and winter road maintenance.
3 . Relationship between the parties:
a. The parties agree that the relationship between
them created by this agreement is that of employer
(the County) and independent contractor (the
City) . No agent or employee of the City shall be
deemed to be the agent or employee of the County.
b. The City agrees to save, defend and hold the
County harmless from all claims, demands, costs or
judgments caused by or arising out of the
negligence of the City, its officers, agents or
employees in the performance of this contract.
4 . Effective date of agreement:
a. This agreement shall become effective the first
day of June 1995 and shall remain in effect until
such time as all of the County roadways herein
listed shall be transferred to the City under the
functional consolidation program ar he_careement
is terminated in accordance with Section 5, below.
5. Termination:
a. The County reserves the right to suspend or
terminate this agreement if the City violates any
of the terms or conditions of this agreement or
does not fulfill in a timely and proper manner its
obligations under this agreement as determined by
the County. In the event the County exercises its
right of suspension or termination under this
Paragraph, it shall submit written notice to the
City specifying the extent of such suspension or
termination, the reasons, therefore, and the date
upon which suspension or termination becomes
effective. Upon receipt of such notice, the City
shall take all actions necessary to discontinue
further commitments of funds to the extent that
they relate to the suspended or terminated
portions of this agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
agreement to be executed.
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW THE COUNTY OF RAMSEY
By By
Chairperson
Its Board of County Commissioners
By Attest:
Chief Clerk-County Board
Its - -
Date: Date:
Approved as to form:
Assistant County Attorney
Recommended for Approval:
Paul L. Kirkwold, P.E.
Ramsey County Engineer
Risk Management
CM'OF
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 12.
9ONJM STAFF REPORT Report Number: 95-1406WS
O W AGENDA SESSION DATE July 10, 1995 Report Date: 7-6-95
DISPOSITION
Item Description:
Consideration of Quotes for Replacement of Well Motor Starters
Administrator's Review/Recommendation:
- No comments to supplement this report ,4A.—.a
- Comments attached.
Explanation/Summary (attach supplement she- . as necessary.)
$IZMMARY;
At the June 12 , 1995 Council meeting, staff presented a report requesting
permission to solicit quotes for replacing badly worn motor starters for
wells 5 and 6 . Staff has received two quotes for equipment and
installation. The bids also include the installation of power factor
correction capacitors for well one, which will improve that motors energy
efficiency. The quotes are as follows :
Bacon Electric $20, 126
Kilmer Electric $23 , 155
When the revisions at Treatment Plants 2 and 3 were being performed, there
were numerous items not included in the contractors bid, that staff was to
purchase and in many cases install or rebuild in-house . These items were
purchased to reduce the total project cost, as was practiced earlier at the
new water treatment plant . Such items included were lab tables, chemical
scales, security systems, ceiling fans, check valves, and air compressor,
to name a few. These items were purchased with the Water Improvement Bonds.
This account was closed out as of December 31, 1995 . At the meeting when
the auditors gave the financial report, staff added that we would be
requesting that Council approve a transfer of the funds from the closed
Bond Fund, to the Water Operational Fund to balance the accounts . Staff has
included this amount in the request for funds for the motor starters, since
they will be purchased from the same account.
The amount remaining in the Improvement Bond Fund was $87, 633 . This amount
was deposited into the account, Retained Earnings . Staff is requesting
Council authorize a transfer from account # 700-3890, Appropriation of
Retained Earnings for $7, 343 to 700-4123-705 Water Infrastructure program
to balance the building revisions, $7, 014 to account # 700-4123-703 to
balance the additional new capital improvements to the water plants, and
$20, 126 to account # 700-4123-703 for the replacement of the motor
starters . Total amount transferred is $34 , 514 .
RECOMMENDATION;
(over)
Staff recommends award to replace the well motor starters to the low
bidder, Bacon Electric in the amount of $20, 126, to be funded from
account # 700-4123-703, with a transfer of that amount from account # 700-
3890 to 700-4123-703 .
Should Council have any questions or concerns prior to the meeting that
staff can address, please feel free to call me.
6-2, e////
M ael Ulrich, Director of Public Works
Recommendation: Staff recommends award to replace the well motor starters
at wells 5 and 6 to Bacon Electric in the amount of $20, 126 , and a transfer
of funds from account # 700-3890, Appropriation of Retained Earnings in the
amount of $27, 140 to account # 700-4123-703 , and $7, 343 to account # 700-
4123-705 . These accounts are in the Water Infrastructure Program.
Date: June 24, 1995
TO: City Council of Mounds View and
Mayor of Mounds View
We the undersigned residents have received notice of the City Council
hearing regarding the renewal of Robert's Off 10 Liquor license. We
wish to address the following concerns and problems, which we feel
are related to the issuance of such license.
1. Increased noise levels causing public nuisance and disruption of
the peace.
A. Loud yelling screams and roudy behavior from persons entering
and leaving the Robert's establishment.
B. Loud vehicle noise. "gunning" of engines, prolonged and
loud idling of autos, trucks and motorcycles.
C. Decibel level of live entertainment too high for residents
directly adjacent to Robert's
2. Increased traffic, hazardous and driving while intoxicated on
residential streets surrounding Robert's
We do not wish to deny Robert's of a primary source of revenue which
a liquor license generates, however, we feel the issuance of such a
license is a priviledge that requires owner responsibility to it's
surrounding neighbors. Therefore we are asking the owners of Robert's
to work with us in taking the necessary action to rectify these concerns,
and ensure our rights as your neighbors, are not violated
SIGNED: / /
Xi
(. i OP; i i
•. / 4i"''' fill zfir G2 "4:1 4
7
, zAvn, Do-Af"ei
iii , "'a 707j ,. ..- . ���n;�
s
fTL . X97 1,; u. -4
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 7.
1117196, 95-1401WS
STAFF REPORT Report Number:
° AGENDA SESSION DATE JULY 10, 1995 Report Date: 7 06 95
DISPOSITION
Item Description: Continued Discussion Regarding Pedestrian Bridge (per Councilmember Trude)
Administrator's Review/Recommendation:
- No comments to supplement this report
- Comments attached.
Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.)
SUMMARY;
This item has been placed on the Agenda at the request of Councilmember
Trude. Attached please find letters received from residents in response to
a letter drafted by the Parks and Recreation Commission (also attached) .
dr 41044044CL
- ..�
' amantha 0 •uno, Cit . Administrator
RECOMMENDATION:
JUL-10-1995 16 30 PASTER ENTERPRISES 612 646 1389 P.02/02
DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF SHOPPING CENTERS
33) 2227 University Ave.•St.Pau!,MN 551141677-612-646-7901 • Fru 612-646-1389Cmy 10, 1995
45th&E CentralNTRAve. .E. The Honorable Mayor Jerry Linke
Minneapolis,Minnesota City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, Minnesota 55112
CRYSTAL SHOPPING CENTER RE' Mounds View Pedestrian Bridge Across
Bass Lake Road&West Broadway g
Crystal,Minnesota Highway 10 to Library
Dear Mayor Linke:
DODDWAY SHOPPING CENTER Moundsview Square Associates believe the pedestrian bridge
Smith&Dodd Road
Wcst St.Paul,Minnesota would be a plus for the City of Mounds View for the following
reasons.
