Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 1995/05/08 I CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL MAY 8, 1995 7:00-P M. AGENDA The City Council is provided background information for agenda items in advance by staff and appointed commissions, committees and boards. Decisions are based on this information, as well as City policy and practices, input from constituents and a Councilmember's personal judgement. If you have comments, questions or information regarding an item on the agenda, please step forward to be recognized by the Mayor during the "Residents Requests and Comments From the Floor" item on the agenda. Please state your name and address for the record. All comments are appreciated. A copy of all printed materials relating to the agenda item is available for public inspection at the Recording Secretary's Table. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL - Linke Hankner Quick Trude Blanchard 4. Approval of Agenda, Additions Item 1: Item 2: Item 3: AGENDA PAGE TWO MAY 8, 1995 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 24, 1995, Regular Meeting COUNCIL ACTION: A T D ---omrnen s. 6. ACCEPTANCE OF ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES: There were no advisory commission minutes submitted for acceptance. COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments: 7. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: No special business scheduled for this meeting. 8. CONSENT AGENDA: A. Set Public Hearing for 7:05 p.m., Monday, May 22, 1995 to Consider Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License for "The Bridges", Staff Report No. 95-1335C B. Set Public Hearing for 7:10 p.m., Monday, May 22, 1995 to Consider the Assessment Policy and Formal Introduction of Ordinance No. 560, Staff Report No. 95-1336C C. Consideration of Resolution No. 4762, Step Adjustment for Tim Fredberg, Public Works Maintenance Worker, Staff Report No. 95-1337C AGENDA PAGE THREE MAY 8, 1995 D. Consideration of Resolution No. 4763, Step Adjustment for Public Works Director, Staff Report No. 95-1338C E. Consideration of Resolution No. 4764, Step Adjustment for Mark Andrescik, Public Works Maintenance Worker, Staff Report No. 95- 1339C F. Adopt Resolution No. 4761 Approving Just and Correct Claims Against cityFunds- G. undsG. Licenses for Approval Signs - Expires 6/30/95 Crosstown Sign - New Excavating - Expires 6/30/95 D & V Trucking and Excavating - New HVAC - Expires 6/30/95 Westair, Inc. - New COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments: Items Removed: 9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR Citizens' comments are encouraged to allow individual citizens to address the Council, as a whole, on a matter of interest or concern to the citizens. The preservation of the Citizens' Comments item on the agenda is important in order to encourage and maintain this information flow. To preserve and protect this valuable communications link, a speaker is limited to three (3) minutes. AGENDA PAGE FOUR MAY 8, 1995 CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS: There were no public hearings scheduled for this meeting. 11. COUNCIL BUSINESS: Consent Agenda Item(s) Brought Forward: A. Consideration of Formal Introduction of Ordinance No. 561 Amending Appendix A, "Specific Rezonings", of the Mounds View Municipal Code, Staff Report No. 95- 1340C (Staff Presenter: Paul Harrington, Community Development Coordinator) COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments: B. Consideration of Resolution No. 4765 Regarding Request for Off-Site Directional Signage for Sunrise United Methodist Church, Staff Report No. 95-1341 C (Staff Presenter: Paul Harrington, Community Development Coordinator) COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments: AGENDA PAGE FIVE MAY 8, 1995 C. Consideration of Entering Into Lease Arrangement for New Microfilm Machine, Staff Report No. 95-1342C (Presenter: Tim Cruikshank, Assistant to the City Administrator) COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments: D. Consideration of Authorization for Staff to Execute a Lease Agreement with MVAA for Use of City Property for the Location of an MVAA Equipment Storage Building, Staff Report No. 95-1343C (Mary Saarion, Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry) COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments: E. Consideration of Authorization for Staff to Purchase Land Adjoining Groveland Park, Staff Report No. 95-1344C (Staff Presenter: Mary Saarion, Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry) COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments: AGENDA PAGE SIX MAY 8, 1995 F. Consideration of Approval of the Transfer of Contingency Funds for a Forestry Grant Match - Highway 610 Barrier, Staff Report No. 95-1345C (Staff Presenter: Mary Saarion, Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry) COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments: G. Consideration of Resolution No. 4766 Formally Withdrawing City Support and Involvement in the Regional Senior Center Study, Staff Report No. 95-1346C (Staff Presenter: Samantha Orduno, City Administrator) COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments: H. Consideration of Resolution No. 4767 Requesting Reallocation of CDBG Funds, Staff Report No. 95-1347C (Staff Presenter: Samantha Orduno, City Administrator) COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments: I. Consideration of Introduction of Ordinance No. 562 Reestablishing Ordinance No. 533 Establishing a Moratorium on New or Used Car Lots and Motor Vehicle Sale Businesses With the City of Mounds View, and Consideration of Resolution No. 4768 Regarding Same Staff Report No. 95-1348C (Staff Presenter: Paul Harrington, Community Development Coordinator) AGENDA PAGE SEVEN MAY 8, 1995 COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments: 12. REPORTS: 1. Report of Councilmembers: Quick: Blanchard: Hankner: Trude: 2. Report of Mayor Linke: 3. Report of Administrator: 4. Report of Staff: 5. Report of Attorney: NEXT COUNCIL MEETING: MAY 22, 1995 NEXT COUNCIL WORK SESSION: JUNE 5, 1995 13. ADJOURNMENT: • ORDINANCE NO. 560 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE ASSESSMENT POLICY The City Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby ordain: SECTION I. The Assessment Policy as presented on May 1, 1995 and on file in the Clerk-Administrator's Officer for public review is hereby adopted and shall become part of this ordinance. SECTION II. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days from and after the date of its publication. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of , 1995. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of . 1995. A 1'1'EST: 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 II - 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 method for 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 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. In the latter case, the City Council may, without a public hearing, adopt a resolution determining such fact and ordering the improvement. 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 an assessment 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. In such event, the City may, without a public hearing, adopt a resolution determining such fact and ordering the improvement. 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 property, the City Council should obtain such appraisals as may 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 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 appropriate cost distribution. City_staff will 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 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 front footage x two-thirds (2/3). The assessments per adjusted front foot may vary depending on the underlying zoning of a parcel. Assessments for residential properties which are on collector or arterial_streets shall be s_o_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 and 100 percent (100%) of their cost shall be assessed 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. • 1. Standard Lots. In this instance, the adjusted front footage for rectangular 1,4 lots will be the actual front footage of the lot. The frontage measured shall be the lot width at the front lot line. MAIN A V E. Adj. Front Footage so' so' EXAMPLES Lot A-50' A B Lot B-90' s.. 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 AVE. Adj. Front Footage 90' 70' EXAMPLES Lot A-90 110 = 100' A 6 2 Lot B-70 =.80 = 75' 2 110' 80' 3. Triangular 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 IN AVE. Adj. Front Footage loo' 40' 120' EXAMPLES Lot A-100 : 40 = 70' iso' A B C 2 Lot B-40 _ 130 = 85' 2 Lot C-120 : 0 = 60' �'_ _ 40' 130'- - - - - _ 2 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. Adj. Front Footage EXAMPLES MAIN CIRCLE LotA- 75' Lot B-110' o iLot C- 80' C >�• _ __iso _ ___ A B 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. L. AAdj. Front Footage —,; EXAMPLES / \�,/ �� Lot A- 70' C Lot B- 90' Lot C-150' iso' \ A 90' - 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. Adj. Front Footage EXAMPLES MA1 N CIRCLE LotA- 75' Lot B-110' Lot C- 80' C _.__u9_1__-- I A B . 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. • L AA/4.. Adj. Front Footage - /�_------ EXAMPLES \ i' \ Lot A- 70' C \ Lot B- 90' Lot C-150' • A _ 150' 70' 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. MAI N A V E . Adj. Front Footage m 1J5' 140 ' 125' EXAMPLES —� — -- - - - -- - - - - - — Lot A-115' 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 35 percent (35%) 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 EXAMPLES Lot A-Side 1 = 43.75' Side 2 = 95' Lot B-Side 1 = 87.5' Side 2 = 125' 4 r in A izs' SO' /00' MAIN AVE. (SIDE 1) 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-280' 2� Lot B-390' o/ . 251 A ;L:1- 7O an m 155' MAIN 300' AVE. f 8. Flag 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 Lot A-7S' Lot B-90' 20' MAIN AVE. Q o -r 30' iso 6 A z 170' 9. Double Frontage Lots. If a parcel, other than a corner lot, comprises 1_ 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. Adj. Front Footage MAIN AVE._ MAIN AVE EXAMPLES 110' 80' Lot A-220' Lot B- 80' N- A 110' 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. For example, sidewalk improvements undertaken separately may be assessed for over a five (5) year period because the costs are usually nominal (under $2,000). On the other hand, 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 assessment adopted unless a written objection signed by the affected property 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 Mayor or 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 Mayor or 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 may be served by the improvement when later extensions or improvements are made but are notinitially 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 Property Assessments. City owner property is divided into three 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 Forfeiture Assessments. When a parcel of tax forfeited land is returned to private ownership, andthe parcel is benefitted b_y__an_impr_ovement-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. In most cases, the widths of these roads will be thirty six (36) to thirty eight (38) feet. A select number of non-system streets may also be classified collectors based on their traffic counts and function. Residents residing on these streets will be assessed for a thirty (30) foot wide street. The remaining street width will be funded from State assistance. Page 20 Residential streets will be designed and constructed for nine (9) ton and thirty (30) feet wide. (This thirty (30) feet, as all streets, is a face of curb to face of curb measurement.) 2. Residents may exercise their option to request the widening of a road to thirty two (32) feet. This will only occur if the majority of residents, within the entire project petitioned, agree. This shall be assessed in the same manner as street reconstruction. (See Section Ill) 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 amount charged against a 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 24 7. After work is completed and receiving Engineer's recommendation for final acceptance, the following Resolution is adopted.: Adopt Resolution "Accepting Work". 8. Assessment Proceedings: Adopt Resolution "Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Ordering Preparation of Proposed Assessment". Adopt Resolution for "Hearing on Proposed Assessment" (need not publish resolution - but must publish and mail hearing notice). 9. After hearing and adopting assessment, adopt the following Resolution: Adopt Resolution "Adopting Assessment". (Need not be published.) 