Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 1992/02/03 • . E. R. . B . lsi 3 COUNCIL tilORK SESSIO 1. 7:00 P.M. 1 . Discussion of Regional Senior Center Proposed Legislation 2. Community Services Survey (Decision Resources, Ltd.) 3. Report from Environmental Quality Task Force (Info to be provided at tha; aeet ttg.) ► f . .; 4. Redistricting Proposals 5. Discussion of Proposed 1992 Fee Schedule 6. Community Development Block Grant Application 7. Year EndJJepartrnent_Re-ports . Police . Finance . Public Works . Park and Recreation 8. Discussion of City Hall and Police Department Office Space 9. _ Discussion of Ramsey County Local Government Study Commission's Subcommittee Final Reports 410 10. Update on the Comprehensive Plan (per Mayor Linke) I 1. Agenda Section: nif © REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Report Number: 92-156WS STAFF REPORT Report Date: 1—2 9—9 2 EW' Council Action: ❑ Special Order of Business CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE FEBRUARY 3, 19 9 2 ❑ Public Hearings ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ Council Business Item Description: DISCUSSION OF REGIONAL SENIOR CENTER PROPOSED LEGISLATION Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this report - Comments attached. Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.) SUMMARY; The Mounds View members of the Regional Senior Community Center Task Force will be attending the work session on Monday, February 3 to recommend your approval for seeking special legislation which has been prepared for the continued plans for a Regional Senior Community Center. Mr. Bill Burns, City Manager for the City of Fridley will provide a short overview of the legislation and future plans. Staff is requesting the City Council to sign the resolution which is provided so that it can accompany the legislative bill. The purpose of the resolution is to simply acknowledge that the City of Mounds View (the other cities involved will be signing resolutions also) is supportive of the issue and the purpose of the legislation is to further the plans for the project. There is no risk to the City of Mounds View in the support of the legislation. This legislation is another step in the planning and development of the project. The step that will follow includes development of a joint powers agreement. It is during this stage that the City Councils will become directly involved in the project. But, that stage will not come to the table until this special legislation has been passed by the Legislature. Again, this is a resolution of support for continuing plans of the Regional Senior Community Center project. Mary Saarion, Director Parks, Recreation and Forestry Department, Approve, with signatures, the resolution so that it can accompany RECOMMENDATION; the legislative bill for action by the Minnesota Legislature during the February 1992 session. RESOLUTION NO. - 1992 A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF SPECIAL LEGISLATION FACILITATING THE CREATION OF A MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL SENIOR CENTER Whereas, the cities of Fridley, New Brighton, Spring Lake Park and Mounds View have investigated the feasibility of creating a Multi- City Senior Center, and Whereas, the joint cities have found that they can provide for senior services on a cost effective basis, by joining together and consolidating services, and required to facilitate the organization and operation of the Senior Center, and Whereas, the four cities recognize that a joint powers agreement will be developed and executed to define the obligations and operations of the Senior Center, and Whereas, the four cities find that it is their best interest to pursue the special legislation to create an opportunity to provide a cost effective means for senior programming. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of supports the attached special legislation contained in Exhibit A, to provide for a Multi-City Senior Center. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF THIS DAY OF , 1992. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK DRAFT 1 A bill for an act 2 3 relating to the cities of Fridley, Mounds View, New 4 Brighton, and Spring Lake Park, Minnesota; and 5 authorizing any two or more of them to participate 6 jointly in the acquisition, construction, equipping, 7 furnishing, financing, operation, and maintenance of a 8 senior citizen activity and recreation center and related 9 facilities. 10 11 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: 12 Section 1. DEFINITIONS. 13 As used herein, the following terms have the following 14 respective meanings 15 (a) "Bonds" means any of the obligations described in Section 16 2 to finance the Senior Center in whole or in part. 17 (b) "Cities" means any twoor more of the following cities: 18 the city of Fridley, county of Anoka, Minnesota; the city of Mounds 19 View, county of Ramsey, Minnesota; the city of New Brighton, county 20 of Ramsey, Minnesota; and the city of Spring Lake Park, counties of 21 Anoka and Ramsey, Minnesota. 22 (c) "City" means any one of the Cities. 23 (d) "Current Senior Levy" means, for each City, the aggregate 24 of current expenditures by that City for senior activities and 25 programs, specifically, $70,750 for Fridley, $12,700 for Mounds 26 View, $58,050 for New Brighton, and $2,257 for Spring Lake Park. 27 (e) "Senior Center" means a building and related improvements 28 and facilities designed for senior citizen/mature adult programs, 29 activities, and services. 27518 • i 1 procedure or substance by any home rule charter provision otherwise 2 applicable. 3 Section 3. LEVIES. 