The bridge would be an enhancement to the business
LEXINGTON PLAZA SHOPPES community as public safety would be greatly improved.
Lexington&Larpenteur
Roseville,Minnesota
This bridge would encourage pedestrian,bicycle and rollerblade
traffic to local businesses while protecting our community's
children.
MENDOTA PLAZA
State Hwy. 110&Dodd Road The pedestrian bridge would eliminate the barrier of separating
Mendota Heights.Minnesota
the community from one side of Highway 10 from the other.
Pedestrian traffic could easily move from Moundsview Square
MOUNDSVIE`VSQUARE Shopping Center to the Library and other businesses on the
Hwy. 10&Long Lake Road south side of Highway 10. This would promote local shopping
Mounds View,Minnesota within the community.
As always, please contact the writer if you have any
questions.
NORTHWAY SHOPPING CENTER
State Hwy.23&Woodland
Circle Pines,Minnesota Very truly yours,
PASTER ENTERPRISES
SIBLEY PLAZA
West 7th Street&Davcrn
St.Paul,Minnesota
John H. Streeter
Director of Engineering
SOUTHVIEW SHOPPING CENTER JHS/Iah
Southview Blvd.& 13th Ave.S
South St.Paul,Minnesota
Member of
International Council
of Shopping Centers
/v'' �v ,7 cc rv:�f.�:L c� G'
`75A.07)).-,2,575-//
`7 z
cVd -
. A /6)
ft
4,E4)
•
z /e- y
•e•Z-e-re} 1 ,//)
40 '
e--e-zzi/M-6
& /u Z
g/t--A , Aeel
'4/ G
•
4eLci
I -GG-4--z i 4-
(��'�C—✓ r ✓lam
-e (7i
June 23 , 1995
Dear Mounds View Residents:
I wish to inform you of an issue that may be of interest to you.
The City applied for a federal transportation grant that would
encourage bicycling and pedestrian modes of transportation.
Since Highway 10 has been such a problem for safe passage to
access parks, schools, library, churches, Lakeside Park beach,
stores and other places, it was thought that a pedestrian bridge
across Highway 10 would be a great project for a grant
application. The grant was prepared and submitted. The grant
was awarded! ! ! The cost of a pedestrian bridge is approximately
$600, 000. The grant is a 20% / 80% match which means that—the
City must only provide the 20% match or $120, 000. There are
engineering costs and construction inspection costs also which
add up to about $65, 000 over a 2 year period. The city's share.
of funding was suggested to be Tax Increment revenues which the
city has for economic development and enhancement of the city.
The benefit is that the City receives a new pedestrian bridge at
a fraction of the cost. Using TIF or special projects funds for
funding the 20% City share of this pedestrian bridge would not
alter your property tax bill.
The benefit of the pedestrian bridge is that daycare providers
would have access across Highway 10 to the library. Children
would be able to ride their bikes to parks for athletic games and
practices. The pedestrian bridge connects to Long Lake Road
sidewalk and also connects to County Road I sidewalks. It is a
perfect location for easy and safe access across Highway 10 .
Youth will be able to access Edgewood School for activities and
swimming pool, Irondale High School, Sunnyside School, churches
and other places. Children can also access Silver View Park, and
Lakeside Beach. On the other side of Highway 10, children can
access City Hall, Pinewood School, churches, Bridgemans, and
Hardees. The distances between places of interest are not far, it
is just difficult and unsafe to access because of Highway 10 . A
pedestrian bridge would provide safe and easy access. As you
have noticed, traffic signals do not allow more than a few
seconds for cross traffic and never stop traffic in all
directions. There is no safe way to cross Highway 10 on foot or
by bike. This bridge would provide the missing link between the
north and south halves of major trail systems.
Many pedestrian bridge architects were interviewed regarding this
project. All expressed the need to make the entries to the
pedestrian bridge very easy and efficient with ramping for bikes
and wheelchairs . In addition, the entries would provide a park
like atmosphere with sitting benches, drinking fountains,
flowers, bushes and a nice atmosphere. The annual maintenance
costs of this metal and poured concrete material bridge would be
minimal . New innovations for decorative fencing, color
coordination, and landscaping have proven to be an attraction 'to
users, making pedestrian bridges a well used facility.
The issue is that the City Council is thinking about not funding
the 20% match. This would mean that the grant would be awarded
to a different city. If you think the pedestrian bridge would be
a benefit to the youth of the community it is imperative that you
show up at a City Council budget session, Monday, July 10 at 7:00
p.m. In addition it would is imperative that you send or fax a
letter to the City Council voicing your support of the pedestrian
bridge.
Please address your letter to: Mounds View City Council, 2401
Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112. Fax #: 784-3462 .
This is a one time chance for funding the pedestrian bridge. If
the grant award is not accepted it will go to another city --It
is unlikely that another funding grant for pedestrian bridges
would be available.
If you want a pedestrian bridge across Highway 10 you need to let
your City Council members know, otherwise it will not be
considered in the budget and the deadline will pass, along with
the $480, 000 of federal grant funding for this project.
If you have any questions, please call City Council member Julie
Trude at 780-1854 who lobbied several State and Federal
Congressman for the award of this project.
Sincerely,
•
Mounds View Parks and Recreation Commissioners
Wayne Burmeister, Chairperson
Gary Stevenson
Frank Silvis
Pam Starr
David Long
Scott Dentz
July 6, 1995
To: Mounds View City Council Members
From: Beth and Lee Trotta
Re: Funding of the Pedestrian Bridge Across Hwy 10
We are definately in favor of connecting the north and south side of
Mounds View with a bridge across Hwy 10. Not mentioned in the
information is the possibility of a tunnel under the highway. If
the cross-over bridge is not esthetically pleasing to enough people,
a peditrian tunnel is another solution. This is would also make it
possible for wildlife to follow a corridor from one side to the
other. We have experienced several pleasant biking and walking
trails that have a tunnel under a highway.
Thank you.
u -.,"11::-r�i,:-'''.,t_'-'1•;• VR .KUR :tMANUFACTURING 612 572 9878 TO 9-7849713 P.82,' 3
_ e 1-„ t 4 § w;.-....':•,-f'•••';.- 1 1
i'y
4
ti\-` ", , „ rieW City Council,
''*t ,t.� pedestrian bridge across Highway 10 at
, �o �,ounda;Psew,needs the
•j' Jt r ti `p. 1
',L.'''. rr 1:,.....4 i, r{-y r+r i 'c.t ..ei ' �{ sideiof 35W we are always
ip`' ?;\ :i f r!'”'r47'4<r +c^. Z Y7t�..344:1...”•*.{{ 1 '- Y.„. x .-
$ '" i , ° x ' :'' rot' ��"e4 ` ',+ '1- 'Views to different.business along Highway
..i y i S t ,� 1 ei q� , qtr , a {/ r _ -: _.
Y 1 -'.., t ,�• $- :T1,11,1;713^,,,, !�(1!•'�yft it'+ i., •<.