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 - 30years 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) 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. Adj. Front Footage EXAMPLES Lot A-50' Lot B-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. Adj. Front Footage EXAMPLES Lot A-90- 110 = 100' 2 Lot B-70 - 80 = 75' 2 3. Triangular 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. Adj. Front Footage EXAMPLES Lot A-100 - 40 = 70' 2 Lot B-40 - 130 = 85' 2 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. Adj. Front Footage EXAMPLES Lot A- 75' Lot B-110' Lot C- 80' 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' Lot C-150' 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. Adj. Front Footage EXAMPLES Lot A-115' Lot B-140' 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 EXAMPLES Lot A-Side 1 = 43.75' Side 2 = 95' Lot B-Side 1 = 87.5' Side 2 = 125' 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-280' Lot B-390' 8. Flag 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 Lot A-75' Lot B-90' 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 EXAMPLES Lot A-220' Lot B- 80' Tali IS IS IT . . . . For the Week of May 1 , 1995 - May 5, 1995 ADMINISTRATION TIM CRUIKSHANK, THE NEW CITY ADMINISTRATOR OF LAUDERDALE, MN Yesterday, Tim Cruikshank accepted the position of City Administrator for the City of Lauderdale. One of three finalist who interviewed with the Lauderdale City Council on Tuesday night, Tim was by far the candidate of choice. His last day will be May 19th. Kitty is in charge of the going away party, so when the details are finalized, we will let you know. Tim is putting together information as to what his responsibilities are, what projects he will leave unfinished and the ongoing projects that have high priorities so that we can structure several organizational scenarios for Council to consider. Cathy Bennett and I attended the 7th Annual Partnership Minnesota Conference. There were two outstanding presentations: a panel discussion comprised of State agency personal, the Eagan City Administrator and a representative of a federal agency and secondly, a presentation by a Humphrey Institute graduate student. The panel discussion centered on the need to motivate volunteerism as a way of involving people in their government. Each panelist discussed projects in their agencies or city that involved people working together for a common good, saving money, building trust and developing non-traditional ways of providing services. The graduate student, Betsy Hubbard, presented portions of her Masters Thesis. Through the course of her studies, she interviewed hundreds of organization/agencies that had formed partnerships to accomplish a goal. She developed a matrix that is outstanding. I have included the matrix herein for your records. Cathy, Paul and I met with Jim Winkels (former New Brighton and Brooklyn Park Community Development Director) and three of his clients who would like to build a medical supply company on the lot adjacent to the Bridges Practice Range (Doug Watson's property - Lot 3 of the new plat) . The company appears to be a high quality company that provides medical equipment for home health care. It is currently located in Ham Lake, but on property that does not have good highway access. The company is seeking TIF assistance, the amount has yet to be determined. Today's meeting was a "get to know" each other type meeting to explain the City's process and timeline. Jim Winkels will be putting together the company's pro forma for our examination and plans to attend the June Work Session to present their proposal to the Council. Prior to that meeting, staff will meet with Bob Thistle to review their pro forma and will provide the results to the Council. It should be noted here that the purchase agreement with Watson for the golf course property included a provision that the City would, at some future time, consider TIF assistance in the amount of $230, 000 for water and sewer connections and off site ponding for the three remaining Watson lots. I will be out of the office Wednesday - Friday of next week attending the State City Manager's Conference in Brainerd. I promise I won't embarrass you by showing up on any expose done by the I Team Report! Samantha Highway 10 Committee Bus Tour: • Two members of the Highway 10 Committee participated in a bus tour last Friday. The tour included Old Highway 8, New Brighton; Highway 61 , White Bear Lake; County Road E, Vadnais Heights; Hub Center/Lyndale Square; Richfield and Centennial Lakes/Edinborough in Edina. A representative from each community gave an overview of their planning process. A consistent element in each community is that the plans were developed with the assistance of a consultant and each plan groups properties together and designates the desired development in each group. It is anticipated that the Highway 10 Committee will present their findings to the EDC at the May work session. Wolf & Associates: • Wolf & Associates are ready to begin their expansion this spring and met with me and Paul to discuss final plan review and negotiate the purchase agreement on the water tower site. If all goes smoothly, Wolf and Associates should be breaking ground later this month or next month. Minnesota Partnership Conference: • Samantha and I attended the 7th Annual Minnesota Partnership Conference this week. Minnesota Partnership is an initiative which works to foster cooperative working relationships among federal, state and local governments and other entities for the benefit of providing quality service to the public. The basic theme of the conference was how the public sector can do more with less and still provide the same level of service expected through successful partnerships. A graduate student from the Humphry Institute, Elizabeth Hubbard, did research on partnerships and gave an overview of her findings at the conference. In addition, several successful partnership case studies were presented. Suburban Chamber of Commerce Breakfast Networking: • The May Suburban Area Chamber of Commerce Breakfast Networking meeting will be held at Western Bank in Mounds View on Wednesday, May 10, at 8:00 a.m. It is rare that Mounds View has an opportunity to host this monthly meeting, therefore it would be nice to have as many Mounds View representatives present as possible. I have attached a copy of the invitation. Let me know if you will be able to attend! CATHY PARKS, RECREATION AND FORESTRY PARKS: • Greenfield Park baseball field baselines, infield and warning track was leveled and filled with ag-lime. • Random Park playground equipment was vandalized this week. Brackets for the tire swing and support for the ladder were dismantled. • This weekend is the first picnic shelter rental for Silver View Park. The Parks crew has prepared the shelter for a heavy schedule of use, beginning this weekend. RECREATION: * Materials, supplies and information was prepared for the seven volunteers for the Park Patrol program. All this to be distributed at the meeting scheduled for Saturday, May 6. Following this meeting the park patrol volunteers will be out and about in the parks. * Many flyers were prepared this week for advertising in the schools. Many registrations for summer activities were received this week, the week after the summer activity brochure was distributed to residents. FORESTRY: * Rick and assistant continues to use the one day each week in the City of Mounds View for planting projects. This is the ideal month for planting - thus national Arbor month. * Pine seedlings were received from the DNR and have been available for the public for free as they visit City Hall. GOLF COURSE: * Brus and I met to review budget procedures. Most capital items have been purchased, a few yet to be received including the computer reservation and cash register system. Also, the refrigerator. * Mike and his crew have been fertilizing the course and seeding. The greens have been topdressed and rolled. They will continue to require nursing during this important Spring growing season. * Arrangements for electrical services for the 35W sign are underway. In addition, the fencing must have an access point at the far east end. Fencing alterations are also being arranged. * All the sprinklers were in running order, with only a need for a few to be adjusted. * Our water pros, Bill and Bill will be analyzing the water at the golf course. The water has a foul odor, and has an off color. It is Blaine water, certainly not the good quality of water that we are used to in Mounds View. The Bills will provide options for solving this problem. Mary S. POLICE * The COPS Task Force met on Wednesday. Muti-housing owners meeting and park patrols were the main topics. * The Chief spent a couple of hours on Thursday talking to the WESEP kids at Irondale. As each year passes, the kids get a little tougher and disrespectful. * Met with Chief Kelly from New Brighton. Joint training was discussed, also common concerns between the two cities were talked about. * Went to re-new license tabs on the un-marked squad. Discovered that the State charges an additional $175.00 for a Alternative Fuel Permit. We had these charges before, but never that much. Tim R. FINANCE • Utility bills have been prepared and mailed. Money is coming in; what could make finance people happier. • Mary Tatarek is entering auditor's journal entries and adjustments into the accounting system and will run another year end report. Hopefully that report will be acceptable to the auditors and we will finish the audit shortly. • Kitty Hickok attended a Freenet meeting on Tuesday. • Don Brager attended the Strictly Business Computer Expo Thursday afternoon. Don PUBLIC WORKS * The water mains were flushed this week, May 1-5. Everything went well and on schedule. • The few needed revisions for the assessment policy will be done and ready for the assessment hearing. • Staff is investigating the electrical improvements at the pump houses to improve their efficiency level. • Road restrictions were lifted May 4, 1995. $5,380.00 was collected for the road permits. We are getting less and less friction from the haulers. I guess they've come to the conclusion this policy is here to stay! Tracy Juell COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOSTER CARE FACILITY AT 2935 HIGHWAY 10 Staff has been working with the State of Minnesota Department of Corrections this week on licensing a foster care facility at 2935 Highway 10. The Municipal Code as it is currently written is in conflict with State Statute on this issue and after consultation with City Attorney Jim Thomson, it was decided that Staff will bring forward an amendment - to be drafted by the Attorney - for consideration by the Council. Current State law does not allow the City to exclude foster care facilities from residentially zoned properties within the Community. Our Code does not reflect this law and will need to be amended in the near future. The facility on Highway 10 will be for girls (up to 12 in number) under the age of 18. I will keep you posted. SHERWOOD ESTATES WORK BEGINS Preliminary grading for the Sherwood Estates housing development on Highway 10 and Spring Lake Road began this week. Staff has received the City Engineers comments back on the utility and street construction plans submitted by the applicant and there appears to be only minor modifications necessary in order for the plans to be in compliance with the conditions spelled out in the City Council resolution approving the project. Paul "Partnering" May Mean... COOPERATING COORDINATINGCOLLABORATING " using resources to assist organizing or combining resources to applying resources toward problems other agencies more effectively reach a mutual goal which lack clear ownership • • SHARING PROGRAM CONTRIBUTING RESOURCES RECONCILING ACTIVITIES RESPONSIBILITIES Agencies contribute resources to another Agencies adjust or combine existing Agencies come together as a new agency's project or effort;-contribution is programs,in order to deliver services more organization to provide services or to clearly defined and usually material. effectively, usually entails on-going manage a resource. -- relationships relationships among partners. Primary goal: to help a worthy endeavor _ Primary goal: to meet a need that is not Primary goal: to improve programs addressed by existing agencies EXAMPLES: • The National Guard volunteers EXAMPLES: ' EXAMPLES: equipment for a- weekend campout • A program provides grants to efforts - • -Partners forma-joint powers board-to involving hundreds of Boy Scouts. which coordinate housing and human manage the resources of an island. • Multiple funders establish an endowed services. • Outreach workers from different 'F teaching position at a local hospital. • Eight state agencies create a common agencies work through a new entity to Z application and streamline the funding provide support to homeless youth. W process for similar grant programs. r W . CREATING SERVICE DELIVERY W PROMOTING OTHERS SHARING RESOURCES SYSTEMS OR PROGRAMS )4Agencies willingly share information Agencies which use the same good or Agencies work to create and implement a C about the work or services of others. - service agree to share in its cost; often new model for serving the needs of a defined by contract. -- population or for managing a resource. ►Z Primary goal: to meet the needs of a . W shared constituency Primary goal: to save money - Primary goal: to use existing agencies to - V meet a new need - ,,, EXAMPLES: EXAMPLES: ' _• 125 agencies distribute information • Four metro suburbs share the expenses. EXAMPLES: C about the tax credit refunds available to and services of the same prosecutor. • An alliance of metro