4 Each City may impose ad valorem tax levies from year to year 5 upon the taxable property within its jurisdiction to pay its 6 obligations under the Agreements, including without limitation debt 7 service on Bonds and all other expenses associated with the 8 completion, operation, and maintenance of the Senior Center. Each 9 City's levies (a) made for debt service on Bonds or (b) made (i) 10 under the Agreements for purposes other than debt service on Bonds 11 or (ii) for other senior activities or programs (but only to the 12 extent that the sum of (i) and (ii) exceeds that City's Current 13 Senior Levy) shall be andremain not subject to any limitation on 14 tax levies or similar statutory or home rule charter levy limits, 15 shall be deemed to be "special levies" under section 275.50, 16 subdivisions 5 and 5a, and shall not be subject to any limitation 17 provided pursuant to section 275.51 or 275.56 or other levy 18 limitation. 19 Section 4. LOCAL APPROVAL. 20 This act is effective for each City the day after compliance 21 by that City's city council with section 645. 021, subdivision 3 . 27518 ______ Poll shows support for senior center ' ., . PP . , gaining,significant support. Those • po 'REGIONAL • Majority willing are the same major amenities being ..:....::,...,. 'considered bythe task force. to raise taxes - by MacDonald Meade THE 21-MEMBER task force.. ' A four-city task force is moving to build facility has been meeting since last forward following a favorable summer considering the idea of the response to its community poll shared senior center. In November which surveyed resident attitudes seniors giving it one of those two the group identified five potential toward development of a shared priority levels. sites for the facility, all of which senior-citizen center. lie near where the four cities meet. Last week Decision Resources, ADDITIONALLY, 46 percent Four of the five sites are on non- , Inc. released the results of the of the senior households said they tax-generating properties currently.. .' . .. - . J . I. - . . • . - 1" • • 1 - _ . 1' - I. •/ .11' . •111 . I. Brighton, Mounds View; Spring non-senior households said they point are preliminary, the group Lake Park and Fridley residents on know of nearby seniors who they has suggested that the center's. their feelings toward and ideas for felt would be interested in using construction costs would run a regional senior-citizen center. the facility. roughly $1.7 million, and annual Decision Resources was operating costs would be about commissioned by the four cities NOT ONLY did the poll show $360,000. The latter cost is. and conducted the survey in early a senior center would be used, but presumed to be a cost that is • December. it showed that there is some already being paid by the four "There was a strong and willingness to increase taxes to pay cities and their seniors for current • widespread support •for the for it. senior programs but the construction of a Regional Senior The general population sample construction cost represents an Center,"Decision Resources writes showed that 21 percent would be additional cost to the cities. in its executive summary of the willing to raise their taxes as high According to Dana Rebelein, a survey. as $20 per year to pay for it while New Brighton City Council £Kt}mitt; ;Ji ? D#it€f}ii1r il It further concludes in the another 43 percent said they would member who co-chairs the Senior 1l2ii. summary, "A Regional Senior support various specific tax Center Task Force, to pay the- Center,then,is an idea whose time increases between $2 and $17 construction costs the cities likely has come." annually. The senior population will ask the Legislature for sample showed similar sentiment authority to enter into an joint- ACCORDING TO the survey, with 22 percent willing to raise powers agreement which will roughly one in five households in their taxes as high as$20 per year allow the cities to levy for the costs the four cities includes one or more and another 38 percent who would of constructing the facility outside senior citizens. The poll included support specific increases between of the existing levy limits on cities.: two facets including one that $2 and$17 annually. ..; queried a sample of the general HOWEVER, Rebelein said population in the four cities and a OFFSETTING those numbers before that occurs the task force second-that-included only-senior somewhat,-howeveruis-the-fact-that il-l-eontinue-to-eva-l-ua-te-th€- citizens. 21 percent of the senior-only survey,develop more accurate cost e execu ve summary no es samp e, an. per - • - es 'ma es an. a m•r- •e .i • 1 • that an interesting finding of the general-population sample said evaluation of the proposed sites. poll is the fact that a larger they would be unwilling to She said that process could lead to percentage of the general increase their taxes to pay for the the four cities continuing with the population supports the facility. process, or she said it could make establishment of the senior center Asked to list their three top it clear to one or more of the cities than does that of just the senior choices out of a list of seven that it isn't feasible for them. population. amenities for such a senior center, congregate dining/large gathering She suggested that she would NONETHELESS,both groups facilities was easily the top choice. hope much of the research work strongly support the idea with 51 Kitchen and kitchenettes were also will occur in time for the task force percent of the general population listed as a high priority in the to release its final report and : - I deeming it a "top" or "major" facility, with an arts and crafts recommendation to the cities priority, and 52 percent of the room and a game room also sometime in February. L 1 I� h. -5 ) Jan14 : � , ,L 11 I- r1-;1L:L'cY ILL : v1"_ r'1-1 �' �•1 , _� r` fJ�� . UU_ h-' ,i _ 1, • SPECIAL LEGISLATION FOR MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL SENIOR CENTER A. Pur • . e of S eci I Le a islati rn: 1. Avoidance of levy limits. 