'1 ..21;-'.1 ,.. , ,a, ', _ .V•�_ :*�tp, Iighway.:10 they are 15& 13 years of age
f ' , ,� ' , '' r,li• :Highway 10,on bikes,walking or
S. t �I•r';`,':!1 tl .. ' y.,1 ons;even;though we always cross at the lights.
' 'Y' -1"4'1i7' y ;w`� � "de of Highway 10. Even�tthe-cross-lights-the left
tII _ �
' J `.rKrxk.i:.'�"1:14.; ,iK ' �, :for:pedestrians, I've been cut off by cars turning when
• c. '... ; r';t Highway 10. The
,ii`1 ; �'� �`" i' ` r � �, on c�vrbikes. '`It's just not safe crossing gh Y
t e {is s ': a, ,F ; a r .". I •#--.e=3 - 7)77R1'1111g the to make a
A. 4.• { , high speed,I've seen cars pushing_ pe
.,, ,. fi- . ,u� f1a-are travel3IIg at t00 a
< '''1111('Pilate dates yellow light and often-end up going on a red.
,i i;'4„ �` Iiyrr. 2, k
1!:'.. ..V74-*.-431114'� , �>'1 My,.,daughter and I came upon an accident of a boy on a bike that was bit by a car
't ," ; if that accident could
4'V ` ;A :further north on 10. You wonder if we had safer crossings
' 4{i eV,--4,1•,•,::.;„. r,s,:.
,.• • t ,I t4 `cs,bave been avoided.
t 1,;.6-1., ' .# t tiny rS,•'c
twt e • i i.:Flit'z iiia5 ; l it
fr h ;,` ' �4:� 1y-son goes to Irondale and my daughter goes to Edgewood, I just cringe when
1'�°'�2� =tb ask.if they can walk home because they have to cross Highway 10. They have
''� get home so I know they crossed Highway 10
�-� � ��• �.to�caA me at work as soon as they
-1.'' . '': so theyare more
a `1si i ,0-61,,,,.4,..}� :+ okagN-They can only walk if there is a group of children walking
` .'••_4'''','*'. t vasuble to traffic, oneftwo children are not as visible as a group.
1k--t.:, .0,:,.....47,-,=•:•••;'•yeti-+i. S �4 s- -
'Y byherself. I
11,41.7.041-t-:v-, a notilet my daughter cross Highway 10 to go to the Library
f-0%'�1. f;; {i," `usually drive her there or bike with her in the evenings, and the library is not
• 4 '4' kx . . "IN always:opea in the evenings so we end up going to the Anoka Library instead. If
�� y,�'1r� ,�;h vve had-a crossing bridge my daughter could go to the Mounds View Library
<,, otf, , x '?-:during the day.
' , Several months ago we bad decided to move,we were looking in the Mounds View
▪ t , area on the west side of Highway 10. We found several houses we considered but
} > / both of my children did not want to move there because they would have to cross
1_ ,- Highway 10 to visit most of their friends who live around our neighborhood now-::-.• ,::,$(4-,.. "I , and-also go to their favorite eating places. We decided we did not want our
‘;'•-•-:x.• :`,,:,`• -i••,•Y4i.T'17.440.'1,-•••,r,.:••--.-- :. . •
.4,ti�(Yak4 ti ,' '•.• ,:c.,..„.,
}_
-:S 3h 4,:,:;:-.7",,-1,::",z,..:!,,
L
F."-1,-"4".;;;,;'_../:',,
A
A.4,1%.`-'',‘-.,'ii-'1';''-,.''.1-0''',`, i.
• rF• � E i9i0 12`FR KURT MANUFACTURING 612 572 9878 TO 9-7849713 P.03,03
i05
af, �� y� 1M1.ri a i •� t, c
943E r F-�.a;.9 :,; ra - - - .
K} 4
$
iJ •, E�trr ' I'r�' tY -
erossing such a dangerous highway and decided to stay in Shoreview
Y 4 . . ttdd an addition to our home instead.
,< r o evievv and
Alen.isant'to thank all those involved in the pathway linking Shoreview
that path. We use it all the
w' j ove ed when they completed
i' . 1f1W.t z W �� f laces and their friends by
N A7 r (i f,, .rS t..LA �,ime1 ,Tey are able to ride to the business/fast p
Jl [.,,.t 1;1-;•‘
+,
t i d h E Tone lin
My son works at Hardees and rides his bike ar rollerblades back
' knowing
�the can do this without being on a busy
Orth,;its a$'Teat cOmi
• ', t5 � '�4ry ���,,..��,,,,,L,y.Baal I think this pedestrian bridge would complete this wonderful idea
... •....g-Cemmt�tie together. Both of my Children were able to walk/bike to
; - ,.
"pinewood school in.safety on those paths,the only problem now of course is they
r, t t ,kr
*:teEdgewood&Irondale and when they want to ride their bikes the path will
f `T< ' f� f,a3;" � only lead them safely to Highway
10.
Please consider the building of this pedestrian bridge,we all can benefit from it
end the future of our Communities depend on a safe way our citizens can cross
Highway 10.
Thank you,
Shirley Klein
' r 1748 Lois Drive
Shoreview,MN 55126
•
784-9162
•
t fT K
4
•
•
a. 1
Y' 1
=nq r
r ,
1 r -
** TOTAL PAGE.003 **
JUL-10-1995 17:12 FROM ST. MARY'S MNPLS. CENTER TO 7843462 P.01
FAX to City of Mounds View - 3462
FROM - Linka Holey, Director • institutional Research, Saint Mary's University -
874-9877 Ext. 112
July 9, 1995
TO: Members of the Mounds .ew City Council
FR: Linka e , Resident an• •-st member of the Trailways Advisory Group
ciwi
and the Focus 2000 - H using and Neighborhood Task Force
RE: Funding for Pedestrian Bri•ge across Highway 10
The concern over the division • our community by Highway 10 has been
expressed since I moved into ounds View in 1976. Both the social and safety
implications have been widely •iscussed in many public forums. The
construction of a pedestrian bridge is a vital response to this long-standing
problem.
I was delighted to hear that the city had received a federal transportation grant
with an unbelieveable match of 0/80 percent. As a former grant writer, I am
well aware of theup front and b ckground work required to obtain such a deal.
My respect for the city staff coninues to rise as I hear of this type of action on
community-generated concern .
1 was totally shocked to hear th t the Council may not fund the 20% to secure
the grant. I cannot comprehend why any Council member would vote against a
highly public supported projectith such a positive return on investment. This
project has support of all ages ithin the population. Is this support not
understood by the Council? Ar there particular costs that make this project not
as cost beneficial as one would expect? Even a 50/50 match would be good.
I feel strongly that the Councilhould support this project. You can use this
project to publicize your commi ment to addressing big probems like the
division of a city by a major hig way. Your attention to cost by successfully
competing for the 20/80 grant i also an example of your fiscally conservative
management approach. You w the positive energy of a city brought together
for the Festival in the Park toda . The parade, the activities, and the fireworks
were grand! The investment in the symbolic and functional pedestrian bridge
will bring you the same, if not n ore, public support as the annual festival has
brought you today. 1
07/10/95 14:20 MN MUSEUM OF AMERICAN ART -> 612 784 3462 NO.837 P02
July 10, 1995
Mounds View City Council
1 2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
Dear Members of the Mounds View City Council:
I am a concerned resident of Mounds View and I would very much to see a
pedestrian bridge built across Highway 10. I urge you to consider this when you
review the budget today, and be sure to indude the City's portion of construction
costs in your financial plans. Please do not pass up this opportunity to make
Mounds View safer and friendlier for its residents.