suburbs creates V) low-income families. • A travel information center on the programs to improve_housing,job W • A transitional housing program border distributes information about opportunities and race relations. routinely refers clients to the services of Minnesota and North Dakota. • A state agency works with non-profits Gro O other agencies. to provide vocational services to people . with HIV. ggSHARING INFORMATION • PRODUCING JOINT PROJECTS COLLECTIVE PLANNING W Agencies share information on a formal or Agencies depend. upon each other for Agencies develop a collective vision A informal basis; may be routine Or producing a specific product or event;-- (and/or study) for the management of a occasional. generally involves short-term commitments. resource or the alleviation of a social problem; may also serve as a forum for Primary goal: to improve the performance Primary goal: to produce an outcome problem resolution. of one's own agency by keeping informed which no single agency could achieve on its own Primary goal: to promote a collective EXAMPLES: vision and coordinated actions • A group of mental health professionals EXAMPLES: gather informally each month to __. • A high school,Parks and Recreation EXAMPLES: exchange information. Department,parents'organization and . • Federal,state and non-profit agencies • Individuals involved in rural others design and construct a new work together to improve their development use an electronic bulletin baseball diamond stewardship of a river. board to keep in touch. • Three partners join together to restore • A citizens' group works with federal, degraded,vacant land to natural prairie. state and local agencies to develop a watershed management plan. 4 " DEGREE OF POWER SHARING ' - © Elizabeth Hubbard, May 1995 Shoreview/Arden Hills/North Oaks/Mounds View Chapter of the Suburban Area Chamber of Commerce S WESTERNBANK INSURANCE AGENCY Cordially-Invites You To • Bre a fa st Networ n WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 1990 8:00 A.M. * Come Enjoy Good Conversation, Coffee, Juice, and Pastries * Meet Area Business Associates * Exchange Business Cards WESTERN BANK &INSURANCE AGENCY R.S.V.P.to Geri at 2711 NE Highway 10 • Mounds View Chamber Office (intersection of Highway 10 & Silver Lake Rd.) 483-1313 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: SAMANTHA ORDUNO, CITY ADMINISTRATO' DATE: MAY 8, 1995 RE: INDEX FOR WEEK OF MAY 8, 1995 MEETINGS SCHEDULED FOR THE WEEK OF MAY 8, 1995 Council_Meeting,_May 8, 1995,_7:00 p.m. ITEMS PROVIDED IN THIS WEEK'S COUNCIL PACKET . This Is It! . Agenda . Approved Minutes, April 10, 1995 . Unapproved Minutes, April 24, 1995 ****************** ADMINISTRATOR'S SCHEDULE (Please note that this schedule is subject to change as meetings are scheduled, rescheduled or canceled. At any time Audrey, Michele, or Tim C. will have my most current schedule and a number where I can be reached at all times. ) Monday, May 8, 1995 9 - 11 :00 Ramsey County Dispatch Meeting 4:30 p.m. TCAAP Meeting 7:00 p.m. Council Meeting Tuesday, May 9, 1995 9:00 a.m. Department Head Meeting Wednesday, May 10, 1995 Conference _ 2 _ Thursday, May 11 , 1995 Conference Friday, May 12, 1995 Conference CITY OF Agenda Section: 8_A REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Report Number: 95-1335C n11796 Report Date: 5-4-95 STAFF REPORT Council Action: ❑ Special Order of Business CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE May 8, 1995 ❑ Public Hearings l Consent Agenda ❑ Council Business Item Description: Set Public Hearing for 7:05 p.m. , Monday, May 22, 1995 to Consider Non— Intoxicating Malt Liquor License for "The Bridges" Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this report Ll - Comments attached. _Explanation/Summary_(attach supplement_sheets as necessary_.) SUMMARY; Staff requests Council to set a public hearing for Monday, May 22, 1995 at 7 : 05 p.m. to consider the approval of a non-intoxicating malt liquor license for "The Bridges" golf course. Staff will provide Council with all the pertinent information regarding this license in the packet for the meeting of May 22 , 1995 . Michel Severson, Administration Secretary/Deputy Clerk RECOMMENDATION; CM OF Agenda Section: R_R REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Report Number: 95-1336 c lir Report Date: 5-4-95 STAFF REPORT Council Action: ❑ Special Order of Business CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE May 8, 1995 El Public Hearings l Consent Agenda ❑ Council Business Item Description: Set Public Hearing for 7: 10 p.m. , May 22, 1995 to Consider the Assessment Policy and Formal Introduction of Ordinance No. 560 Administrator's Review/Recommendation: A, - No comments to supplement this repor it-111-(LY- Y "—, - Comments attached. Explanation/Summary(attach_supplement_sheets_as_necessary.)__ SUMMARY; Staff requests the City Council to set a public hearing for Monday, May 22 , 1995 at 7 : 10 p.m. to consider the introduction of Ordinance No. 560 Adopting the Assessment Policy for the City of Mounds View. As discussed at the May 1, 1995 work session the street standard width has been changed from 32 feet to 30 feet. An additional paragraph was added noting that if the majority of residents within the construction project requested a 32 foot road rather than a 30 foot road, this request would be honored. The assessment rate would remain the same as 1 a 30 foot road. ,- 7,-.- __//,, ,z „ /7.-i Michael J. Ulrich, Director of Public Works 1 RECOMMENDATION; COW Agenda Section: 8.C 11111REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Report Number: 95-1337C 176 Report Date: 5-4-95 STAFF REPORT Council Action: ❑ Special Order of Business CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE May 8, 1995 ❑ Public Hearings ] Consent Agenda ❑ Council Business Item Description: Consideration of Resolution No. 4762, Step Adjustment for Tim Fredberg Public Works Maint-nance Worker Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this repor, Comments attached. _Explanation/Summary_(attach_supplement_sheets-as-necessary.) SUMMARY; Tim Fredberg, Public Works Maintenance Worker, has been working with the City since May 9, 1994. In accordance with the City's Compensation Policy, this position is due for a wage adjustment. Mr. Fredberg is currently at 95% of level C, $14 .48/hour. His performance has been satisfactory and staff is recommending a step adjustment to 100% of level C, $15.24/hour. This adjustment is consistent with the Pay Plan for this position. 1 . r Tim Cruikshank, Asst. to the City Admin. RECOMMENDATION; Motion to waive reading and adopt resolution No. 4762 approving a step adjustment for Tim Fredberg, Public Works Maintenance Worker. RESOLUTION NO. 4762 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING STEP ADJUSTMENT FOR TIM FREDBERG, PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE WORKER WHEREAS, Tim Fredberg began working for the City of Mounds View on May 9, 1994; and WHEREAS, Mr. Fredberg's work performance has met the responsibilities of Public Works Maintenance Worker as outlined in the job description; and WHEREAS, his work performance has been determined to be satisfactory; and WHEREAS, a wage adjustment that is consistent with the City's compensation policy is recommended. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council hereby approve a step adjustment for Tim Fredberg from $14.48/hour to $1b.24/hour effective 5/9/95. Presented this 8th day of May, 1995. (ATTEST) Jerry Linke, Mayor (SEAL) Samantha Orduno, City Administrator CM OF Agenda Section: 8_n REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Report Number: 95-1338C 11110,06 Report Date: 5-4-95 STAFF REPORT Council Action: ❑ Special Order of Business CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE May 8, 1995 ❑ Public Hearings Consent Agenda ❑ Council Business Item Description: Consideration of Resolution No. 4763, Step Adjustment for Public Works Director Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this repor- - Comments attached. Explanation/Summary-(attach supplement-sheets-as-necessary.) - SUMMARY; Mike Ulrich, Public Works Director, has been working with the City since November of 1987. In accordance with the City's 5 Step Compensation Policy, this position is due for a wage adjustment. In May of 1994, Mr. Ulrich was reclassified to his current position, starting at Step 2 of the Five Step Pay Plan, $4,461. 42/month. On May 3, 1995, Mr. Ulrich received a satisfactory performance evaluation and staff is recommending a wage adjustment to Step 3, $4,723 .86/mo. This adjustment is consistent with the 5 Step Pay Plan for this position. IA)? /AM Tim Cruikshank, Asst. to the City Admin. RECOMMENDATION; Motion to waive reading and adopt Resolution No. 4763 approving a wage adjustment for Mike Ulrich, Public Works Director. RESOLUTION NO. 4763 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A STEP ADJUSTMENT FOR PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR MIKE ULRICH WHEREAS, Mike Ulrich has been working with the City of Mounds View since November of 1987; and WHEREAS, Mr. Ulrich's work performance has met the responsibilities of the Public Works Director as outlined in the job description; and WHEREAS, Mr. Ulrich was given a performance evaluation which determined his work performance to be satisfactory; and WHEREAS, a wage adjustment that is fair and consistent with the City's compensation policy is recommended. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council hereby approve a step adjustment for Mike Ulrich from Step 2 $4,461 .42/month to Step 3, $4,723.86/month effective 4/25/95. Presented this 8th day of May, 1995. (ATTEST) Jerry Linke, Mayor (SEAL) Samantha Orduno, City Administrator WY Cf Agenda Section: 8.E REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Report Number: 95-1339C V Report Date: 5-4-95 STAFF REPORT Council Action: 0 Special Order of Business CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE May 8, 19 95 0 Public Hearings ]g] Consent Agenda 0 Council Business Item Description: Consideration of Resolution No. 4764, Step Adjustment for Mark Anderscik, Public Works Maintenance Worker Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this repo. t I a AI 1,--) - Comments attached. ExplanationLSummary_(attach_supplement_sheets_as necessary.) SUMMARY; Mark Andrescik, Public Works Maintenance Worker, has been working with the City since November 16, 1994. In accordance with the City's Compensation Policy, this position is due for a wage Adjustment. Mr. Andrescik is currently at 90% of level C, $13 .72/hour. His performance has been satisfactory and staff is recommending a step adjustment to 95% of level C, $14.47/hour. This adjustment is consistent with the Pay Plan for this position. f Tim Cruikshank, Asst. to the City Admin. RECOMMENDATION; Motion to waive reading and adopt resolution No. 4764 approving a step adjustment for Mark Andrescik, Public Works Maintenance Worker. RESOLUTION NO. 4764 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING STEP ADJUSTMENT FOR MARK ANDRESCIK, PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE WORKER WHEREAS, Mark Andrescik began working for the City of Mounds View on November 16, 1994; and WHEREAS, Mr. Andrescik's work performance has met the responsibilities of Public Works Maintenance Worker as outlined in the job description; and WHEREAS, his work performance has been determined to be satisfactory; and WHEREAS, a wage adjustment that is consistent with the City's compensation policy is recommended. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council hereby approve a step adjustment for Mark Andrescik from $13.72/hour to $14.47/hour effective 5/16/95. Presented this 8th day of May, 1995. (ATTEST) Jerry Linke, Mayor (SEAL) Samantha Orduno, City Administrator ( TY OF Agenda Section: 11.A REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Report Number: — — 95-1340C OMf�D6 STAFF REPORT Report Date: 4-5-95 Council Action: DEW ❑ Special Order of Business CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE May 8, 1995 ❑ Public Hearings ❑ Consent Agenda Council Business Item Description: Consideration of Formal Introduction of Ordinance No. 561 Amending Appendix A, "Specific Rezonings", of the Mounds View Municipal Code Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this report; \__11114191.t.v - Comments attached. III Explanation/Summar_y(attach_supplement sheets_as necessary.) - SUMMARY; Based on discussion at the May 1, 1995 City Council Work Session, Staff has drafted the attached Ordinance for consideration by the City Council. For review: Larry Beach has made application for a Rezoning of the property located at 7305 Knollwood Drive. The property is currently zoned B-1, Neighborhood Commercial - the applicant is requesting an R-2 , Single and Two Family Residential classification in order to support his plans for a twinhome on the property. The existing structure located on the property (a closed Tom Thumb convenience store) would be removed in the event the rezoning is approved. Chapter 1125. 