2_ Issuance of G.O. bonds without a referendum. 3. Indebtedness does not count against debt limits of any city. 4. Obligations created by joint powers agreement for debt service and operating expenses "shall be valid and binding obligations." B. Provisions of Joint Powers Agreement: 1. Budgets approved by governing board within limits ectahlished by jointpowers agreement. 2. Limits based on first year's budget as adjusted annually for changes in CPT. 3. Each City's share and limit derived from formula (percent of total population plus percent of senior population divided by 2). 4. City Council control through: a Appnintment memherw of vovernin2 board. b. k(aising or lowering of expenditure a limits in concert with other cities. 1 • • 5. Twenty-year commitment. 6. Dih-.'wo1uik'u w tt.1'11]lnatioo pos.s.i 71c 17it,. F iiancin1 ohligations continue. C. Sched< <�le� 1. Four City Councils asked to approve. resolution of support. 2. Legislation to be jacketed and introduced shortly after legislature reconvenes on February 17 or 1$, 1992. 3. Resolutions will be attached to legislation as it is considered by legislative committees. 2 MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL SENIOR CENTER SERVICE DISTRICTS This legislation would allow four units of government to provide a public service through the establishment of a Multi-jurisdictional Senior Service Center utilizing joint powers authorities as authorized by law. • The goveming boards of this Multi-jurisdictional Senior Center shall be composed of representatives appointed by the Councils from the four participating units of government. Their appointment or term of office shall be determined through the Joint Powers Agreement • Budgets shall be approved by the governing board of the Mufti jurisdictional Senior Center. • The first year total budget of the Muiti-jurisdictional Senior Center shall establish the base by which the maximum annual levy will be derived. Each of the successive years following first years budget shall be adjusted by the consumer price index for the minneapolis/st paul area The total adjusted budget shall be allocated annually to each city by the following formula: each cities share of total population added to each cities share of senior population divided by two,that percentage times the need revenue derived from taxes as defined in the budget (See example) jbl/ 1 1990 %OF POPULATION+ CURRENT4° yam` ((�� 1990 SENIOR POP %OF SENIOR POP NEEDED COST CITY COST NEW TAX / � POPULATION % OVER 60 % DIVIDED BY 2 FROM TAXES SR PROGRAMS DOLLARS 1 RIDLEY 29700 40.822% 3728 54.320% 47.57% 140,858 70,750 70,108 MOUNDS VIEW 13700 18.830% 688 10.025% 14.43% 42,720 12,700 30,020 NEW BRIGHTON 22125 30.410% 1991 29.011% 29.71% 87,973 58,050 29,923 SPRING LAKE PARK 7230 9.937% 456 6.644% 8.29% 24,549 2,257 22,292 72755 1 6863 1 100.00% 296,100 143,757 152,343 . FIRST YEAR TOTAL BUDGET 423,000 CONSUMER-PRICE-INDEX 1..00 REVENUE FROM OUTSIDE SOURCE 30.00% 126,900 REVENUE NEEDED FROM TAXES 296,100 • When deriving each cities total levy limit, the amount levied for the operation, and repayment of debt on the Multi-jurisdictional Senior Center shall be outside the levy limit to the extent the cities share exceeds the amount provided for senior programming activities in year prior to the inception 4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 2• OMMD� STAFF REPORT Report Number: 92-15 7 WS EV° AGENDA SESSION DATE FEBRUARY 3, 1992 Report Date: 1-29-92 DISPOSITION Item Description: COMMUNITY SERVICES SURVEY (DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. ) Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this report - Comments attached. Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.) ,SUMMARY; As per Council direction, staff has met with representatives from Decision Resource, Ltd. to discuss conducting a community services survey. The proposal is attached for your consideration. Diane Traxler and Bill Morris of Decision Resources, Ltd. will be present at Monday night's meeting to discuss the proposal in detail. It is suggested that in addition to the services survey, that the survey consider questions relating to the golf course, continuance of Festival In The Park and the expansion/remodeling and/or construction of a new City Hall. / S. 11 . • a Orduno, City'dministrator RECOMMENDATION• Decision Resources Ltd. January 29, 1992 Ms. Samantha Orduno City Administrator Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway #10 Mounds View, Minnesota 55112 Dear Ms. Orduno: Decision Resources, Ltd. , is pleased to present this survey research proposal to you for survey research on tax and budget issues. Much of this proposal is based upon our earlier meeting with you. This prospectus is organized in three parts: a discussion of the goals of the research; a potential design; and, estimated project costs. As you will see, I am certain that DRL can provide the City with the information it seeks in both a cost-effective and timely manner. GOALS OF THE RESEARCH: The survey would assess the opinions and attitudes of the citizenry on four separate, but interrelated, issues: , 1. BUDGETARY PRIORITIES. Do residents agree with the general allocation of the City Budget? Do they have priorities with respect to reducing line items? Do they have priorities with respect to increasing line items? In general, are there services they would accept a tax increase to protect or augment? Or, will most residents accept servicQ reductions in order to avoid further tax increases? 2 . SERVICE CUTS. When budget reductions are translated into service cuts, do residents still support them? What types of direct services are they willing to forego? What programs are candidates for reduction or elimination? Are there particular types of programs which have become "sacred cows" to residents and which risk pronounced ire if they are diminished or. eliminated? 