I am a caretaker at Wildwood Manor, a HUD senior housing complex located at the
corner of Highway 10 and Long Lake Road. Many of the residents of my building
are over 80 and severely limited in what they can do physically. At this point, there
is no way that any resident could even dream of crossing Highway 10 on foot. The
danger of Highway 10's traffic presents a problem even for a short, simple trip to
Snyder's to fill a prescription. This leaves a Wildwood resident with one choice:
ask favor of a friend or family member and have her/ him make the trip across the
highway. This is an acceptable option, however many seniors spend their days
having to ask others for favors - a ride to church, a ride to the grocery store. It would
be nice if the residents were able to run errands on their own because it gives them a
sense of accomplishment and self respect.
In addition to facilitating occasional trips to Snyder's, I think Wildwood residents
would benefit from a pedestrian bridge because it would provide an additional
access to sidewalks and neighborhoods across the highway. These areas serve as a
pleasant place to walk for the Tuesday Morning Walking Club, an important activity
for Seniors who might otherwise sit in their apartments alone.
Thank you for your consideration for this project, I look forward to seeing the
ground breaking for the new pedestrian bridge soon!
Sincerely,
Alisa Hacker
2559 Moundsview Drive #102
Mounds View, MN 55112
•
July 3,1995
2559 Mounds View DR.111
Dear Mounds View eity Council,.
It has been brought to my attention that a grant has
been awarded for the construction of a bridge crossing high—
way lO.WOW: It would facilitate the crossing for a lot of us
Senior citizens.The drug store,fabric store,church,.getting
our hair cut would be easier too.
The lights are not long enough for us to feel very safe 1
about doing business in (Air own area.Please consider us in the
review of this cpnvenience;.Thank you,— (.-a/j-"P %2.
�e---- `
11/64 4/ 1i
„,si „,, ,:6_4_6_,,iL± i
;(/'Av‘ viA, 6 114 1) ,:i,i,.___ 4-PL-4--e-71-i
/TIA 9310/'d
i g) 444,2,0
,, S, It 4
d'a,t-VePA'61/L) ---6 ,-(,_
Lii,,,ii,a-,-.4---,K) /(iy,,,,_z4-- ..,,E,7,,,,,,,
bf,,A)-6
,1-0je
.,,,n 14 0.-1 (L-
i G
txj4 .
1
I %
,-
( '-- jz- h\r\ -371
Nk7c) .tc r
z,00v,c , •. , / i
s
'1.4_1!.0. 11
7v./4) ,„rdtic
t r, &U
GVzfXI'C't /6 6U(---‘27
July 5 , 1995
To : Mounds View City Council
Subject : Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge
I am writing this is regards to the issue surfaced at the
June Parkand Rec Commission regarding the proposed Pedestrian
Bridge over Highway 10 . I understand that the City Council
is seriously considering nt using the $480, 000 grant the
city has received because they do not feel they should contribute
the $120, 00 whichwould be the cities portion.
I feel that this would be a serious mistake and misuse of a
well deserved grant which would benefit many citizen ' s , which
of course many of them are too young to vote . A safe crossing
over Highway 10 would help connect our community and enable
not only youth, but citizens of all ages the safety to enjoy
all parts of the City on either bike or foot .
I understand that the Cities portion of $120, 000 would come from
the TIF money which the city currently has several hundred
thousand in reserve for just such an opportunity . I see
no reason that this should not be used for this purpose and
the idea of turning down $480,000 in grant monies shows to
me that some members of the City Council do not understand
the true idea of getting a good return on an investment . To
get a $600, 000 bridge for $120, 000 is better than any interest
rate anybody will ever see . I also understand that the council
was quoted on maintenance of $30, 000 per year per my conver-
sation with Gary Quick. I have tacked to Mary Saarion and she
has done some research and found this to certainly be drastically
overstated .
I hope you will use your best judgement and decide to accept the
grant monies and build this bridge for the future of Moundsview.
Sincerely,
TOTAA-- S:tCX)V
\s:)701
21H., 6[Aki
Pam and Bryan Starr
7778 Woodlawn Drive
Mounds View
780-2409
JUL-10-95 MON 14:27 ORMAN GUIDANCE RESEARCH FAX NO. 612 831 4913 P. 02
July 10, 1995
City of Mounds View
Members of theCity Council
Dear Members of the City Council:
Unfortunately, ! am unable to be present for your deliberations with regard to the
resolution to move forward with the construction of a pedestrian walkway across
Highway 10. With this letter, however, I want to express my support for this
pedestrian walkway.
It is my understanding that the city has already secured grants which will fund
eighty percent of the costs. In today's economic climate, it is unlikely that this
kind of funding will be readily available to the city in the foreseeable future. And
in the event that we turn down this funding now, we may hurt our chances for
grants in the future if there is any question about our sincere interest in a project
at the time that we apply for such a grant,
In the many years that I have lived in Mounds View, it has been apparent that
the city is severely divided by the traffic which travels on Highway 10. It also
seemed that many citizens were concerned about linking the two parts of the city
during the Focus 2000 discussions for the future of the city. The pedestrian
bridge would be a visible and practical sign of a sincere attempt to link the
citizens of the city. It would provide a visible sign of our sincere interest in
providing safety and security for our youth and elderly, who fear the traffic levels
on Highway 10, While it may be argued that some people will not go out of their
way to make use of the bridge, there are many who will put it to good use and
deserve the safety it provides.
In conclusion, I want the members of the council to know that they have the
support of many citizens, including myself, in building this bridge as a practical
symbol of the many bridges in the community which are needed to bind this
community together.
Sincerei
XL14.14i.
Susan K. Fisher
8360 Fairchild Avenue
Mounds View
. _
P.81.0 1/03
„ •,:39,:'71--- . ....-
• -" '' !..P;'.' ---;4"0'''.''-'f":'''.. ‘. 78 ITO 9-7849713
._., • ... ''., .::.,';---;-...-,e:.,..-:,,e.,- '-‘4,,,:'..-.,',''',';'1'.:-,'-',;.i,.41,,;;Y1,-.'it,.,..:,,t-'..-t.-%-)....'.11171.et,... -(4.'4'. p#,A,f-il^:;:',--;":-..-.- •- ..-'. ••-
i - ., .-.•-',4`,.:1;.:,-,'„,'-.2....,,,,,i...„1-1: Cgt,t1,-,1-:;..-,,--,,,-* .-,:.-,‘,-,•-..:'• ., ,,.. ,,,2•?.,:Q„-pei;;;',tf,:'.irl,l,'4-..' •.'4riTil *:•,''. .. •-:-'''''i'•-• .
tot.
