HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2007/04/02 (2)
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA
MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL
Monday, April 2, 2007
5:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Flaherty, Hull, Mueller
PUBLIC COMMENT
Citizens may speak to issues not on tonight’s agenda. Before speaking, please give your
full name and address for the minutes. Also, please limit your comments to three minutes
and sign in on the sign-in sheet located on the podium.
Agenda Items Discussed by Consensus
________ 5:30 pm Joint Meeting with the City of New Brighton City Council
A. County Road H and Silver Lake Road Intersection Improvements
B. School Liaison Officer at Irondale
C. Bus Routes
D. Development Update
________ 7:00 pm Regular Council Work Session
1. Annual Meeting with the Parks and Recreation and Forestry Commission
2. Public Works
A. Consider Request for Stop Signs on Edgewood Ave.
B. Draft Capital Improvement Program
C. Review Streets and Utilities Task Force
3. Community Development
A. Code Development Process - Presentation by Kathi Osmonson
B. Tree Preservation Ordinance
C. Mermaid Sign Replacement
4. Public Safety
A. Discuss the 800 MHz Radio In-Building amplification ordinance (N.
Zikmund)
5. Administration
A. Review 2007-08 Action Plan
B. 50th Anniversary Promotion
C. Full Time Cable Coordinator Position Description and Salary
D. City of Excellence Award Application
____________________________________________________________________________
Next Work Session: Monday, May 7, 2007 @ 7pm
Next City Council Meeting: Monday, April 9, 2007@ 7pm
Item No. 1
Meeting Date: April 2, 2007
Type of Business: WK
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City Administrator Review _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Parks and Recreation and Forestry Commission
Meeting
Background:
The City Council has indicated a desire to meet with all City Commissioners to
discuss various issues.
Discussion:
On February 22, 2007 and again on March 15, 2007 the Parks and Recreation
and Forestry Commission indicated a desire to discuss several topics with the
City Council. These topics are listed below:
Oakwood Park Improvement Project
The Commission has identified a need to upgrade Oakwood Park by creating an
athletic field (soccer/ LaCrosse type field), installing a playground geared for
younger children, and creating a disc golf course. The proposed upgrades to
Oakwood Park are divided into three phases:
Phase 1 – Grading and Irrigation Installation
Phase 2 – Playground Installation
Phase 3 – Disc Golf Course Installation
There are many issues associated with these improvements the Commission
would like to discuss with the Council.
Improving Ball Fields
The Commission has received several requests to improve City ball fields. The
Commission would like to discuss this need with the City Council.
Operations of the Mounds View Community Center
The Commission would like discussion and clarification on what role they should
play with regard to the Mounds View Community Center.
Attendance of the Commission at City Council Meetings
The Commission would like discussion regarding the City Council’s preference
on whether they think the Commission should attend more City Council meetings
– individually or as a group.
Bethlehem Baptist Church – Donation Process and Procedure
The Bethlehem Baptist Church donates $25,000 annually ($12,500 semi-
annually) to organizations and causes of their choosing. The Commission would
like discussion regarding the process and procedure of this donation and how
they can play an active role. The Commission would like to discuss whether a
formal committee could be developed or City representatives identified to assist
in working with the Bethlehem Baptist Church so as to provide a list of park-
related needs that could be considered as candidates for donations.
Number of Parks and Recreation and Forestry Commissioners?
With the recent submittals of applications and subsequent appointments to the
various City commissioner positions for 2007, the Parks and Recreation and
Forestry Commissioners would like discussion regarding the number of
commissioners that best serves the community and achieves the best results.
Other Topics?
Recommendation:
The Parks and Recreation and Forestry Commissioners thank the City Council
for the opportunity to discuss these matters.