3 . GENERAL TAX CLIMATE. How widespread is the feeling that taxes at the local level are too high? How accurate are residential opinions about the current city tax rate? Do residents prefer service cuts or property tax increases to maintain city services 3128 Dean Court • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 • (612)920-0337 • Fax (612) 929-6166 at their current levels? 4 . RESIDENTIAL DEMOGRAPHICS. What is the profile of the average tax protester? What groups tend to support the various programs that the city offers? Is there a balance between taxes and service cuts which will please the majority of Mounds View residents? The survey questionnaires would contain a series of items aimed at exploring each of these topics, as well as any other concerns of the City Council and City Staff. In addition to providing an accurate gauge of attitudes at the present time, the survey would be structured to provide an easy means of conducting further in- house monitoring in the future. DESIGN AND SCHEDULE OF THE RESEARCH: Decision Resources, Ltd. , proposes to conduct a telephone survey of 400 randomly selected residents of Mounds View. A random sample of 400 residents across the area would provide results projectable to the entire population within + 5. 0 percent in 95 out of 100 cases. The sample is also of sufficient size to permit more detailed breakdowns of response patterns within key demographic groups. Working with the City Council and City Staff, DRL would develop a questionnaire of approximately sixty questions units. The survey instrument would include open-ended and closed-ended queries, as well as demographic questions. To insure the integrity of the sample, DRL places the most exacting sampling standards in the industry on our procedures. Before an alternate respondent is substituted for a designated target, numerous tries are made to contact the initial household. The calls take place during various times on weekday evenings and during the weekend. Our phoners are also instructed to seek convenient appointments with interviewees, cutting our in-process - - - - -an four percent on-average. The computer analysis will be obtained from the DRL remote job entry facility to the University of Minnesota CYBER system, insuring both access to the most current statistical analysis programs and confidentiality of the data set. The City would be presented with two bound copies of the final report highlighting all the major findings of the study. A volume of all computer generated cross tabulations and other multivariate statistical techniques will also be included tO provide the "raw" data required for further secondary analyses. In addition, the findings will be presented by me at any meetings or work sessions specified by the City. The components of the project and the proposed time schedule is outlined below: 2 1. Planning meetings with the City to establish the topics to be covered in the survey. Based on these topic concepts, DRL would word specific, neutral questions. These activities would be completed within one week of the initiation of the contract. 2. Structuring of questions and final approval of the survey instrument. These activities to be completed within two weeks after initial meetings. 3 . Final determination of the field dates for interviewing. 4. Pre-testing and, if needed, approval of resulting revisions. This activity to be completed by the second day of field work. 5. Completion of all fieldwork within a two week period. 6. Computer analysis and preparation of written report. All analytical analysis and commentary will be available within four weeks after completion of the field work. 7. Meetings with the City in either a work session or formal presentation to explain and discuss the results of the study. The final discussion and strategy session can be arranged at a time convenient for all parties. DRL personnel are also willing to attend a reasonable number of additional meetings for dissemination of the data. On-going telephone consultation about any part of the study, analysis, or implications is also included for the duration of the usefulness of the data, usually two-to-three years. PROJECT COSTS: The cost of a 60 question unit survey based upon a 400 household random sample would be $5, 800. 00. Each additional question unit beyond the initial sixty would be $90. 00. If the questionnaire length were less than this initial es-t mate, a reduction in the cost would result. Included in this cost is the construction of the questionnaire instruments, all survey methodology, two bound copies of the written analysis, one volume of crosstabs and related statistical tests, an executive summary of the highlights of the study, and a reasonable number of presentations and work sessions. As company policy, DRL requires one-half of the cost prior to the commencement of field work; the remainder is due upon delivery of the final written report. Unless otherwise arranged, DRL invoices clients at the time of the approval of the survey instrument and prior to any fieldwork. I hope this proposal sufficiently covers all the information you 3 require. We greatly appreciate your request for this proposal and look forward to the opportunity to work with the City of Mounds View again. Sincerely, ‘11 '\%., ...V161-‘1.--- William D. Morris, Ph.D. President 4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 4 1111VDS Report Number: 92-15 8 WS STAFF REPORT p Report Date: 1-30-92 AGENDA SESSION DATE FEBRUARY 3, 19 9 2 p DISPOSITION Item Description: REDISTRICTING PROPOSALS Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this report - Comments attached. Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.) ,SUMMARY; The City of Mounds View was divided into two legislative districts in the past, namely 52A and 52B. The proposed legislative district boundary now incorporates Mounds View into one legislative district, 52B. (See Exhibit 1) When the City was within the two legislative districts, 52A and 52B, the City was split into four voting precincts to accommodate the split in the house districts (See Exhibit 2) . Redistricting In 1991 federal and state mandates required redistricting based on the 1990 Census. The City of Mounds View is not affected by the redistricting mandate for the following reasons: 1) With the proposed legislative boundaries, Mounds View is now encapsulated in one legislative district, 52B, and 2) Mounds View's city officials are elected at large. There are no wards, and 3) Mounds View is all in School District 621, and 4) Mounds View is in one county district. The City of Mounds View, therefore, is not required by law to redistrict. However, at this time it would be a good idea to take a look at the City's precinct boundaries for other reasons. With the budget cuts, decreased revenues and the decrease in local government aid, I have completed some research and would like to propose to the Mayor and Council another option for reducing election expenditures without any negative impact to the election process . • ' ---41,V-Atet) RECOMMENDATION; Michele Sever on, Deputy Clerk Staff recommendation is to adopt the single polling place designation (see attached statute) for the April Presidential Primary and for the September and November elections consolidating the precinct boundaries from four to one creating one large precinct. -2- Listed below are some of the statistical specifics about the City of Mounds View which aided my thinking in regards to this proposal: 1) Mounds View is entirely in School District 621 with the school board members being elected at large. 2) The County Commissioner's position represents the entire City of Mounds View. 3) At the present time, all Mounds View residents vote - — at a single polling place, namely Bel-Rae Ballroom, which is centrally located within the City. 4) The elected officials for the City of Mounds View represent the entire City and are elected at large. I have contacted the Secretary of State's Office and spoke with Greg Taylor regarding compilation of precincts or relocating our boundaries to make a single precinct. Greg could find nothing in the statutes that would prevent Mounds View from relocating it's boundaries. I then contacted the County to find out their opinion regarding the laws and difficulties one might encounter in pursuing such a change. From the County's standpoint the only disadvantage might be the fact that the election judges may have to do summary sheets for each tabulator (possibility of only using two) and using three for back-up. The advantages in compilation of boundaries and creating a single precinct are as follows: 1) Could reduce number of election judges by approximately 25% . The reduction of judges would make the administrative process of ascertaining judges easier as in the past it has been difficult to obtain a f_ull_c.omplement_o_f qualified judges for the elections. 2) voter's would not have to stand in long lines as the City would use all voting booths and 2 (3,4,5, ) tabulators . This process would cause less confusion among those voting as to where they would register. 3) Less money expended in printing of forms and in sending out notices . (Also, at this time the state is contemplating sending out notices to all residents of cities if the cityrequestsit because of the changes made through redistricting. This would mean everyone in our city could be notified at the state's expense. ) -3- 4) Less administrative election staff time devoted to obtaining judges, setting up and taking down the equipment. 5) Less confusion with absentee ballots. 6) A more timely and efficiently run election at a lower cost with no loss of service to the voting public. Disadvantages 1) At the end of the evening a summary sheet would have to be prepared for each tabulator where now it is automatic through the Optech III tabulator. 2) Candidates would not be aware of the area where individual support votes were being cast. Phase In Approach The phase in approach to going to a single precinct for the City of Mounds View would be to adopt a resolution declaring a single polling place designation for the City. The City can adopt a resolution 30 days before the April 7th Presidential Primary designating the Bel-Rae as a single polling place for the residents of Mounds View. This means that a single board of election judges may be appointed to serve at this polling place (approximately 12 total judges for this election) . These number of judges to serve is determined by considering the number of voters in the entire city as if they were voters in a single precinct. Separate ballot boxes would be provided and separate returns made for each precinct in the city. Crl%bit 1 awMt �1 �1 IRII �� V 1 c __ ,bALwy,-_ � C0. ....i tRl _. , o �vt *7. t, ' _ . ,CSI / ! _� lib - ,' t7 IrSJ i4 q .K. M[ } I Iti . /� Of Q. I . a d g0:ell' 1�, I. r (1 2 , I' // ' d - `s• • I 0. Ylq rr O ii 4. • 'I <.0 u 1 H.____ _. al 140.4 ' 1 3 • 1 moo' '� I 4I I . C3 ' fI. i3 I .6.,,.,.-,c ' t — — — .we L______ ' ' . ;1101 - 31 ', : _ ' g - cunt / fi 1.../A•<awe 1 m...H (� ` I . ( is ., WM se ir i r , • ; : _. _ • • 4t0... tl1 .4 .`.1, 6.4.000 1 ' PKLc nom a — ilr' • e s.•..t , .r, .I ',nye ..4, i . ..1 31 ..ii ...,...., COUNTY ..?! r•- . ' - .76 • • el �� A e.e•p jT. ei o i I " s.7 • —MI dl': I �I � i �} wono.M. • a 3 i ZS —� .� scut 4.ANC ,4ew0e ,.,,t.f '© taut, .�0w� ( on„t >;t it – fr - J _ I sey1 0.4,E J` ` W V l I V i li ilk fr"( JQ a 31 '1 i tarn I •w0 © SLI y�• 0, I • til V { A lz -i - ._...._J —, • 4 I.. cons[ .., It f I at ty ..c �... 1 _..