01 Subdivision 1 (e) of the Mounds View Municipal Code identifies those factors upon which the City Council should base its decision relative to any rezoning request. Those factors, and an analysis of their relevance, are as follows: 1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan in its current form identifies this parcel as neighborhood commercial. However, discussions held at both the Planning Commission and City Council levels within the past three (3) years have focused on reclassifying this property to residential. 2) Geographical area involved The parcel is bounded on the South and West sides by County Road H2 and Knollwood Drive respectively. The North and East boundaries abut property zoned R-2 . cI 6 P 1 rrington, Community Development Coordinator RECOMMENDATION; STAFF REPORT PAGE TWO MAY 8, 1995 3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed Because of the surrounding R-2 property, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the uses currently in place. 4) The character of the surrounding area Beyond the immediately adjacent properties, the overall land use in the vicinity of the subject property is overwhelmingly residential in nature. 5) The demonstrated need for such use On numerous occasions, the subject of what to do with the vacant Tom Thumb property has come up at the City Council level. Although specific arguments may not be able to be made for a "need being demonstrated" in this particular case, the overall benefits gained by the neighborhood by eliminating a vacant and blighted property appear to justify the approval of the request. If you have any questions regarding this item, please do not hesitate to give me a call. RECOMMENDATION: Waive the reading and formally introduce Ordinance No. 561 amending Appendix A, "Specific Rezonings" , of the Mounds View Municipal Code. ORDINANCE NO. 561 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF MOUNDS VIEW BY AMENDING APPENDIX A ENTITLED "SPECIFIC REZONINGS" The Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby ordain: SECTION I. Pursuant to Chapter 1125, the official Mounds View Zoning Map is hereby amended to reflect the following rezoning: The property legally described below shall be rezoned from B-1, Neighborhood Business to R-2 , Single and Two Family Residential: The West 125 feet of Lots 111 and 112, Spring Lake Park Knolls Addition SECTION II. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its publication. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 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 TTY O Agenda Section: U.B REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Report Number:95-1341C 9706 Report Date: 5-4-95 STAFF REPORT Council Action: ❑ Special Order of Business CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE May 8, 1995 ❑ Public Hearings ❑ Consent Agenda l Council Business Item Description: Consideration of Resolution No. 4765 Regarding Request for Off-Site Directional Signage for Sunrise United Methodist Church Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this report ✓ ).� - Comments attached. —Explanation/Summary-(attach supplement sheets-as.necessary-) -- F UMMARY; Following discussion at the May 1, 1995 City Council Work Session, Staff has drafted the attached Resolution for consideration by the Council. Please note that conditions regarding sign location, installation and maintenance, as well as approval from appropriate roadway jurisdictions have been included as part of the resolution. a Harrington, Co unity Development Coordinator J ECOMMENDATIONz Adopt resolution No. 4765 approving four (4) off-site directional signs for Sunrise United Methodist Church. RESOLUTION NO. 4765 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING FOUR (4) OFF-SITE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS FOR SUNRISE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH WHEREAS, Sunrise United Methodist Church has made application for four (4) off-site directional signs; and WHEREAS, the Mounds View Municipal Code allows off-site directional_signage with approval of the City Council; and - - - WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the request and found that the off-site signage is appropriate in relation to the overall intention of the Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council approves the request of Sunrise United Methodist Church for Four (4) off-site directional signs contingent upon the following: a) The signs shall be designed and located as indicated on the attached letter from the applicant dated April 20, 1995, copy attached hereto. b) Written approval 'from County or State jurisdictions regarding the placement of the signs shall be obtained prior to installation of the signs. A copy of such written approval shall be provided to the City. c) Installation and maintenance of the signs shall be the responsibility of the applicant. Adopted this 8th day of May, 1995 ATTEST: Mayor (SEAL) Clerk-Administrator To the Mounds View City Council, The Sunrise United Methodist Church wishes to put into place up to 4 directional (informational) signs within the City limits. The signs are 40 in. tall and 24 in. wide. They will be mounted on steel "sign" posts, with a total height of approx. 6.5 ft. Placement of the signs will be 1) on the boulevard adjacent to 8378 Long Lake Road 2) on Long Lake Road near county Rd H2 3) Hwy 10 in the east bound lane between Silver Lake Road and County Rd I, (north of Schwin dealer and 4) Hwy 10 just east of the Phillips 66 station in the west bound lane It is understood that permission must be aquired in writing from Ramsey County for the signs on Long Lake Road,, and from MN DOT. for those going on Hwy 10.-Itis- also understood that the Gopher locating service will be contacted for clearance prior to any installation. Maintenance of the signs is a responsibility of the church. Text on the signs simply lists the name and address of the church. Sunrise United Methodist Church 2520 County Road I Mounds View, MN. 55112 ph. 786-4926 David A. Freemore Mission Coordinator ""'e' hm 784-2097 % „ wk 639-0774 co a\dave\signup ) 21 • HWY. 10 Long Lake Road APR 1995 Received City of Mounds View • County Rd. I '1 7 Sunrise United Methodist Church • County Rd. H2 c •f- Agenda Section: 11.C REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Report Number: 95-1342C fli, SDtSTAFF REPORT Counciln: ❑ Special Order of Business CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE May 8, 1995 ❑ Public Hearings ❑ Consent Agenda kl Council Business Item Description: Consideration of Entering Into Lease Agreement for New Microfilm Machine Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this repor - Comments attached. Explanation/Summary-(attach supplemen sheets as n• essary.)_ - __ —_- - SUMMARY; The microfilm machine the City is currently using is approximately 10 years old. It has grown obsolete and is no longer functioning at the level of quality that is needed for viewing and printing of historical film and fiche records. In the past month, three vendors have been contacted and two have demonstrated equipment to City Staff. One of the vendors was AMI Imaging Systems, Inc. who distribute Canon equipment (the existing machine is a Canon) , another was Mid-America Business Systems who distribute Minolta products, and the third vendor was CMI who no longer distribute (as of 4/95) microfilm machines. The Canon MP-90 and the Minolta 603Z were left at City Hall for a few days for staff to use them to determine which machine better fits their needs. Staff are in agreement that the Minolta 603Z microfilm machine is the better choice of the two machines. It is also less expensive. The monthly lease payment for the Minolta 603Z is $229.90. This includes the reader printer with automatic exposure, recyclable micro toning system, workstation, prism zoom lens, motorized universal carrier, installation and training. The monthly lease payment for the Canon MP-90 is $240. 10 and includes all the similar features. The length of the lease would be 36 months with an option to buyout the system for $1. The 1995 budget includes $4500 for the lease of a new microfilm machine. Tim Cruikshank, Asst. to City Admin. RECOMMENDATION; Authorize staff to enter into lease agreement with Mid-America Business Systems for 36 month lease for Minolta 603Z microfilm machine. COW OF Agenda Section:"=11. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Report Number: 95-1343C Report Date: 5-4-95 STAFF REPORT Council Action: OEW ❑ Special Order of Business May 8, 1995 ❑ Public Hearings CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE ❑ Consent Agenda tl Council Business Item Description: Consideration of Authorization for Staff to Execute a Lease Agreement with MVAA for Use of City Property for the Location of an MVAA Equipment Storage Building Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this report PYY - Comments attached. xplanation/Summar-y-(attach supplement s. • •"as_necessary.) - - ,SUMMARY; Mounds View Athletic Association (MVAA) has approached City staff with a request to locate an equipment building on City owned property. The building will be used for storing equipment and uniforms during the off- season. The Board of Directors of MVAA have suggested the location east of the Public Works Maintenance Building, with access from Bronson Drive. The building plans are enclosed. Also enclosed is a draft lease agreement provided by City Attorney Jim Thomsen. The agreement protects the City from liability and requires maintenance activities and operating costs to be the responsibility of MVAA. In addition, in the event that MVAA would disband, the building would become the property of the City of Mounds View. The Parks and Recreation Commission has discussed this issue on two meeting occasions. They requested a lease agreement that would protect I the City, requested that the building is aesthetically pleasing, and wanted to be sure that in the occasion that MVAA disbanded, that the building would become the property of the City. Finally, the Parks and Recreation Commission wanted to be sure that MVAA undertook all responsibility for liability, maintenance of the building, and security of the building. The lease agreement addresses all of these concerns. MVAA would like to construct the building sometime mid-summer so that it is ready by August when their inventory of equipment and uniforms are turned in. Mary Saarion, D ec or of Parks, Recreation and Forestry jtECOMMENDATION; Authorize staff to execute a lease agreement with Mounds View Athletic Association approving the placement of an equipment storage building on City Hall Park property. WY OF Agenda Section: 11 _F REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Report Number: 95-1344C fr DSt,STAFF REPORT Councn: ❑ Special Order of Business CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE May 8, 1995 ❑ Public Hearings ❑ Consent Agenda C Council Business Item Description: Consideration of Authorization for Staff to Purchase Land Adjoining Groveland Park Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this report - Comments attached. Explanation/Summary_(attach supplement_sheets as necessary_.) SUMMARY; The Newton family approached the City of Mounds View inquiring as to the interest of the City in purchasing the family estate property located north of Groveland Park. This parcel of land has been mowed during the past several years by the Parks Department and in return the community has been given use of the area for recreational activity. Recreational use of the property includes pick-up games of football, hacky sack, catch, and as a warm-up area for youth baseball and softball teams that gather to play a game at Groveland Park athletic field. The area is a grassland which also serves as a buffer between the homes to the north, along Groveland Road. The buffer area is an important asset, helping to detour conflicts between park users and homeowners. The Newton family is requesting $31,000 for the property. Twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) is budgeted for 1995 purchase of parkland (originally to be a match for the proposed park purchase of parkland grant in the SW section of the City). That option no longer exists. The City has had the land appraised and the appraised value is $31,000. This is $6,000 less than available in the 1995 budget for park acquisition. It is requested that the City purchase the land at the appraised value of$31,000 with funding budgeted from the General Fund Park Improvements, 100-4362-703 in the amount of$25,000 and authorize the transfer of$6,000 from Franchise Fee Fund, 295-4120-990 to the General Fund, 100-3961 to cover the remaining cost of the land purchase. _Yea/2Z e41) Mary Saarion, Director Parks, Recreation and Forestry Authorize purchase of Newton property for appraised value of$31,000 using $25,000 from General Fund Park Improvements, 100-4362-703 and transfering $6,000 from Franchise Fee Fund, 295-4120-990 to General Fund 100-3961 and amend the 1995 Budget to reflect the addition of j�ECOMMENDATION; $6,000 to individual General Fund Account 100-4362-703 to fund the remainder of the purchase price. CITY OF Agenda Section: 11_F REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Report Number: 95-1349 c ;ER1111 Report Date: 4-5-95 STAFF REPORT Council Action: El Special Order of Business CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE May 8, 1995 ❑ Public Hearings El Consent Agenda Council Business Item Description: Consideration of Approval of the Transfer of Contingency Funds for a Forestry Grant Match-Highway 610 Barrier Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this report • - Comments attached. Explanation/Summar-y-(attach_supplement_sh:ets_as nec ssary.)