,...„,-,,..,..-......,,•„...,,.t,,,,:%„...„,,,....,_„,,,_„..,. .,...... •..._._ .,.., ,..........„,,..,...,,,,..„.„, ..,,..,.. ., . .. ,...,,, . .„ ,... .
,.... r-..,.• ..,-..,. , ... .. . .1, --,;.--v." :- -.--i''"'•;ki ..•';');••--:':,-24 V.,!',,t t,.'r.,,,,,.,1/...tr:",k i,i. .,,t1 .,.-k;. . : .. ' ..;• -
ki....):, i;':; '.,..;.,-, •:.- '';.1"..;'"-.-- r'..':':..-A.;4::-'. : ‘..'-',' ,I.:.-,:,,,..,: i4,(4-=4.1.(k.:C:;• ; .Akez-;,,,,,, .,..:;,:::.,,-,.- .:.. .
'17f,'.. `-":-.'.=:::.:'. -:.=.-.:-- •i.-' '-.- ... . -::...,...:-''...5-..,',. , "i..-.' .,..- '....,,:..'. ii-..'i--i,::' .V.i 7)1'',,,''',.1 *..'''.'' -' -'
:..'F':,''.: -::` .- *;A:'; - --•.- .. '' -.. ' .'... ,-v .',, .., :',".-r.--t,i,...,,,.1'.,•'''''''''..; !I' .1 IliAln!;.''4:sk•''''' .
'..1. :. , ' •4 •• - - ' . --'' ...'''-.;-.. •"...""1.'"'...!:-.....1.'„1"-- ",•,;;."t•-',";;-.I...;4•".14,:tifr '".A.•'-'74.^:211.-..1-4'!•'-
1,
;:2".''' ' I:: "'•.' ''""' ''- ':'-'" ''"' '•.".i'C'''..''''-7.."'''...• t'f;;;::•?•:;.- ‘,..r.r,‘,..r riTrry COUNCIL
ki
. ,-,, . .../ .•'. ,.. ....:•-•;,-, :::,. :,..,,,-.,„:„:„..,-.:,,,,..,,,,,,..„:„.,,,,,,,ii•„„„uNns. 1/..L.CJ YV I."-
,,, 4:•.,,,,, ,.;.: . ,'„..-i-.,:;.',•,..,• k..„,.---...,,,,-4?--,,,'', '.,,,,.t•-!:.';'1"-',.•;441.:,:.f,vi.--';'?,:c.'!:,-'5,1,'43-^Lv•&'tw.,4.,/..--. '4.•..-51;•-•'-'" '-—.
1...',: '-' '''.' .- ''. ,.;..- '''''::.:!'''''''''11-115,-;-•14 kell'.,:':,'i--.;','-4'..---;,•!!'',*•-,.:;',,'.,,',.)
,.,4„--,',;"--;5`'.., • ' '. ,_,,..;--;-.--.5:Ir.:. ,`r-:- -.4.:4;:t-- ;;;;'141%,-21.!'-':---',:;1,,,-;,6,,r,,,,itit.,.f-3,•• -:.,.- i-,o.L -9/7/3
. ,..:, . .,,..._,......_.. .,.,...,. .,.,.:„.„,„.„,„-,,,,=.,..... '1•0---1
,„: - , . ---, - -,_•-_-,,-..'.....-.-.s, -,,'..'.;.,....,_..?.-',./.1, _P-3,•::.'.4;.t. !..":,-;,,,-.--.;-,',;:-."- ',',R'.11'; 17 84-0AKI '.
'i "i:'- '' ' :..'.-•,--.•--'i-:-- 1•4•'''" '''';144"Yii-t';'..)1- .. 4kt'",V117!:• •t•••;.YSifj54-'1-.'1"..", 11%...1,•a'•W".;-''-;'',.'-.'-',-- • '
1 '''.'''''''' ' .' ".." ';'-'l."."; -;-5/:41;°".'''''l''-k."-6.,-il •f!e4x,-"":117-11-41.4c,411-'i'.4':';;14,'kl:-''tc,4•i' 4i-'1f-''474'''''
COVER 4 I.1....;
.,;:,;.‘,.,::.,.- ;,•,•,.•',- . ....•":i'''''',.''-7.P7,71.:"\_••';'-'';',"':?7:.?;,','''.. ..;i.".;•'.4.1Priiti..A-4,, --r.
!''t";.-4.......:',-_, ' .'.,•'' ':,_•;',.,.."V.:";',-:":";::",":..-,i,:$:;.:::-':',''•: ....!-;'!•..iZ-..ri:4.....'•;;;-r,,,t..4. -at,'",:., - .z...44,14.v.-4.,,,,,,31,,,,„.,..„...,,w,..„..:,,:::.
;.;%,,..,•}.-].,- --,.. .,, :-..,,,,,',.,..::::,,,,,7,7-,-;-;; ;;•.•!;--r.,k:::,,,i::::;‘,V,,t (,;,,,4.;',e7.,;,7,-1.4';.-W1::::. -,f'1_,K14-.?!.. ..1:;.,•1;-.-:.--,i;„„e-.','„,. -1-. •'...
-.,,,,,,,,11,-,;. --....,,, ,:-..5.-,,L,„-,.,,,,'..,‘;''(,"-"::,':":,1".r"ill'-.,"f:'''',.-"1 ''''''".:':'T:1:-7 1.-71-....7,r.:-'-',..:'•.ili•-;-•'.`•-:_p_. .,'A.,:-.4:',,'I., .'r-:.'''--
.."'.1':::::`' .'. '-..•.:..'::-4.,-,::•.,'"-.--.'--,,..-""• .-' ;-,-••.!..•,'.•,-,..:•."..,-;,,',%',,-",•••••:,41,'-',,..:-;.!";!,,-..-!',-;..)0„.„ 44-N71-9,,' .
• .._...... pi..-....
„ . .
:...,'..:.:."..,,...': ,:.-, ,,..- :-.:.,-. -; ,-;'!.;_,,-,--,-,-:::,•':;•'-:_;.'f,,',.;,-'.-'.C.-:.•-,•••.•,';:t1Li:i'-'.'• '--.','.'.....-'•'''',',..,*.:If6.-`• -L."a-i•• ,..ipuzi ;:.,.....
At
..,. ...7::_....,..-, ,.. ,.. ..,...-..„..„..,..4.,....,..,,,T...:,,,. .j..„,-..;-,..,-. ...,:.-.....•._...--,1-•.,-,:-.1....=:.-:::-.. ......-tt,. .. ,.„ 1 •.•-• T,--7.-t!,-....',.•,:',-.4'6 .'-''.:4•1;.
.,''41;':' '''' '•' '" ''•,?,••;!'"•,"-''''31.2r-:.‘.1i.'";:(;:•:'':‘ij'r'•'.''' '"- '-,:'."'';•'',-...•••;''''''""!."'."''''''••:-"S;i".:.. .-"'"i'•'!"!".4;it'-‘'`,41E--;;"•.'-,t-r."':+';;Ity-SAI -: Is''-0-,‘•••••• • . . .,. ""-.