• r y – 1 i z Ir ~I 71 MOS( Liii _ O At 8 .1 I iee00.cL i/.t. il 3 :_1Iup ` _. � �- --_'" Jt 004., .°'" '! .�. �� / -- I4 M IT cair ;f J-711)-11-11 I - — — . — 4tw a>Maa.trew 7_1 �.. \ Dt # ic+ 528 . _,.....: -__stn re ss i o d Ois4y 4 it,, \\ ,i __. • 7.„ . . ,___,__.,„_.,..._ __ _\ -3 ... • . _._... .. • ®! [or& {t�f:4 '='' 11. 0 _ _'I _ ,tt ft tXfl1_bf Z. c00.1Y ANOKA CO, +Wei IRI _ )7'� /, I V21 I NA 1713e l�� ca +o. . IIjI 1�I I ,- - alr I 1 MM7 w01T I , ., • . 1: I i 7 .miaoIw I. 11L II:I d Y .21! / J 1 L • ; � V . L , .t3, i .• . . ,...., . i �� :– I +•ih5.1 •a.o I�I O1 1► •1 awn"PSIO ' / 7.<...00... . 10141111 3. WE I I r -ii..coo a RO... II \ I V I 0.<.000 ^CML[ .•.•+om Q ~ .�• 1 0.111111 't 1E6 I �t I I' yl c.000 • C[IIAT•/-• � -- __ <I I l e. I :1 II i1 I ; ..o.wl a. a • !IP Vi1.1111 3, l.u+t /� `1 V v •1 \ Ilk i O , J' J \\j\ ' ry _ I:: al V G 1 �I aultllr K w 1, :.I I Ei<MW.AMC i \ t ' I 1 ,..1 �. , N.?' I I K (7i!):1 2 ___ 11 1 . ,I,., Alowel i . ! I i 11_ - 'iji1.001 . L. ~o -• .4 _ _ LCi K1 — I r1 KtrG <I .000rt1 _. ` 8I 1 •:.: t.c!-� .1 ^ - 1 g O \Te:9:.-- 017 71 I O+..a • 71`�I —t 1 I 8 Ali r s ___..4,z7,______ _. /! I4\ 11 (74—___1_4_71,___4__I 74 1`4. _.•�f a -x.m YtTr Meal TON I Ave* \ Pre cs v%a A • 1,...0isle►Al 4 ve O%i ...... -- ... . rmw_—_.'0_\ tej :, . . C0� 771 c7 • 0_ RI�eM�wr'eiTr �y_ •• _ ' i I 204B.I6 ELECTIONS;GENERAL PROVISIONS5086' of election judges appointed shall be determined by considering the number of voters -,-1.the entire city as if they were voters in a single precinct. Separate ballot boxes sh. be provided and separate returns made for each precinct in the city. ,, Subd. 3. Designation effective until changed. The designation of a polling placer k pursuant to this section shall remain effective until a different polling place is desig nated for that precinct.No designation of a new or different polling place shall become effective less than 30 days prior to an election. t•. Subd. 4. Prohibited locations. No polling place shall be designated in any place :- .., where intoxicating liquors or nonintoxicating malt beverages are served or in any adjoining room.No polling place shall be designated in any place in which substantial,- :41_,, compliance with the requirements of this chapter cannot be attained. Subd. 5.Access by elderly and handicapped.Each polling place shall be accessible' t ' to and usable by elderly and physically handicapped individuals. A polling place is ,; I deemed to be accessible and usable if it complies with the standards in paragraphs(a) ,„' to (f). d (a) At least one set of doors must have a minimum width of 31 inches if the doors must be used to enter or leave the polling place. 4 : (b) Any curb adjacent to the main entrance to a polling place must have curb cuts ,-- or temporary ramps.Where the main entrance is not the accessible entrance,any curb adjacent to the accessible entrance must also have curb cuts or temporary ramps. ; . (c) Where the main entrance is not the accessible entrance, a sign shall be posted , I. at the main entrance giving directions to the accessible entrance. ,1 . (d) At least one set of stairs must have a temporary handrail and ramp if stairs , must be used to enter or leave the polling place. (e) No baryfer in the polling place may impede the path of the physically handi- ; ' ,. capped to thej�(voting booth. 40).At let one handicapped parking space, which may be temporarily so desig- ' nated by the municipality for the day of the election,must be available near the accessi- ;': bre'entrance.. . The doorway, handrails, ramps, and handicapped parking provided pursuant to this subdivision must conform to the standards specified in the state building code for •, accessibility by handicapped persons. A governing body shall designate as polling places only those places which meet `.;, the standards prescribed in this subdivision unless no available place within a precinct is accessible or can be made accessible. :,1 Subd. 6. Public facilities. Every statutory city, home rule charter city, county, town, school district, and other public agency,including the University of Minnesota '' and other public colleges and universities,shall make their facilities,including parking, available for the holding of city, county, state, and federal elections. A charge for the iI use of the facilities may be imposed in an amount that does not exceed the lowest • , arrrount-charge-d-ta any-public-m-private group. rl History: 1981 c 29 art 4 s 16; 1983 c 124 s 4; 1984 c 471 s 5; 1985 c 307 s 1; 1987 c 266 art 1 s 25 } 204B.17 CHANGE OF POLLING PLACE BY ELECTION JUDGES. , r, When a designated polling place does not comply with the requirements of this chapter the election judges of that precinct,on or before the opening of the polls on elec- tion day and upon approval by the municipal clerk in municipalities or school districts or the county auditor in unorganized territory, shall procure a polling place which is 1 ,-_ as near the designated polling place as possible and which does comply with those " requirements. i-i,t When a new polling place is procured by the election judges, they shall meet on election day at the original polling place where they shall fill any vacancies in their num- i ber, publicly announce the change in polling place to the voters who are present and ill : 2 ,1087 ELECTIONS;GENERAL PROVISIONS 204B.19 post a notice in large print of the change in a conspicuous place. They shall also post notice in a location visible by voters who vote from their motor vehicles as provided nsection 204C.15, subdivision 2. Upon completing these duties the election judges 'shall adjourn to the new polling place, where they shall post a similar notice of the Change in polling place. The election judges shall certify to the appropriate governing body the expenses incurred because of the change.These expenses shall be paid