_ ,SUMMARY; • Forestry Rick Wriskey submitted a Small Business Association grant application last year (1994) for tree planting along Long Lake Road along the 610 noise barrier wall. The grant is a matching grant requiring the City to expend $2 ,450 with $3 , 500 being awarded. Bids have been solicited for forty trees to be planted along that area (starting at Ardan Park and moving westerly) . The trees will be both 6-7' spruce and pine and 10-15' Summit Ash. Because the bids received were so favorable, an additional 10 trees will be able to be planted. The grant award to the City is $3 , 500, the Cities' match is 2 , 450 for a total project cost of $5, 950. This project is a beautification project, trying to make the huge barrier area more attractive. The area is so large that it will take many years of planting to complete the entire expanse. This grant opportunity allows the City to begin this project with the planting of 50 trees at half the cost. • Mary Saar o , P rec or of Parks, Recreation and Forestry RECOMMENDATION; Approve transferring $2,450 of Contingency Funds to Forestry Reforestation (100-4382-160) for the matching funds for the award of the Small Business Association grant for planting 50 trees along the area of the Hwy 610 noise barrier wall. are OF Agenda Section: .C 1111REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Report Number: 95-1346C 78Report Date: 4-5-95 STAFF REPORT Council Action: ❑ Special Order of Business CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE May 8, 1995 ❑ Public Hearings ❑ Consent Agenda E Council Business Item Description: Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this report - Comments attached. Explanation/Summary_(attachsupplement_sheets_as necessary.)_ SUMMARY; Due to the inability to secure the Rice Creek Shopping Center site for the proposed Regional Senior Center, the four cities involved in the project; New Brighton, Fridley, Mounds View and Spring Lake Park have determined informally that the project can not move forward. The City of Fridley has formally withdrawn from the project and Spring Lake Park is expected to do so as well. The attached Resolution will formally) withdraw t. - ity of Mounds View from the project. Saman ha 0 •uno, Ci y Admin. trator RECOMMENDATION; RESOLUTION NO. 4766 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION OFFICIALLY WITHDRAWING CITY SUPPORT FOR AND INVOLVEMENT IN THE REGIONAL SENIOR CENTER PROJECT WHEREAS, the four cities of Mounds View, Fridley, Spring Lake Park and New Brighton began the exploration of a Regional Senior Center several years ago; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the project was to build a joint facility to be used by senior residents from the four communities thereby responding to a growing need expressed by area senior residents; and WHEREAS, a Regional Senior Center Task Force, consisting of representatives from the four cities, charged with studying the proposal to determine the feasibility, cost and site; and WHEREAS, on April 8, 1992 , the Regional Senior Center Task Force approved the Rice Creek Plaza as the secondary site after the Metropolitan Council refused to consider the primary site in the Locke Lake Regional Park; and WHEREAS, it does not appear that the Rice Creek Plaza site will be available in the immediate future; and WHEREAS, the city of Fridley has formally notified the other three cities that it no longer desires to pursue the regional concept; and WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View has undertaken an alliance with Independent School District 621 to explore opportunities for a multi-use facility. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Mounds View does hereby declare that it is also withdrawing from the Regional Senior Center Project. Adopted this 8th day of May, 1995 . ATTEST: Mayor (SEAL) City Administrator are OF Agenda Section: 1 1 .H REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Report Number: 95-1347 _ Report Date: 5-4-95 STAFF REPORT Council Action: DEW ❑ Special Order of Business CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE May 8, 1995 ❑ Public Hearings ❑ Consent Agenda Council Business Item Description: Consideration of Resolution No. 4767 Requesting Reallocation of CDBG Funds Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this report - Comments attached. Explanation/Summary-(attach-supplement sheets as-necessary.) SUMMARY; I received the attached FAX on Wednesday, May 3 requesting that the City of Mounds View join with other Ramsey County cities to request that Ramsey County reallocate $100, 000 in CDBG funds for Northwest Youth and Service Bureau via the attached Resolution and subsequent letter. sig_ Sa(nantha Olsduno, City Administrator • RECOMMENDATION: RESOLUTION NO. 4767 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION REQUESTING REALLOCATION OF CDBG FUNDS WHEREAS, the process for distribution of CDBG funds was changed for 1995;___ _ _ and WHEREAS, this change has promise for a more equitable and accountable method of distribution in the future, but further review of the process highlights the needs for some modifications; and WHEREAS, this year's process has put our desire to meet the housing needs of low to moderate income constituents in competition with the social service needs of these same constituents; and WHEREAS, we believe this violates the intent of the stated CDBG priorities and we believe the following request to be within the intent of those priorities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mounds View requests that the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners act to reallocate $100,000 of CDBG funds to apply toward the capital request of Northwest Youth and Family Services; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that $50,000 of the contingency amount set aside by Ramsey County CDBG be applied in a like manner. Adopted this 8th day of May, 1995. ATTEST: Mayor (SEAL) City Administrator 05/03/95 15:13 NW YOUTH & FAMILY SERVICES - 612 784 3462 NO.886 D02 Dear Colleague: On Tuesday, May 2, representatives from eight Ramsey County cities met to discuss our concerns about a possible oversight in the county CDBG distribution process. While we agreed the priorities set by the process -- low income housing construction and rehabilitation were worthy, we were concerned that the final recommendation leaves no room for considering Northwest Youth & Family Services' request for capital funds to aid in purchasing the current League of Minnesota Cities building as a permanent site for the Agency. Discussion highlighted the idea that it seemed counterproductive to provide housing for low to moderate income people while jeopardizing our primary vehicle for meeting the social service needs of the residents who will occupy the housing. It is important to note that NYFS' request is for capital improvement to support their services, not for ongoing social service programming. While the representative from one city was concerned about changing priorities developed through a lengthy process, the consensus of the group saw this as fitting within the intent of CDBG funding. Priorities were presented to the cities for ranking - no mention was made of the affect this could have on funding of public facilities such as NYFS. Thus, although we support low income housing construction and rehabilitation, we questioned the reasonableness of sacrificing our means of meeting these constituents social service needs. Attached please find a sample letter that we are urging you to send to Ramsey County Commissioner Dick Wedell (FAX #266-8370) with a copy to Judy Karon at Ramsey County Community and Economic Development (Telephone 266-8000 and FAX 266-8039) no later than Tuesday, May 9th. If you have any questions about the meeting or this communication, please call Kay Andrews, Executive Director of NYFS at 636-5448 or me at (home) 644-8293 or (work) 464-9353 . Thank you for your concern and consideration. Sincerely, Tom Bald pity iMayor - of Falcon Heights 05/03/95 15:13 NW YOUTH & FAMILY SERVICES 4 612 784 3462 N0.886 ®03 **DRAFT LETTER** Commissioner Dick Wedell Ramsey County Board of Commissioners 15 West Kellogg Boulevard City Hall - Courthouse - Room 220 St. Paul, MN 55102 Commissioner Wedell: to express our concern about this year's We are writing _ distribution of CDBG funds. As you know, the process forof city was changed this year from a group representatives deciding the fate of individual projects to cities voting on common priorities. While eandraccountablesee tdistribugion he potential of this new method for moreequitable quitable in the future, we are concerned by an unforeseen problem created by the process this year. It is difficult to argue with the priorities set for CDBG funds; low-cost housing construction and rehabilitation is a clear need. However, the process has put our desire to meet the housing needs of our low income constituents in competition with our ability to meet their social servie Northwest Youth & Family Services, an agency whose work you know well, has applied for CDBG funds as an integral site that part of their ir capital campaign to secure a reliable, permanent ensure the agency' s ability to meet the needs of our constituenn s. ill Predictably, the availabilityincreased seLyices Yet because of the priority increase the needs for these rankings, we are being told funds will not be available for NYFS' capital campaign because they are Through andirected oversight tno attention was increasing the availability of housing. given to funding for public facilities. To alleviate the obvious counterproductivity of this approach, we request that the Ramsey the listed prioritiesmissionto be eapplied to rs act to reallocate $100, 000 from NYFS ' capital request. In addition, we askth t $50, 000 5G , 0 si of the e contingency amount set aside by RamseyCountye granted to NYFS. Because this would lev iensure constituents our the believey to meet t�t needs of low and moderate income is well within the intent of the priorities already established in this year's process. Thank you for considering this request. Sincerely, 05/03/95 15:14 NW YOUTH & FAMILY SERVICES 612 784 3462 NO.886 PO4 **DRAFT** RESOLUTION Whereas the process for distribution of CDBG funds was changed for 1995 and Whereas this change has promise for a more - equitable- -and - — - accountable method of distribution in the future, but further review of the process highlights the needs for some modifications and Whereas this year's process has put our desire to meet the housing needs of low to moderate income constituents in competition with the social service needs of these same constituents and Whereas we believe this violates the intent of the stated CDBG priorities and we believe the following request to be within the intent of those priorities: NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the city council of the City of requests that the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners act to reallocate $100, 000 of CDBG funds to apply toward the capital request of Northwest Youth & Family Services and Be it further resolved that $50, 000 of the contingency amount set aside by Ramsey County CDBG be applied in a like manner. 