''''`'''';" ''''' '-' '' .''''''".•:''''''"-';',t1.'-:;r;•N'''''.:'''''`''''''''"r L -•,..'e•-•-''.•',-"'''',"•'-''-''.-Z'-''','"":-- .••''!",""'-r•-.7-X',;r4,.!"..',,i‘-'',:',,I,ii;:el!,,,:;24-r.r.-;f,;_1-1,.'.-t -•-? -.',.; k-T,.,-.%;.. ,,,,'
rt.'.',,- .- :.,...::...---',.-7'-'•:'-:'7,-..,--.,2;::':"...41..:-.•-7.:'il.,Z11'1.*:,:•.'-',-;.''..`-02---:;:.:.7.:f'': '''--..., ':/•-'-:.'"'"--.' '';'--•.-tt:::7k.:.'?-',;1.-74::iii,;:iti.X.I',',?; ','„-,-,1-.....'itlx,,A.Vil:,..• ...r--'-
.'-.;!_:',.,':.1-;, -•.;-::X.'--.',!'--.":...'7",-',:.''..-:i''.?:-,":----:',,'-.:-',,,'„,,-;;,:-`!,--',-../.-,-,.;'. .-.'-.,.,-, ', T; '. .':, -,‘,..;1.''.:. ',. ;'..'':. -,,-• -..,..... .I., :.;.,,. .;in.4.1,-1
..;*-- i,i,.'1'.,*.;- ,:'...'...........‘:'L'''''j!...-*.•:*:,:,:;.-''''.'*'''':: ''-''.:-''2,1.* ; *-''''* - ..',... .. - =.,,,,,.<-,',.., :2.*',I':;,,,,V,14..", '.-4.,',...";.f,i,F4i.:*:41.it!;.`t.:,-,'.4,•LZ.::, , .
.:)•,..;'-'. : ; ...'-'1.''. -:'',:':;.';'...'.'S'''''....,:-.: :,)-:'sr>.:ti.:::,:-.. ....'-: •;*''.:;.::*;-:.:',:-.'-'.'-." . .,,-:',4,/,: ',"'--.':**;.;'F':t..,.. 1....,;:::::**.ff!,..,*!"..': L'''';if"....0,. .'ii.OV-:;•'
-,' ---• ;_ •,. - -:.:-.-i--..,:„„f,•,•,.-,!•.,--,--. -,...- ..,..,. ,:•.. . ....--,•',-- -,- . .'..--,-,-.•.;'..,-,-.^;---,..i,,- ..i.,-,..---..--=... ,',::.,,„,•4.,-)k-,,,g",-:-.,... :
•-,t.*--'.:,- -: ,-,';:- --',•:',.-,--,-,-:-•,,,-,..-.-,--!:•:',.:.. , ....- .-- ,.:r2',;,:-. :-•;.-:•-•-.„..,:•,.;-,14...i.,,„",g',+,14'-,'. -- .-e.t4,,Attiiiiiii,;.7.i,-,. ,11`3".A.1':: '-I.
,z.....::,4.•.s, ',;-,-.• --•.,i.,--,...,...-:•..".,";,..;..;.,-2'.,-_1,0,:.,• ,‘;:-;...y.,,;.....,",;.";,..,..,i,..,,,, ,-, ,,,-,r.2;-,.rv..,-41;- 1..,.--!.'Y.'-'.,"f•?...7-7-,"'-;•.,.%" -.••....,,...."..-- .',,-:::•,. --tv!..',''LI.- •-• ',- :..•
,.',',,:',.,,' '-:-- .'.-...c‘'-..1. •''':(:--' .i''''s`'''..'1;.---r:1.--1•.....:•.:.... ...'r,:i'\•..-.;,..-••,-.-,...i .''':-';' 1-11- .-; -.' •?,r-f4J-1••-•
'.'•;;,.-t''-•:": •:- - '' ..••••• -:•-`":-•::•';','; •,--•- ,,, !:-1. ,.-“_-%.,---;-..,.-:. ,i,•,Fii...,,;,..6. ..,..., --24-, ,1,# .7 ,.•%:, : .
,,,,,,,....:. .., .k. ,,,...r,,,..-,,,.J-....:‘,-,..,‘,...;,-,:ri..,.-c..,,. .--•)i-1-.±:. ,'-'1;,.,1,.::-..:-...;:k .,c.'-'1, --i'',,,.'''.:,;:,:k:::.-:;•.•:-.,,-:,'.-""'---''''-,----'----'''":•---- . • • -
-*:-,-.;:--.,:',',. ."..••F v:.. ';'-,.-.•‘;',,*''.'..i''.;',I' 'i•kr..1... ;'-.1....''''''.?".:)Le'•-1'A-'44-. -,..e.ri',10..."'- ' '• . '
-;',''.,'-,„'..;;..sf,'„.'--,.-.-;;;;:.*-NP--- 11`,0 'lit). `'...',.,,,- ..-,47.7eff'... ....'" .. ...'''-'• '": ''"': -.. -
.;--,.--•-•.,--Tr,.-4--..---,:- ..-...1.. ' '--• - - - ' • .s' - ., -,..- ',. . •
-
::...T.1.1.::. :.;' ...:, .i ,, .., , , :,...r,
'''. '..:.;::r'!',:75 i ' C";.; ;!. , ... ::
'. *:ik %?i.;'.::.; ';;;..:-.-:'-';;;,1.-.4.-",-,-iti•41'.--i,".•-i• ::•-•- -' :-•:• • ` '
'-'-•. 1,:‘,1'.',i1", ..•.- - :-..:',-f•N't1';---'.•;.'_•-• ..- .:'. .. -- , •• .-; --. : ...
.-- • • "•-•,.iti.'Y'.•i _: .'-:&-!--,b-pi---.',..-;,-.,,..:::'
, .-.•.,.,,,,,,i-'.,,4•;'„,?..,.1. 1.1;t-.',P.I.,,;,;i'-,5}•,:.- •,- -'.''',----• ,:-', ••::-. .:-.;',-.1.•,-',..,.-''' •
;.,r,..'-•.,'.-.'iik."''',‘„t''..f:'--1,?'.4..t.0.')1,4:4..,!.;i,.;4..:...,.:...;.'".. .'- '... -:': ,i•4...'.,". .., : • .
-. :.,.;.:,,,.;it,till..,•"-:_''' 44.-?f,:;1.;:tri..r
,,:t.,..t,-.&,...-: _-......,.- ..-,. -, .1.'..„-s...:,-,;-',.,'.' •
.'• --.-:-...-31. !-0.c.-S•Tvj',..4.:.1'f., :-..3L- --'...•.'-',
:, •-.;-:,.*-, t-l.;,..P1-4...1.'4.:',L;t11:.:,1:,.1.,e,.•.
41': :%!qi*L..1,,(t.1 .,:;,*.ii:!tr..''...rf 4'
•
. ...:... .-
.'..-.'..,,, ...iili-P.,,tif,t..,...r.f.:ti'ellf*.--.Cti,;IfY,;4'7.t.7...--.!*.q-:?3,...::'-.',*.'.,- 'i.*:._'--.-.: :::.-- :..,,.. -.•:.