as part of the expenses of the election. • ,-_ t. History: 1981 c 29 art 4 s 17; 1984 c 471 s 6; 1990 c 453 s 5 ',204B.18 POLLING PLACES; EQUIPMENT. •n„. Subdivision 1.Booths.Each polling place must contain a number of voting booths ' -,in proportion to the number of individuals eligible to vote in the precinct. Each booth +`must be at least six feet high,three feet deep and two feet wide with a shelf at least two ,-4, .' feet long and one foot wide placed at a convenient height for writing.The booth shall • -"-•"be provided with a door or curtains. Each accessible polling place must have at least one accessible voting booth or other accessible voting station. All booths or stations ; REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 5 STAFF REPORT Report Number: 9 2—15 9 W S 111706 ort Date: 1—2 9—9 2 AGENDA SESSION DATE FEBRUARY 3, 19 9 2 p DISPOSITION Item Description: Discussion of Proposed 1992 Fee Schedule Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this report - Comments attached. Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.) 4UMMARY; As per direction of the Council, staff is in the process of reviewing the City's fee and license structure to determine the need for readjustment of the fees to a more comparable market fee structure. Most notably, are the license fees regarding on-sale and off-sale liquor establishments, various planning and development fee structures and administrative offense fees. Staff has been surveying other communities and will have the results of the survey information at the meeting Monday night. op Sao. tha Ordurlo, Ci y Administrator RECOMMENDATION: 1111REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 6. 706 STAFF REPORT Report Number: 9 2—16 0 WS re 1-29-92 AGENDA SESSION DATE FEBRUARY 3, 1992 Report Date: DISPOSITION Item Description: DISCUSSION OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATIONS Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this report - Comments attached. Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.) ,SUMMARY; The City is preparing several CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) applications to fund several projects in the City. Mary Saarion, Ric Minetor and myself are preparing applications for such projects as a latch-key program through the Parks and Recreation Department, upgrading of City Hall to be in compliance with the American Disabilities Act and an application to assist Mounds View Square in upgrading their facilities to be in compliance with the ADA. The application process is very involved and has taken a considerable amount of staff time to prepare. Staff will present the application topics and summarize each application at the Monday meeting. In order to formally process the applications, the County requires that the Council formally approve a resolution in support of each application. Pending discussions at the Work Session, resolutions can be prepared for the February 10th Council meeting. All CDBG applications must be into the County by February 14th. ntha Orduno, Cit Administrator RECOMMENDATION• RESOLUTION NO. 4179 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING FOUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PARKS, RECREATION & FORESTRY DEPARTMENT. WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View has had a decrease in Local Government Aids and is at current levy limits, the budget for 1992; and WHEREAS, the decreases in the Parks, Recreation & Forestry Department budget require an increase of user fees and decreases the amount of funding available for park projects; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Block Grants are available for the purpose of funding projects which are beneficial to low/moderate income families and the special needs of the disabled; and WHEREAS, the following projects adhere to the criteria of the Community Development Block Grants: 1. Lambert Park Handicapped Accessible Playground 2. The development of a handicapped accessible hard surface path at Silver View Park along the northern section of the pond and upland area. 3. Fee assistance for low/moderate income persons. 4. Subsidies for ticket sales for the 1992 performances by the Mounds View Community Theater for low/moderate income persons. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mounds View supports all four projects and authorizes all four applications to be submitted for funding through the Community Development Block Grant; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mounds View authorizes the Director of Parks, Recreation & Forestry to administer the projects which are funded by the CDBG with the intention of further providing benefits to the community. Adopted this 10th day of February, 1992. (SEAL) Mayor ATTEST: City Administrator aOa.PaqSTUT n •y A4TO 'ounpap WOI INUNISTAIIAIOjali •buTgeew s,APp •n ao; peaudead eq osTP ITT' sWsTuPuoaur• buTpun; eTgTssoa • sTPsodoad quemqaudea aoTTod euk uo sq.soo LzPuTmTlead Tan pun sabuPuo uoT4Pe.1oag puP sxaPd 'eoeds a T;;o TIPS ATO uTPUr 944 ;o uoTgPanbT;uooaa urTaequT alp ao; sequinTqse a.soo buTaudead sT aoLauTyi oTH n • (eoeds exujo euros puP ebPamb og uoTsaatmoo) p �.g spee eoPdg auk uT peuTTino sesn pepueunuooaa exp. ao; eoPds 944 ezTTT3n '&TgPaTSap eaom pup .SPej Lien alp qv eoEds eftaoq.s a0J A4TTToP; peq-POPA 944 ezTTTgn oa. AgTuna.aoddo uP squesead AgTTT°P; queurqPaaq aaqPM queaano exp. ;o uoT4POPA eus •eopds efPaogs 'ATeTeTpaU U1T .sour 'pup e3T;;o TPuomppP ;o peeu uT osTP sT quemqxedaa aoTTod aus • s4TnoaTo MoTq qou TTTM SLTun bUT4Pau TPuoTgTppP euk a.Puq. os pepeeu eq TTTm xaOM TP3Ta40eTe TPuoTgTPPP 'PeaP 4P114 UT 111e3sAs TPDT1 09Te pepPoTaano pup peqypqno gPtteuIos 'queaano aua. oa. ena •buTqueq paPogeseq ;o maw euros 3o peeu uT sT pup pee ATegpnbepP qou ST Pale e3T;;o queur.aPdea uoT4Peaoag puP S3[aPa aus • suoTgTgaPd