05/03/95 15:14 NW YOUTH & FAMILY SERVICES 612 784 3462 NO.886 D05 CDBG HOME PRIORITIES FOR FY 1995 Funds are to be tied to these priorities: I. Rehab - Owner Occupied 2. Rehab - Rental Property 3. Remove Dilapidated Structures 4. Job Creation 5. Home Ownership 6. New Housing Construction 7. Neighborhood Revitalization 8. Social Services Money must be predominately targeted to assist very low, low, and moderate income persons. The Ramsey County HRA proposes to designate its FY 1995 CDBG allocation as follows: Suburban low-Income Rental Rehabilitation $250,000 Suburban low-Income Owner Occupied Rehab. $400,000 Suburban Energy Improvements for Owner Occupied Homes: (these three HUD Citation 570,208 (3)(3) Low/Mod Housing Benefit) $475,000 Planning and Administration: $284,000 TOTAL: $1,409,000 05/03/95 15:15 NW YOUTH & FAMILY SERVICES -) 612 784 3462 NO.886 ®06 PUBLIC NOTICE Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Dakota County Board o Commissioners on the 2nd day of May,1995,at 9:00 AM in the County Board Room of Sao Dakota County Administration Center,1590 Highway 55,Hastings,MN,for the puzposeo receiving comments from and passing information to the general public concerning the Consolidated Plan for the Dakota County Consortium(Anoka,Dakota,Ramsey,and Washington Counties)which includes proposed housing and community development objectives and projected use of 1995•Dakota County CDBG and HOME funds. The Consolidated PIan(CP)will replace the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS). Its intent is to combine into a single submission the planning and application aspects of HUD`s-Community Development Block Grant(CDBG),Emergency Shelter Grant(ESG),HC Investment Partnerships(HOME),and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) formula programs with the requirements for CHAS. The new submission will replace the curreAt CHAS,the HOME program description,the Community Development Plan,the CDBG final statement,and the ESG and HOPWA applications. The CP also consolidates the reporting requirements for these programs,replacing five general performance reports with one. The purpose of the submission is to enable localities to examine their needs and design ways to address those needs that are appropriate to their circumstances. It is intended to 1)promote citizen participation and the development of local priority needs and objectives by providing comprehensive information on the jurisdiction that is easy to understand;2)coordinate statutory requirements to achieve the purposes of the Acts in a comprehensive way,while reducing paperwork and minimizing the federal intrusion into State and local planning activities and to simplify the process of requesting and obtaining federal funds available on a formula basis,3) promote the development of an action plan that provides the basis for assessing performance; and encourage consultation with public and private agencies,including those outside a single jurisdiction to identify shared needs and solutions. The Ramsey.County HRA proposes to designate its CDBG allocation as follows: Suburban Low-Income Rental Rehabilitation: $250,000 Suburban Low-Income Owner Occupied Rehabilitation: $400,000, Suburban Energy Improvements for Owner Occupied Homes: $200,000 (These three HUD Citation 570.208(a)(3)Low/Mod Housing Benefit) Economic Development/Business Revolving Loan Fund: $475,000 (HUD Citation 570.208(a)(4)-Low/Mod Jobs Benefit) Planning and Administration $284,000 Ramsey County receives HOME funds through the Dakota County Consortium,and proposes to designate its HOME allocation for the following projects: Habitat for Humanity: $75,000 Shelter Townhomes of Maplewood Affordable Housing $250,000 Persons wishing additional information on the Public Hearing,the 1995 Consolidated Plan, proposed or previous Ramsey County CDBG or HOME expenditures should contact:Pat Yoerger,Ramsey County Community Economic Development, 15 West Kellogg Blvd.,St.Paul, MN 55102 612-266-8000. The 1995 proposed Consolidated Plan is available for review at the address given above during normal business hours, and at branches of the Ramsey County Library. 1\11 " VIE D 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL 2 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 3 - RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 4 5 6 Regular Meeting 7 April 24, 1995 8 Mounds View City Hall 9 2401 Hwy. 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 10 11 1-2 13 CALL TO ORDER 14 15 The Mounds View City Council was called to order by Mayor Linke at 16 7 : 00 p.m. on April 24, 1995. 17 18 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 19 20 ROLL CALL 21 22 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Linke, Councilmembers Trude, Blanchard, 23 Quick, and Hankner 24 25 MEMBERS ABSENT: None 26 27 ALSO PRESENT: Samantha Orduno, City Administrator; Tim Cruikshank, 28 Assistant to the City Administrator; Tim Ramacher, Police Chief; 29 Paul Harrington, Community Development Coordinator; Mary Saarion, 30 Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry; Mike Ulrich, Director 31 of Public Works; Don Brager, Finance Director; Brus Von Ende, Golf 32 Course Manager; Kurt Johnson, Golf Course Superintendent; Mike 33 Mueller, the new Golf Course Grounds Superintendent 34 35 ADDITIONS TO AGENDA: 36 37 There were no additions to the agenda for this meeting. 38 39 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 40 41 MOTION/SECOND: Hankner/Quick to Approve Regular Council Meeting 42 Minutes from April 10, 1995, as Submitted 43 44 VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 45 46 MOTION/SECOND: Hankner/Quick to Approve Special Council Meeting 47 Minutes from April 13 , 1995, as Submitted 48 49 VOTE: 4 ayes 1 abstention 0 nays Motion Carried 50 UNAPPIT JVIE 4 = Mounds View City Council Page 2 Regular Meeting April 24, 1995 1 ACCEPTANCE OF ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES: 2 3 MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Hankner to Approve Parks and Recreation 4 Commission Meeting Minutes from January 19, 1995, and February 16, 5 1995, as Presented 6 7 VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 8 9 SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: 10 11 A. Adoption and Presentation of Resolution No. 4752 Commending 12 Firefighter Kevin Vito for Twenty Years of Service with the 13 Spring Lake Park/Blaine/Mounds View Fire Department 14 15 Mayor Linke read Resolution No. 4752 and presented it to Kevin 16 Vito. 17 18 MOTION/SECOND: Linke/Blanchard to Adopt Resolution No. 4752 19 Commending Firefighter Kevin Vito for Twenty Years of Service 20 with the Spring Lake Park/Blaine/Mounds View Fire Department 21 22 VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 23 24 B. Proclamation Declaring the Week of May 1, 1995 through May 7, 25 1995 as Police Reserve Officer Week in Mounds View 26 27 Mayor Linke read the Proclamation declaring Police Reserve 28 Officer Week in Mounds View and presented Police Chief Tim 29 Ramacher with the Proclamation. Officer Jack Chambers came 30 before the Council and Chief Ramacher introduced the following 31 Police Reserve Officers: Mark Yates, Jason Meron, Anita 32 Sorter, Jeff Ramacher, Brandon Thyen, Rick Schmidlin. 33 34 Mary Saarion introduced the new Golf Course Grounds Superintendent, 35 Mike Mueller, and explained that his first week would be spent with 36 Golf Course Superintendent Kurt Johnson, after which Mr. Johnson 37 would be leaving for his new position out of town. 38 39 Brus Von Ende, Manager of The Bridges Golf Course, gave an overview 40 of the activities at the Golf Course during the first day it was 41 open. He expressed his appreciation to the staff and 42 Councilmembers for all of their support. 43 44 CONSENT AGENDA 45 46 Samantha Orduno, City Administrator, read the Consent Agenda as 47 follows: 48 49 A. Adopt Resolution No. 4751 Approving Just and Correct Claims 50 Against City Funds APP .' U Mounds View City Council Page 3 Regular Meeting April 24, 1995 1 B. Licenses for Approval 2 3 Sewer/Water - Expires 6/30/95 4 Sandd Excavating, Inc. - New 5 6 Window Installation - Expires 6/30195 7 Twin Cities Glass Blocking - New 8 9 MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Hankner to Adopt the Consent Agenda as 10 Presented 11 12 VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 13 14 RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR: 15 16 Mayor Linke explained that this portion of the meeting was 17 designated for anyone who wished to speak to the Council on items 18 that were not on the Agenda. 19 20 Barbara Matelsky, 4949 Old Highway 8, explained that she had just 21 purchased her home two months ago and was now concerned about the 22 Ordinance regarding City sewer and water. Her lines for City sewer 23 and water are located in the area of a proposed storm shelter for 24 a trailer court. 25 26 Paul Harrington, Community Development Coordinator, answered that 27 he was in the process of working with Ramsey County to determine 28 the easements on the property. 29 30 Bill Frits, 8072 Long Lake Road, offered his comments regarding the 31 need for repairs to Long Lake Road. 32 33 Mayor Linke explained that Ramsey County should be made aware of 34 the condition of the street since Long Lake Road is a County road. 35 36 Joan Sandidge, 7817 Bona Road, came before the Council requesting 37 that the charges against her in connection with the waterline break 38 be abated and that Ordinance No. 906. 04, Subdivision 4, be changed 39 to protect the residents. Ms. Sandidge said the break was within 40 the public right-of-way on City installed, owned and maintained 41 property. She felt that the Public Works Department assumed that 42 the break was on the City watermain and proceeded to destroy her 43 neighbor's three-car driveway. She has been charged approximately 44 $2, 000 for repairs. 45 46 Ms. Sandidge cited the Cities of Shoreview, Blaine, Fridley and New 47 Brighton and said that those Cities protect their homeowners by 48 stating that the homeowner is only liable for service lines on 49 their own property, from their house to their curb stop. 50 tw/ AP1711 Mounds View City Council Page 4 Regular Meeting April 24, 1995 1 Mike Ulrich, Director of Public Works, used a drawing board to 2 illustrate the position of the waterline break and specified the 3 procedures that took place to repair the break. 4 5 Samantha Orduno, City Administrator, furnished the background of 6 the policy regarding the property owner's responsibility in 7 connection with waterline repairs. 8 9 Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, said that he thought the City 10 should be responsible and care for those things that the City 11 builds. He remarked that all of the structures that are located 12 within the right-of-way are impacted by a broad range of public 13 uses. Mr. McCarty asked a direct question: Does the Council feel 14 that individual home owners should be responsible for failures of 15 City property? 16 17 Councilmember Trude proposed that Council review the Ordinance at 18 the next Work Session and at that time address the issue of 19 additional costs which would be incurred by the City if the 20 Ordinance is changed. 21 22 Councilmember Hankner concurred with Councilmember Trude that the 23 Ordinance should be discussed at the upcoming Work Session along 24 with the City's liability in the event the Ordinance would be 25 changed. 26 27 Mike Ulrich stated that not all water and sewer service is City 28 installed. He cited projects where private contractors were used 29 to install the services. 30 31 Bruce Ritter, 5240 Greenfield Avenue, requested clarification of 32 the procedures used to repair the waterline break. An explanation 33 was offered by Mr. Ulrich. 34 35 Mayor Linke advised that the Ordinance would be reviewed by Council 36 and no payment would be expected from Ms. Sandidge until a decision 37 had been reached regarding the Ordinance. 38 39 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 40 41 Consideration of Resolution No. 4760 Approving a Conditional Use 42 Permit to Allow an Oversized Garage for Anthony Honkomp, 2908 Ardan 43 Avenue 44 45 Mayor Linke opened the public hearing at 8 : 00 p.m. 46 47 Paul Harrington, Community Development Coordinator, reported that 48 Anthony Honkomp had applied for a Conditional Use Permit to allow 49 the construction of a 940 square foot attached garage to his 50 proposed single family home at 2908 Ardan Avenue. Municipal Code LINA131290 Mounds View City Council Page 5 Regular Meeting April 24, 1995 1 allows for garages in excess of 864 square feet, up to 1,264 square 2 feet, with the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. Application 3 and plans have been submitted by the applicant and the request is 4 in compliance with Municipal Code. The Planning Commission has 5 reviewed this item and has recommended approval of the Conditional 6 Use Permit. 7 8 Councilmember Blanchard asked if this garage was to be attached to 9 a new home being built and Mr. Harrington replied that it was. 10 11 Cameron Obert, 8315 Greenwood Drive, expressed concern that there 12 could be a future request to operate a business out of the garage. 13 14 Mayor Linke closed the public hearing at 8: 06 p.m. 15 16 MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Linke to Adopt Resolution No. 4760 Approving 17 a Conditional Use Permit to Allow an Oversized Garage for Anthony 18 Honkomp, 2908 Ardan Avenue 19 20 Councilmember Trude said that the neighbors in the area of the 21 proposed home are very happy to see the improvements to this 22 property. 23 24 VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 25 26 Consideration of Resolution No. 4759 Approving the Grant 27 Application for Redevelopment of Woodcrest Park 28 29 Mayor Linke opened the public hearing at 8: 07 p.m. 30 31 Mary Saarion, Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry, advised 32 that she was preparing an Outdoor Recreation Grant for improvements 33 to Woodcrest Park. The park is located in the southwestern section 34 of the City and, because of the storm water management issues, this 35 has been a difficult park to maintain. Repairs are needed on the 36 park building and, if the parking lot were to be paved, it could be 37 used for rollerblading, basketball, and other hard court play 38 activities. 39 40 The grant proposal would include storm water management details. 41 The City Consulting Engineer suggested that the ditches could be 42 culverted and filled in. This would create more parkland area and 43 take away any safety concern because of the open ditch. To solve 44 the storm water drainage problem, a small holding pond would be 45 built which would drain into the abutting wetland area. 46 47 The grant would provide 50 percent funding for the project. The 48 City's portion could come from Park Improvement funds and Storm 49 Water Management funds. The grant is due May 1, 1995 and awards 50 will be announced in August, 1995. i\j ji IF) . ED Mounds View City Council Page 6 Regular Meeting April 24, 1995 1 2 Ray Schelonka, 5139 Red Oak Drive, said that there was always 3 standing water on the north end of the park when it rains. He was 4 concerned about fencing the property. 