.'.:::'."'-'.'... .;.:,4:-.1117c44:1'JrF-',l':';' •:''.(1,-: ,,V.:.';',-:'1;7';,. i.,',!4;I:; -.13-...:-,.,--$...,•;,,,, .., ,,,-.,...,--: .
.1-.';':',;,ii..1-';:iitieik!,.ii.F1.,-; IT.-.1,radrieg,,,i;;',4V ii.r".-q-i....j;4,:i44:::`,;:t';',;.:."3-,:;•: ::::‘• .
....: -.,i'li i .114, ...will-,..,,T.,r;.,-,-i--.51.-It.t .:i.ii.x.,....-4,.::40,ri.J#1,,-.,,..itilk,rA)14• :,,-...
1
.---1- ":,.$.1,•IN In...1.ij„! '',--,.:1,7,;',fL',:ii ',-,i,..-1'*$.----„,•."-ift.iic1.24,4f3',-,,-.- --*-1'.-'1;,..---;'-.,4'.:-.•-•..t'ic..---'-,
,"--- -':.•it.'10#$/by,*-- :.•-•117,-.Alt" .tri!'-v:t,Ilrii,l'Aiail.-.:!"il'':';,..7:.4.:".:.-' '.
.-1- •,..;f....-;',:P.;"1,v-ei-?...p4144",,...---,,.'..,.:,Atir?-0,;:e:;-,?4,*:...trE- --A,"-„,?1,Tilt,,,„'..,,,!',,,-,::...,'..„,::",.,,,..-;„,;,. . -
-;.-...'„,.:..:1:-,r,:,.414t04?--'211-Vci;W:-•
Vi**- .r,,,. . .'',-7".•= i:::.--f2f.;:‘tttiP,i.; •.2,'":-..'';',.`:':i-Y-'.:i-fl.-i&';"-.:',.•..:,(:,:::2 .-.:'.• i :.,
4-tf:41r .. .- ili";itA-4,1r,,,,4-V:tkif4: . ';`..;'-;::4:::'1,''; ..-':'.''''1:;-• ::.' -
'...."'-''".''172.--."-r701-a.:94,---4-`z,s'w=i:-.-'.%.,Tei.'„'„1-.11.4,1...AN.,:;,.-:`,..':-;21f:'`rdi`:-I'!'"t"-!i'ik".",..r"."";""IrY."-;_'''"7- '''. '' ": •
'''''''-'1.:!-...-.t'''"*" "'44.,'It;71'473t.'4-,..4;-9"....':'.4.:;;S".'',"14.:/ft''''''41":".‘'iell'"!,;",,'"ti';'!!'''''1,-I't'C";--1-,-'• ';';'''.:;;;.''.:•;;1?-%.5ii"tr•\;-11-1.'"I'''''':.'4,g1S-..--i-';-'-..,1-,-",'.i!..' ''-' ' ''.."-'
''''IC..;;34,-.*•ii14 X*V",elt:h.t "-;k:1•14'5'.1-';',":4"1.'1'.4.‘%!/;$&-P7., .1X-ife!--;-14'-"J'I!.;"7"-'""":' '•
:-72:%-iii.f .'eqZ??41,..•".41.- -:".-VX-•.'...". .4•C'44%.•;',-4's”,."?11.0.1,"tl.,' ",:-r,f..-•,7,"•:-.":4.,t:.ikit.";:•,i-f!•Cz-4''..-- --'.- • •
'-':i-s:‘iii•VCA7i;:ii44,....!--ig',,i.-'4P-4134-.4'4:-'4":'-","•"'''-!' :",:''',"-. "1-;-:5;'.7
'•4.111,tatkgr.tgi.iYil,jaN.3:?1-"f.:-...Ii:'f4;•Yf'.1.[..•;";:f:':',,••,• .::.: -."..i.:-!-'"':'..••'''-";•-,.....'? ;:.-.','-"" "-.
'''?''i1V;ti'!:144:.'_''. -1.1.1-,":,i''''.'.""A''-,•%:.''""•,:"..."..'"'.•7 , " ;.: ......-.:,? •.-.'.';." ."'.- " .
', ":;;;!',!•"1,-,.;:t-''''.:k1;..1".,":-,.-,',"...f.-,r.'--::-'-',...-''''.."' '''.:•'-:"'.'.'11-i",':',': ' - " 'L.". ':‘,"'-:"'•''''.. ' '
',":'\T''ii.•;,!;4.-.."::;'/717.'"it•'';..i"."-.--...-"..'''..'Ci"..}:".5%'"''";•'''''",,2':.„-:-.. ..-:- ''',.,-'',:.:1,- ' *:-.."'",,• ,-
-- . .,‘••.--',-,;:f: .',1,- 54:1,--•- ;.'....-T.-,:-.P.:'...;..-...:'&-..-1::....':, : -:"..Y....
-.•-,,ir,.-•.:(,•„..'-'.:f,!.-!,,i-',:••,. ..._',-..-.7,-;.--.,-2.- , - ,.i , 1,,,,,,
•••••-4:-.1Mi-,J(-1.'4,•-•,•5•.-F-_:-'-,,•:,!--•;,'•,:t.A.,,,w-,--!.,:;•=,,-:-:•-.', ,---.--.- -. - - •,- .--,:•••:*:
',4:;:fi.44-i7.-1::::-.:•-;.,:-.(": '''',1••,--,_-1-P,',_,"::-.•--,',' -.•-•- ,•• -- .-. - -- i• "--.;'....-- .
T:',"-;;••,,r4';',--:-:-/-f-•..---:- --..,-.;--,. -,•,-..,--.,?--,....,;.:-:----..- _., , . . . .„_ , _
•1,;;;',,,,,,'..o;.;_:-,,i1 -- :,--.-,.---, -,-------..... . ,7- -,... ::. - ... . •-- -.„ •,..., ..,
-:, .:::..%.,....,.1-'!11.,.:'..':, : ,?-;.....'...,...',-..J.!:'....:',..•,..,',...,_.: , '- ; . . . ,..: ',.
...•;:'Li....,i,7''', ';'.`4":.-_.:.`'-'...!..'!:.,' .'.;',-,.'',-,,...'' ',....,: ,. : , ,
... . ..
. -':::. -ji,-'.
* r.;-;,*,--..'*:;ij:.•:-.''.-....,-- '.':' : ,:.,''' .....1...,....:-.../.1'' -•- ,*'... - • . ..