aOT;;o TPuoT4TppP Jo esPuoand eTgTssod auq. puP suoTa.Paa3TP buTqueq 'quemeoptd euoud 'buTaTMaa TPoTagoeTe aouTur oq pegPTea sesuedxe uT fl nsea TTTM PeaP 90T11 uTPur alp 3o uoTqPan5T;uooeH ParP eoT;;o TPaqueo auk uT eoEds eDT;3o ;o uoTTPanbT;uooag * • aoSTnaednS omeTTw exp. puP 2uP4STSsV eATgPagsTUTurptr uoTlpeaoeu puP s)aPd 944 U99eq TTP 944 ;o TPAoureg PeaP xaeTO TTOaAPd /4uRqun000y exp. uT seoT;;o oiq eua. ueeia.eq TTPM ctn. Jo TPAOureg Pe1P e3T;;o uTPUI TTPH 1I LTO e44 uT TTPM ;TPu exp. 3o TPA0UIeg IsuoTgou buTMoTTo; aua. sepnTouT Puy pegoegqv sT gnoAPT pesodoad euy •u0TgPanbT;uooea eoPds UITaequT Lzo s;sT4Ps P eUTurae .ep oq gjugs ua.TM 48111 SPt ;;P4s 'PeaP 93TJJ0 TIPS ALTO uTPUI euq- UTIfTM eDPdS ;o esn queToT;3auT puP buTpMoaoaano aaanas 944 94PTA9TTP 04 4ao;19 UP III •;abpng Z66T eua. uT pepnTouT qou SPM TIPS 'qTO ;o uoTsuPdxe puP buTTepowea aus oCaussaoau we speaks 3uauiaiddns 'piny) Sauuzuzng/uoi3uuuidx3 •pallorwe slueunuop - 4.zodea stuff 3uaucaiddns squauiuzoo oN - :uompuauiuiooag/matnag s,aoluagstutuzpy a3KdS aOI3.30 ZNHWIL IVdHQ aDIZOd (INV `I'I` .H ALIO JO NOISSIIOSIQ :uopduosea uzan NOI LISOdSIU • Z 6-6Z-T :aqua gaodag Z 6 6T ' E xuvrnmaa a,LVQ NOISSaS Va aDV SMT 9 T-Z 6 :aaquinN 3aodag s lOaati aav LS • 8 :uoL pas upua2v NOLLvIaUISNOD rlIDM IOD 'UO3 LsarthalI REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 14 . 111111i" 92-162C STAFF REPORT Report Number: W Report Date: 1-29-92 AGENDA SESSION DATE FEBRUARY 3, 1992 p DISPOSITION Item Description: CITY LAPEL PINS Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this report - Comments attached. - Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.) SS IMMARm To help promote the City of Mounds View with civic organizations, businesses and other communities, staff has looked into the price and design of lapel pins with our City logo on them. These pins, which can be distributed for various reasons or worn by Council Members and staff, are common among other cities. The pins we have received quotes on are 1" in size, can use 1-4 colors in the design, are made of hard enamel on brass and use a butterfly-clutch to pin on. A pin sample and design options will be available at the meeting. Prices vary according to the size of the order, but the basic breakdown is: • 500 pieces @ $1. 19 ea. • 1000 pieces @ $1.09 aa. • 2000 pieces @ $1. 05 ea. There is a one-time die charge of $40.00 . Also, the above pricing includes a personalized imprinted card. If you do not wish to include these cards, deduct $.06 from the unit price. It takes about 10 weeks to receive the pins after an order has been placed. Tim Cruikshank Management Assistant RECOMMENDATIONt Council is asked to direct staff on further action to take in this matter. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 17 00M� 92 -163WS STAFF REPORT Report Number:1111r6 Report Date: 1-29-92 AGENDA SESSION DATE FEBRUARY 3, 19 9 2 p DISPOSITION Item Description: Declaration of surplus equipment Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this report /�(J - Comments attached. Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.) SUMMARY; We would like to declare the following equipment/vehicles as surplus: (2) Homemade Trailers And to be sold at the State Auction: 1984 Ford Car 1982 GMC Truck (Water Dept. ) Staff Car 501 or 502* Police Dept. Car 792 or 7,93* , and 791 410 �� We are making this request because of the lack of use and/or obsolescence of tiiis egiiipment/vehicles by the City. *Mike Ulrich will be present at the Council Meeting to explain. "4:7/ irchael Ulrich RECOMMENDATION; Approval of the declaration of the surplus equipment . Z7- 18 !VREQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: S STAFF REPORT Report Number: 9 2-1 S 4 WS Report Date: 1-29-9 2 AGENDA SESSION DATE FEBRUARY 3, 19 9 2 P DISPOSITION Item Description: Purchase of Water Utility Truck Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this report - Comments attached. Explanation/battar supplement sheets as necessary.) SUMMARY; We obtained bids in the month of January for the Water Truck and Utility Box, they are as follows: Truck: Polar Chevrolet: $14,798.00 Rosedale Chev/Geo: $15,561 .40 Iten Chevrolet: $15,965.00 Utility Box: Crysteel: $4,816.00 Truck Utilities: $4,780.00 We would like to award the truck bid to Polar Chevrolet and the box to Truck Utilities, the total cost is $19,578.00. An additional $2,000..00 will be needed to equip the truck with propane, radio and emergency lighting. We would like to use the proceeds from the sale of the box that comes with truck we will order, which will be $900.00, and the proceeds from the sale of the 1982 GMC to offset the cost of the $2,000.00. M'lchael Ulrich RECOMMENDATION• Award the above bids and permission to use proceeds from sale of 1982 GMC truck, $900 . 00 from box sale to offset budget deficit . TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: SAMANTHA ORDUNO, CITY ADMINISTRATOR DATE: JANUARY 30, 1992 RE: INDEX FOR WEEK OF FEBRUARY 3, 1992 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MEETINGS SCHEDULED FOR THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 3, 1992 Monday, February 3, 1992, Work Session, 7:00 p.m. , City Council Chambers Commission, City Hall Council Chambers, 7:30 p.m. ITEMS PROVIDED IN THIS WEEK'S COUNCIL MEETING PACKET Agenda INFORMATION ONLY . Metro Meeting Minutes, January 24, 1992 . Mounds View Public School Agenda, January 27, 1992 . Agenda, Ramsey County Board of Directors, January 28, 1992 ADMINISTRATOR'S SCHEDULE Monday, February 3, 1992, Council Work Session Tuesday, February 4, 1992, Staff Meeting • Wednesday, February 5 - 10:30 a.m. Joint Cities Meeting, New Brighton - 1:30-4:30 p.m. , Department Performance Reviews - 7:00 p.m. , Ramsey County Study Commission • Friday, February 7, 1992, City Hall Facilities Tour, Lakeville, 9:00 - 2:00 p.m.