5 6 Ms. Saarion explained that, if the grant is awarded, the 7 neighborhood residents will be invited to express their desires and 8 ideas for developing the park. 9 10 Mayor Linke closed_the_public_hearing-at--8: 14--p.m. 11 12 MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Quick to Adopt Resolution No. 4759 Approving 13 the Grant Application for Redevelopment of Woodcrest Park 14 15 VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays , Motion Carried 16 17 In response to an earlier request, Paul Harrington, Community 18 Development Coordinator, reported on the status of the Nuisance 19 Code. Because of the concerns of residents involved with the 20 FOCUS 2000 project, the Nuisance Code has been revised. The 21 problem with the Nuisance Code in its former state, was that there 22 was no enforcement mechanism to follow through on the properties 23 cited for necessary cleanup. On the advice of the City Attorney 24 and after approximately 10 months of work by the Planning 25 Commission and the City Council, the Nuisance Ordinance had been 26 put into final draft form. The Ordinance was approved by the City 27 Council last month; however, City Charter requires that Ordinances 28 be published 30 days prior to their enactment. The Nuisance 29 Ordinance falls within that 30-day period at the present time. 30 31 Mr. Harrington cited properties which have been improved by the 32 City and provided detailed plans for the upcoming Clean-Up Day. 33 34 COUNCIL BUSINESS: 35 36 A. Consideration of Action on Ordinance No. 558 Amending the 37 Municipal Code of Mounds View by Amending Chapter 1001 38 Entitled, "Building Code" 39 40 Paul Harrington, Community Development Coordinator, explained 41 that at the March 27, 1995 City Council Meeting, Ordinance No. 42 558 was introduced. The licensing of tree trimming businesses 43 would allow the City to apply certain requirements to their 44 operation, specifically regarding problems with noise levels 45 and blocking of streets. All such licenses would be $40 per 46 year, the same as construction licenses. 47 48 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Trude to Adopt Ordinance No. 558 49 Amending the Municipal Code of Mounds View by Amending Chapter 50 1001 Entitled, "Building Code" I 1 u PJAPRIVhD Mounds View City Council Page 7 Regular Meeting April 24, 1995 1 ROLL CALL VOTE: 2 3 Mayor Linke - yes 4 Councilmember Quick - yes 5 Councilmember Hankner - yes 6 Councilmember Blanchard - yes 7 Councilmember Trude - yes 8 9 VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 10 11 B. Consideration of Resolution No. 4756 Regarding Request for 12 Planned Unit Development Amendment/Development Review of Dynex 13 Industries, 4751 Mustang Circle 14 15 Paul Harrington, Community Development Coordinator, reported 16 that the request for a planned unit development/development 17 review of Dynex Industries had been discussed at the April 3, 18 1995 Work Session. He offered background information 19 regarding the approval for a planned unit development to 20 Dynex. The current expansion plans include leasing portions 21 of the expansion areas to outside tenants until such time as 22 Dynex has a need for those areas. This practice would be 23 similar to the Mounds View Business Park. Staff has reviewed 24 the plans submitted and found them to be in conformance with 25 applicable sections of the Municipal Code. 26 27 The issue of storm water runoff which would result from the 28 project has been discussed with the City Engineer. Based on 29 information provided by the applicant, the City Engineer feels 30 the proposed on-site facilities would be adequate to handle 31 the anticipated runoff levels. 32 33 Mr. Harrington said that he would be meeting with City 34 Administrator Orduno, Fire Chief Zikmund, and the applicant to 35 discuss fire suppression devices that would be needed on the 36 property. 37 38 Mr. Harrington noted that any action by the Council on this 39 matter should be contingent upon the approval of Rice Creek 40 Watershed District. 41 42 Councilmember Blanchard asked if the Rice Creek Watershed 43 District had approved this project. 44 45 Mr. Harrington affirmed that he had received notification from 46 Rice Creek Watershed District. 47 48 Brian Sjoberg, from Dynex Industries, stated that he would be 49 meeting with the Rice Creek Watershed District on April 26 and 50 expected to receive their approval. lIVED Mounds View City Council Page 8 Regular Meeting April 24, 1995 1 MOTION/SECOND: Hankner/Blanchard to Adopt Resolution No. 4756 2 Approving a Development Review/Planned Unit Development 3 Amendment for Dynex Industries, 4751 Mustang Circle, 4 Contingent Upon Approval of Rice Creek Watershed District 5 6 VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 7 8 Mayor Linke expressed his appreciation to Dynex Industries for 9 everything they have done for the community. 10 11 C. Consideration of Resolution No. 4757 Regarding Zero Lot Line 12 Subdivision Request of Larry Beach, 7540 Silver Lake Road 13 14 D. Consideration of Resolution No. 4758 Regarding Zero Lot Line 15 Subdivision Request of Larry Beach, 7550 Silver Lake Road 16 17 Paul Harrington, Community Development Coordinator, explained 18 that he would be combining Items C. and D. as they go 19 together. Larry Beach had made application for zero lot line 20 subdivisions for the properties located at both 7540 and 7550 21 Silver Lake Road. The zero lot line subdivision request is to 22 allow Mr. Beach to owner-occupy sell some twin homes that are 23 currently being built on the property. The twin homes are an 24 allowed use, so he was able to proceed with the construction. 25 26 The request meets the intent of Municipal Code. The lots are 27 short by one one-hundredth of a foot, which amounts to less 28 than an eighth of an inch. Mounds View Planning Commissioners 29 reviewed the situation and felt that they were comfortable 30 with recommending approval of the zero lot line subdivision. 31 32 MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Hankner to Adopt Resolution No. 4757 and 33 Resolution No. 4758 Approving a Zero Lot Line Minor 34 Subdivision, Larry Beach, 7540 and 7550 Silver Lake Road 35 36 VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 37 38 Larry Beach, 6951 Knollwood Drive, said that when he made 39 application for the twin home permits, he was charged a set 40 amount per side because each unit has a different address. He 41 plans to build eight more identical units using the same 42 plans, and was informed that he would be charged that amount 43 for each unit. 44 45 Mayor Linke felt that the matter warranted review since the 46 plans to be used are identical. 47 48 Mr. Harrington suggested that the policy for permits for 49 identical structures be discussed at the May 1, 1995 Work 50 Session. lwj ' ApPlIVED ' Mounds View City Council Page 9 Regular Meeting April 24, 1995 1 E. Consideration of Resolution No. 4750 Proclaiming May 3 , 1995 2 as "Arbor Day" and the Month of May as "Arbor Month" 3 4 Mary Saarion, Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry, 5 advised that Arbor Day and Arbor Month are annual activities 6 in the community. 7 8 Mayor Linke read Resolution No. 4750. 9 10 _ -__ MOTION/-SECOND:- - -Linke/Trude toAdopt -Resolution No. - -4750 -- - - 11 Proclaiming May 3, 1995 as "Arbor Day" and the Month of May as 12 "Arbor Month" 13 14 Councilmember Trude remarked that she was at Pinewood School 15 recently and noticed the trees which were planted by students 16 in prior years. She felt that when children are involved with 17 taking pride in their community, they will be more likely to 18 carry that pride wherever they go. This is an opportunity for 19 children to do something positive for the City. 20 21 VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 22 23 F. Consideration of Contracting with Tautges, Redpath and Co. , 24 Ltd. to Conduct a Single Audit at a Cost Not to Exceed $2 ,500 25 26 Don Brager, Finance Director, stated that the Single Audit Act 27 of 1984 requires a single compliance audit to be conducted 28 whenever more than $25, 000 of federal assistance has been 29 received by a governmental unit. The purpose of this audit is 30 to ensure compliance with the grant agreements and applicable 31 laws and regulations. 32 33 The City of Mounds View did, in fact, receive more than 34 $25, 000 in federal grants during 1994, making the single audit 35 necessary. Since the amount of grants to be awarded to the 36 City was not known at the time the budget was prepared, this 37 item was not budgeted for. It is now proposed that the City 38 contract with Tautges, Redpath& Co. , Ltd. to conduct a single 39 audit for a cost not to exceed $2,500 and that the funds be 40 transferred from the Contingency Account to cover the cost. 41 42 Councilmember Trude asked if Tautges, Redpath & Co. , Ltd. was 43 the most economical company to use to conduct this audit. 44 45 Mr. Brager stated that, because Tautges, Redpath & Co. was 46 also contracted to do the City audit, they were more 47 economical than a different audit company would be. 48 49 Councilmember Hankner suggested that funds for the audit be 50 budgeted for next year. LINA1:11 - '171) n Mounds View City Council Page 10 Regular Meeting April 24, 1995 1 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Trude to Approve Contracting with 2 Tautges, Redpath and Co. , Ltd. to Conduct a Single Audit at a 3 Cost Not to Exceed $2,500 with Funds to be Transferred from 4 Contingency Account 5 6 VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 7 8 G. Consideration of Resolution No. 4746 Approving the Union 9 Contract and the 1995 Compensation Schedule and Insurance 10 Contribution__Schedule forPolice__Union_—_ _ ___ 11 12 Samantha Orduno, City Administrator, reported that this labor 13 agreement had been put together per the arbitration award and 14 she summarized the 1994 and 1995 increases. Ms. Orduno 15 explained that, since this was -an arbitration award, the 16 Council is bound by State Law to approve. 17 18 MOTION/SECOND: Hankner/Trude to Adopt Resolution No. 4746 19 Approving the Union Contract and the 1995 Compensation 20 Schedule and Insurance Contribution Schedule for Police Union 21 22 VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 23 24 H. Consideration of Resolution No. 4753 Approving the Bargaining 25 Unit Contract and the 1995 Compensation Schedule and Insurance 26 Contribution Schedule for the Public Works and Parks 27 Maintenance Bargaining Unit 28 29 Samantha Orduno, City Administrator, read the provisions of 30 the labor agreement and noted the changes from the previous 31 agreement. 32 33 MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Hankner to Adopt Resolution No. 4753 34 Approving the Bargaining Unit Contract and the 1995 35 Compensation Schedule and Insurance Contribution Schedule for 36 the Public Works and Parks Maintenance Bargaining Unit 37 38 Tim Cruikshank, Assistant to the City Administrator, presented 39 information to the City Council which was a requirement of a 40 State Law passed by the Minnesota Legislature in 1993 . The 41 law requires public employers to furnish the information to 42 the public as well as the City Council upon ratifying a 43 collective bargaining agreement. The intent of the law is to 44 provide a standard basis to compare total compensation 45 settlements from year to year. 46 47 Ms. Orduno stressed that this requirement was a costly, time 48 consuming and irrelevant document. It is the epitome of an 49 unfunded mandate. 50 1 n if t rq ';r ' `- r P r v 4 r 4_4) ..)ti 4, pi 3 f *,_,,, ,,, ,..s., 1 Mounds View City Council Page 11 Regular Meeting April 24, 1995 1 VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 2 3 I. Consideration of Resolution No. 4754 Approving the 1995 Non- 4 Union Personnel Compensation Schedule, Insurance Contribution 5 Schedule and Position Reclassifications 6 7 Samantha Orduno, City Administrator, explained that non-union 8 employees waited until the arbitration award was settled 9 before the issue of 1995 compensation was brought before the 1.0 _ Council_. This_Resolution__ is furnished in__two forms: one 11 indicating a 3 percent increase and one indicating a 2 .95 12 percent increase. Ms. Orduno explained the reclassifications 13 of the positions for Engineering Aide, Housing Intern, 14 Division Secretary and the Golf Course Club House Manager 15 which are also included in this Resolution. 16 17 Mayor Linke furnished background information for which he 18 would base his vote in favor of the 3 percent increase. He 19 felt that the City of Mounds View has many quality employees 20 and that, because of their degree of knowledge and skill, the 21 City has been able to attain the same level of services with 22 fewer employees. 23 24 Councilmember Trude said that her decision would be based on 25 the arbitration of the police as a bargaining unit. In order 26 to keep internal harmony, the adjustments between the 27 bargaining units and the non-bargaining units should be kept 28 fairly similar. 