.......:.•:;,,,-;,''.;,'-f;.''' .4'..:-*--....:.;','2.,-,. - ..---.' .,":7:•-.:- . - .: -' . -.- '-.• -•-• -:'
..-:.''-. "--,-:;. I... .. "1--,'.. - ": '7:"--.S: ' -..;'
'..:,,i'i.V•,'':!f44--X-.,'.:'::: '-'''.'.--.. :' '•:-.... :--- :. 'T.:'.• -- '!--...--..---:': :J,-.'::-.::.--;',..-- - '
-7.', ,:?-..7-4':;.'-i--':::-._ -•:,---:-
:; ,1: )--..,-i.-'(;i, ::-...-:::-.--',-- :.-:._...---'''-;'...•..-;-•!-:',-:','":;!-:-_::.-. ':-- - ' -
-. - - '-.:-.---'1- -...',..:',:-,..,-;'.-,i;•;t:-?:..1:::-.::, -.:.:::-:,„_1(,A-,,,,:::_,-. .::::,,,,,...,-- . -• ,
::....,i,-.,•::1-:',2).:!':',;'•,,.,------'--:•••'.,_,c•-..--,---;:--', ,' , ' - -
JUL-10-1995 16:29 PASTER ENTERPRISES 612 646 1389 P.02/02
°IA/4* DEVI3LOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF SHOPPING CENTERS
2227 LFniverslty Ave.+St.Paul,MN 55114-1677•6I2-646-7901 • Fax 612-646-1389
my 10, 1995
CENTRAL PLAZA
45th&Central Ave.N.E. City of Mounds View Council Members
Minneapolis,Minnesota 2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, Minnesota 55112
RE: Mounds View Pedestrian Bridge Across
CRYSTAL SHOPPING CENTER Highway 10 to Library
Hass Lake Road&West Broadway
Crystal,Minnesota
Dear Council Members:
Moundsview Square Associates believe the pedestrian bridge
DQDDWAY SHOPPING CENTER would be a plus for the City of Mounds View for the following
Smith&Dodd Road
Wcst St.Paul,Minnesota reasons.
The bridge would be an enhancement to the business
community as public safety would be greatly improved.
LEXINGTON PLAZA SHOPPES
Lexington&Larpenteur This bridge encouragepedestrian, bicycle and rollerblade
Roseville,Minnesota would y
traffic to local businesses while protecting our community's
children.
MENDOTA PLAZA The pedestrian bridge would eliminate the barrier of separating
State Hwy_ HO&Dodd Road the community from one side of Highway 10 from the other.
Mendota Heights,Minnesota
Pedestrian traffic could easily move from Moundsview Square
Shopping Center to the Library and other businesses on the
MOUNDSVIEW SQUAREsouth side of Highway 10. This would promote local shopping
Hwy. 10&Long Lake Road within the community.
Mounds View,Minnesota
As always, please contact the writer if you have any
questions.
NORTHWAY SHOPPING CENTER Verytrulyyours,
State Hwy.23&Woodland
Circle Pines,Minnesota
PASTER ENTERPRISES
SIBLEY PLAZA (4.14.t. '
Stkit4Cr
West 7th Street&Davern
St.Paul,Minnesota John H. Streeter
Director of Engineering
JHS/lah
SOUTI•IVIEW SHOPPING CENTER
South view Blvd.&13th Avc,S
South St.Paul,Minnesota '
Member of
international al Council
of Shopping Centers
TOTAL P.02
JUL-10-1995 16 29 PASTER ENTERPRISES 612 646 1389 P.01/02
GoWitifte , Wriktirytaieie*
DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF SHOPPING CENTES
2227 University,Ave.•St.PaulMN 55111677•612-646.7901• Fax 612-64643n
FAX TRANSMITTAL
OUR TELEPHONE NUMBER:
CENTRAL PLAZA (612) 646-7901
45th&Central Ave.N.E.
Minneapolis,Minnesota OUR FAX NUMBER:
(612) 646-1389
CRYSTAL SHOPPING CENTER
Bass Lara Road&West Broadway
Crystal.Minnesota
DATE: _ TIME:
DODDWAY SHOPPING CENTER NUMBER OF PAGES: Z
Dodd Road&Bernard Street
West St Paul,Minnesota
TO: 02+t3QieiL.
FARMINGTON
S.H50wy.
S.Hwy3
Farmington,Minnesota COMPANY:
_ 643 64 Mlialsvittok.
LEXINGTON PLAZA SHOPPES FROM: k-1A
Lexington&Latpentcur
Roseville,Minnesota
COMMENTS:
MENDOTA PLAZe,
State Hwy.110&Dodd Road
Mendota Heights.Minnesota
MOUNDSVIEW SQUARE
Hwy.10&Long Lake Road
Mounds View,Minnesota
NORI HWAY SHOPPING CENTER
State Hwy.23&Woodland
Circle Pines,Minnesota .•
SIBLEY PLAZA
West 7th Street
St.Paul,Minnesota
SOUTHVIEW SHOPPING CENTER
Southview Blvd.&12th Street
South St.Paul,Minnesota
ORIGINAL OF DOCUMENT TO FOLLOW:
JUL-10-95 MON 14:26 ORMAN GUIDANCE RESEARCH FAX NO, 612 831 4913 P. 01
c
BIG ' G ' DIVISION
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
ATTN: C?iu-,ce.•�i DATE: 7//0193
•
COMPANY NAME: ` , 24.,FAX PHONE: 71444464'A,
FROM: �,eu EXTENSION: - 35-
NUMBER°OF°PAGES SENT: .Z (INCLUDING COVER PAGE)
TELECOPY MACHINE PHONE NUMBER (612) 540-4778
MACHINE LOCATED AT MG0-3BT
JAt-- 5 aie , -40e 4.0 .1.-e
rig,
•
•
To The Mounds View City Council,
I have just heard that the City Council is thinking about not funding the pedestrian bridge across
Highway 10 and I must say that I, as a resident of Mounds View, am deeply disappointed. When
I heard about the grant the city obtained to have this bridge built I was really excited. Finally, a
safe way of crossing Highway 10 with my kids. We could ride our bikes to the library instead of
always taking our car. We could get to Silver View Park safely without taking the car. We could
walk from one shopping spot to the other. But if you are serious about not putting up Mounds
View's share of the money for this bridge, then I guess things will stay just as they are.
Take a good look at Mounds View. Look at how many children are out ridinikes throughthe
streets. And if you take a really good look you will notice that the number of children in Mounds
View is growing. That's why Pinewood had to add a whole 1st grade class last year. You all talk
about making Mounds View a better and safer place to live. We have ordinances for noise, for
unsightly yards, means to help make homes look more presentable, events to make this more of a
community, etc. Well, doesn't the pedestrian bridge help to make Mounds View a safer place to
live.
I also think that the bridge would benefit the whole community, not just the children. Why remain
a community divided by Highway 10. Use the bridge as a link to bringing us altogether as one
community. It's not just kids who would use the bridge to cross the highway. Use it as a
drawing point to the two shopping malls, better access to the food places on both sides of the
highway. Use it as a selling point when trying to attract people and businesses to our community.
Don't turn this opportunity away. I understand that we need to pay for our roads to be repaired,
and that money must be spent on the maintenance of Mounds View, but this bridge could be a
very good way of showing the people of Mounds View that you really are thinking of them.
Don't let this grant slip away. Have the bridge built. Don't wait until somebody, kid or adult, gets
killed trying to cross Highway 10. There is just too much traffic on Highway 10 to make any of
the intersections with lights a safe place to cross at. Try it sometime. It's hard enough for an
adult to cross before the light changes, for kids it's even harder.
Build the bridge. Bring the community together. Really do something to make it safer. Make it
a more attractive place. Show the people that travel Highway 10 Mounds View cares. Do
something that would benefit everyone, especially the kids.
Sherry Gunn
11`1C � t,Ac 1 \,`
A ,,-,° *NI'