29 30 MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Blanchard to Adopt Resolution No. 4754 31 Approving the 1995 Non-Union Personnel Compensation Schedule 32 Reflecting a 2 . 95% Annual Compensation Adjustment, Insurance 33 Contribution Schedule and Position Reclassifications 34 35 Tom Field, 8409 Knollwood Drive, felt that salaries make up a 36 large portion of the City's budget. He wanted the Council to 37 be aware that many people have had their salaries frozen or 38 even cut. 39 40 Councilmember Quick stated that when he first served on the 41 Council, the City paid very lean wages. As a result, the City 42 maintained a revolving-door system for employees. 43 Inexperienced people would start out at Mounds View, get their 44 training with the City, make their mistakes here, and then 45 move on to another community that paid higher wages. Those 46 mistakes have been very costly to the City. Eventually, the 47 City of Mounds View adopted the policy of competitive wages in 48 order to keep their skilled employees. The City now has a 49 very competent staff which do a multitude of different tasks. 50 Mr. Quick felt that those employees should be compensated N 11[ Mounds View City Council Page 12 Regular Meeting April 24, 1995 1 accordingly. He concluded that he would be voting against the 2 2 .95 percent increase simply because he believed they deserve 3 a 3 percent increase. 4 5 Councilmember Blanchard voiced her concern regarding the 6 uncertainty of funds from the State and Federal government. 7 She related that she would be voting in favor of the 2 .95 8 percent increase. 9 10 Jim ---Jor-issen - -----8368-- --- Knollwood - Drive -- concur-red ---with 11 Councilmember Quick that it is important to maintain a 12 competent staff, however, he addressed the fact that many 13 people have experienced reductions in their salaries. 14 15 Councilmember Hankner addressed the issue of budgeting for 16 salary increases for the coming year. 17 18 Mayor Linke noted that the budgeted amount for salary 19 increases this year was 4 percent. 20 21 Councilmember Quick explained that the City has been very 22 frugal with the budget and will continue to be frugal. He 23 stressed the difficulty in setting priorities to be budgeted 24 and mentioned that there are 25 budget meetings scheduled for 25 1995. 26 27 Mayor Linke offered a brief summary of the tax bills in the 28 Legislature. He advised that over the last four years, the 29 tax capacity value of Mounds View has gone down requiring the 30 City to raise taxes just to break even--to provide the same 31 services that were provided the year before. The only 32 increase in services were the result of the FOCUS 2000 33 program, which were requested by the residents of Mounds View. 34 35 Councilmember Hankner urged residents to offer their 36 suggestions early in the budgeting process. 37 38 Cameron Obert, 8315 Greenwood Drive, concurred with Mayor 39 Linke and Councilmember Quick regarding the importance of 40 proper compensation for quality employees. He stated that he 41 has had many people working for his business over the years 42 and felt that with people, you get what you pay for. Quality 43 employees will not stay if they aren't properly rewarded. 44 45 Ms. Orduno addressed the issue of the State Pay Equity Law 46 which requires the City to look internally to compare female 47 dominated classes with male dominated classes. The purpose of uNhH1iJIB11 Mounds View City Council Page 13 Regular Meeting April 24, 1995 1 the 1985 Pay Equity Law was to make it possible for female 2 dominated classes to be elevated. 3 4 VOTE: 3 ayes 2 nays (Linke and Quick) Motion Carried 5 6 REPORTS 7 8 1. Report of Councilmembers: 9 10 Councilmember Quick reported that the Ramsey County Board_______ 11 Meetings would now be televised on cable. 12 13 Councilmember Blanchard: No report. 14 15 Councilmember Hankner: No report. 16 17 Councilmember Trude reported that she had attended the 18 Metropolitan Airports Commission hearing at Blaine City 19 Hall. The purpose of the meeting was to present and 20 accept comment on the construction of the air traffic 21 control tower on the airport grounds of the Anoka 22 County/Blaine Airport. The issues that were presented 23 concerned the amount of air traffic that would be created 24 by the control tower, along with safety issues. It was 25 felt that the direct contact between the FAA Controller 26 and the aircraft should improve the issue of low-flying 27 aircraft. There is a meeting scheduled for May 2 with 28 the Mounds View Airport Task Force to meet with many of 29 the same MAC officials that were at the Blaine City Hall 30 hearing. 31 32 Mayor Linke requested clarification regarding the use of 33 FAA Controllers versus contract controllers. 34 35 Councilmember Trude explained that the use of contract 36 controllers would present another issue because she had 37 asked for assurance from the MAC officials that having 38 someone in the control tower would help eliminate low- 39 flying aircraft in residential areas. The MAC officials 40 said that only FAA has authority to pull licenses and to 41 have penalties brought against people. 42 43 The Airport Task Force meeting scheduled for May 2 will 44 be a study session for those task force members, although 45 residents are welcome. 46 47 Report of Mayor Linke: 48 49 No report. 50 Mounds View City Council Page 14 Regular Meeting April 24, 1995 1 Report of Administrator: 2 3 a. Samantha Orduno read an article that had been sent to her 4 regarding the importance of a good receptionist. Ms. Orduno 5 praised Audrey Almendinger for the wonderful job she has done 6 as Mounds View's receptionist. 7 8 Report of Staff: 9 10 a. Tim Cruikshank, Assistant to the City Administrator, reported 11 that the uniform settlement forms which--were presented to 12 Council would be available for public viewing at City Hall. 13 14 b. Mike Ulrich, Director of Public Works, reported that the 15 Public Works Department would be flushing watermains next 16 week. 17 18 Mayor Linke announced that there would be a Special Council Work 19 Session on April 25, 1995 at 6: 00 p.m. The next Council Work 20 Session will be May 1, 1995. The next Council Meeting will be 21 May 8, 1995. 22 23 ADJOURNMENT: 24 25 There being no further business before this Council, Mayor Linke 26 adjourned the meeting at 9: 30 p.m. 27 28 29 Respectfully submitted, 30 31 32 Judy Rider 33 Recording Secretary 34 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial 35 MY OF Agenda Section: 11.I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Report Number: 95-1348C 111176 Report Date: 5-5-95 STAFF REPORT Council Action: ❑ Special Order of Business CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE May 8. 1995 ❑ Public Hearings ❑ Consent Agenda 11 Council Business Item Description: Consideration of Introduction of Ordinance No. 562 Reestablishing Ordinance No. 533 Establishing a Moratorium on New or Used Car Lots and Motor Vehicle Sale Business with the City of Mounds View, and Resolution No. 4768 Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this report - Comments attached. Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.) -SUIVIMAE Y In January of 1994, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 533 which placed a moratorium on the establishment of automobile dealerships within the City. The moratorium was for a period of one year with the option of extension up to an additional 18 months. Due to my own oversight, the moratorium was allowed to expire in February of this year. I spoke with the City Attorney regarding this issue and it was his recommendation that the moratorium be reestablished for a period of 6 months to allow completion of the revisions to the Municipal Code governing such businesses. I would like to let the Council know that the Planning Commission has completed their review of the regulations and they will be forwarded to the Council in Ordinance form at the May 22 , 1995 meeting. {{r Please note that I have also included Resolution No. 4768 for consideration by the Council. It is the opinion of the City Attorney that adopting the Resolution will allow the moratorium to become effective immediately, whereas the Ordinance will not take effect for 30 days following publication (sometime in mid to late June) . aul Herrington, Community evelopment ment Coordinator RECOMMENDATION; Waive the reading and formally introduce Ordinance No. 562 reestablishing a moratorium on new or used car lots and motor vehicle sales businesses within the City. Adopt Resolution No. 4768 covering same. ORDINANCE NO. 562 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE REESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON NEW OR USED CAR LOTS AND MOTOR VEHICLE SALES BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW The Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby ordain: SECTION I. - PURPOSE AND INTENT At the direction of theCity Council, the Mounds View Planning Commission is in the process of reviewing the requirements for establishment of new or used car lots and motor vehicle sales businesses within the City. The Planning Commission has reviewed Chapters 40, 59 and 109 of the City Code and has determined that there is a need for further review and possible amendment of the existing regulations pertaining to the operation of such businesses within the City. On January 10, 1994, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 533 which placed a moratorium on new or used car lots and motor vehicle sales businesses within the City of Mounds View pending completion of he Planning Commission study. The Planning Commission has found that additional time is necessary for completion of their review and study of appropriate land use controls and regulations pertaining to new or used car lots and motor vehicle sales businesses within the City of Mounds View. SECTION II. REESTABLISHMENT OF MORATORIUM Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 462 . 355, Subdivision 4, this interim ordinance hereby reestablishes the force and effect of Ordinance No. 533 which placed a moratorium on new or used car lots and motor vehicle sales businesses within the City of Mounds View consistent with the provisions of Ordinance No. 533 in order to allow the City adequate time to complete the review and amendment of the Mounds View Municipal Code for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Mounds View. This Ordinance shall reestablish Ordinance No. 533 for a period of six (6) months. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance is effective 30 days after its publication Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 1995. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 1995. Ordinance No. 562 Page Two ATTEST: MAYOR (SEAL) CITY ADMINISTRATOR APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY RESOLUTION NO. 4768 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION REESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON NEW OR USED CAR LOTS AND MOTOR VEHICLE SALES BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW WHEREAS, The Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby ordain: SECTION I. PURPOSE AND INTENT At the direction of the City Council, the Mounds View Planning Commission is in the process of reviewing the requirements for establishment of new or used car lots and motor vehicle sales businesses within the City. The Planning Commission has reviewed Chapters 40, 59 and 109 of the City Code and has determined that there is a need for further review and possible amendment of the existing regulations pertaining to the operation of such businesses within the City. On January 10, 1994, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 533 which placed a moratorium on new or used car lots and motor vehicle sales businesses within the City of Mounds View pending completion of he Planning Commission study. The Planning Commission has found that additional time is necessary for completion of their review and study of appropriate land use controls and regulations pertaining to new or used car lots and motor vehicle sales businesses within the City of Mounds View. SECTION II. REESTABLISHMENT OF MORATORIUM Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 462 . 355, Subdivision 4 , this interim ordinance hereby reestablishes the force and effect of Ordinance No. 533 which placed a moratorium on new or used car lots and motor vehicle sales businesses within the City of Mounds View consistent with the provisions of Ordinance No. 533 in order to allow the City adequate time to complete the review and amendment of the Mounds View Municipal Code for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Mounds View. This Ordinance shall reestablish Ordinance No. 533 for a period of six (6) 'months. • Resolution No. 4768 Page Two NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council adopts Resolution No. 4768 reestablishing a moratorium on new or used car lots and motor vehicle sales businesses in the City of Mounds View for a period of six (6) months. Adopted this 8th day of May, 1995 ATTEST: MAYOR (SEAL) CITY ADMINISTRATOR