Staff is looking for direction on these matters. Specifically, Staff is looking for
Council direction and input as to how they would like to proceed with the
aforementioned topics.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2007- 2013
Draft listing of projects / also contains possible projects beyond the 5-year scope 6/28/2006
Project Cost
Year Project Description 2007 Dollars
Utility Franchise City Bonds Special
Project
Park
Dedication MSAS Assessments
Federal
Funds
DNR Trail
Grants City TIF
MNDOT
Cooperative
Agreement
Ramsey
County
CSAH
Funds
County
Road 10
Turnback
Funds
Other
Local
Funds
2007
2007 CR 10 / Trail Segment 9-10 10 foot bituminous trail - Silver Lake to Long Lake Rd - start in the fall of 2006 601,000$ 601,000$ $455,270.71 contract +32%
2007 Generators: portable 2 portable generators to power wells, lift stations and possibly emergency command center if need 100,000$ 100,000$ $70,000 for Water and $30
2007 On-Line Bill Pay Software purchase an on-line bill paying software package 6,000$ 6,000$
2007 Public Works Shop Addition / Rehabilitation (design phase)Indoor storage for trucks and equipment / Roof repair, windows, doors,parking lot,fence - in 2006 50,000$ 50,000$
2007 Traffic Signalation @ intersection of Co. Rd. H and Silver Lak Finance the installation of a traffic signal @ Co. Rd. H & Silver Lake Road - County to reimburse?212,000$ 212,000$ Street Improvement Fund
2007 Seal Coat Project Seal coat numerous streets throughout the City 180,000$ 180,000$ Street Improvement Fund
2007 City Hall Alternative Power Supply Project Add generator to City Hall - see report from Dan Chmela dated April 4, 2006 80,000$ 80,000$ Possibly reduce this. Use
2007 City Hall Monument Sign Construct a City Hall Monument Sign DELETED 12,000$
2007 Community Center Relocation of Entrance Sign Relocate the Community Center signcloser to Edgewood Drive to Increase Visibility 9,000$ 9,000$
2007 Imaging System Imaging system to electronically record and store all City documents 15,000$ 15,000$
2007 Hillview Playground Equipment Replacement replace the playground equipment at Hillview includeingfiberfill replacement 38,000$ 38,000$
2007 Storm Water Project - Subwatershed AA-6 Feasibility Report - wetland management - Arden Ave. and TH10 -or other area based on street pr 15,000$ 15,000$
2007 Storm Sewer / Surface Water Rehabilitation Program Repair storm sewer and drainage issues throughout the City 50,000$ 50,000$
2007 Well Rehabilitation Project Inspect and rehabilitate Well No. 6 50,000$ 50,000$
2007 Water Division Building Repair Program Roof Hatch at Reservoir, Gutter/downspouts at Well No. 5, Windows and Doors at Well No. 2 25,000$ 25,000$ Was $13,000 in 2006-201
2007 CR 10 median enhancements through corridor Median treatments 65,000$ 65,000$
2007 Edgewood Drive Boulevard Project Place colored concrete or cobbles between curb and pathway 28,000$ 28,000$
2007 Park Rehabilitation Program Make repairs / add ammenities based on the Parks Needs Analysis 35,000$ 35,000$
2007 Greenfield Park Security Lights Replace / Upgrade Greenfield Park's security lights with more efficient fixtures 5,000$ 5,000$
2007 Oakwood Park Rehabilitation Project Develop a soccer field in Oakwood Park - northwest corner of Quincy and Hillview - Add disc golf 110,000$ 110,000$ $50,000 budgetd in 2006 /
2007 City Hall Landscape and Grading Project Re-grade around City Hall to create a positive grade and then landscape 18,000$ 18,000$
2007 Irrigation System at City Hall South side, East and West ends - originally budgeted in 2006 13,000$ 13,000$
2007 Silver View Park Parking Lot Project Resurface Silver View Park parking lot - determine maintenance needed: seal coat, overlay…This 50,000$ 50,000$
2007 Civil defence Siren Replacement Replace the Groveland Park (one of the three) civil defence sirens in the city. One was replaced v 16,000$ 16,000$
2007 Total 1,771,000$ 240,000$ -$ -$ 247,000$ 238,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 666,000$ -$ -$ -$ 392,000$
2008
2008 Pathway Construction Program Construct pathways as shown on the City Comprehensive Plan 104,000$ 104,000$
2008 CR 10 /Trail Segment 1-5 10 foot bituminous trail - North side of County Road 10 - CR H to Silver Lake Road (Red Oak Dr.)1,093,000$ 500,000$ 100,000$ 493,000$ Was scheduled for 2007 in
2008 Roadway Major Maintenance Project could be either 2005 Street Improvement Project area, or 2007-2008 area 1,600,000$ 225,000$ 291,000$ 320,000$ 764,000$
2008 Water System Repair Program Annual program to maintain the city's water system (coordinated with street projects)30,000$ 30,000$
2008 Sanitary Sewer System Repair Program Annual program to maintain the city's sewer system (coordinated with street projects)10,000$ 10,000$
2008 Mill and Overlay Project Mill and Overlay Mustang Drive (and perhaps Silver Lake Woods)350,000$ 70,000$ 280,000$
2008 Seal Coat Project Seal coat numerous streets (mainly the 2003 Street Improvement Project Area)150,000$ 150,000$ Street Improvement Fund
2008 Storm Water Project - Subwatershed GF-4 Feasibility Report - wetland mngt - Greenfield Ave and Hillview Rd 15,000$ 15,000$
2008 Storm Water Project - Subwatershed AA-3 New outlet pipe from wetland on the west side of Groveland Park 3,500$ 3,500$
2008 Storm Water Project - Subwatershed GF-4 Construct sedimentation basin at inlet pipe from Edgewood Dr.95,200$ 95,200$
2008 Storm Sewer / Surface Water Rehabilitation Program Repair storm sewer and drainage issues throughout the City 30,000$ 30,000$
2008 Spring Creek Regional Pond - Land Acquisition Acquire the land necessary tro construct the Spring Creek Regional Pond (200'X500"=100,000sq.f 230,000$ 230,000$
2008 Water Division Building Repair Program General Building Repairs to: Booster Station, Reservoir, Water Treatment Plant No. 1, Wells 2, 5, 110,000$ 110,000$
2008 Well Head Protection Program Study of the City's well field as required by the Pollution Control Agency 25,000$ 25,000$
2008 CR 10 / CR H Intersection Reconstruct east leg and new signal system, and landscaping 1,391,000$ 908,000$ 300,000$ 70,000$ 113,000$
2008 CR 10 median enhancements through corridor Median treatments 130,000$ 130,000$ Maybe moved to 2008 top
2008 Community Center Parking Lot Rehabilitation Redesign so the front ends of vehicles do not overhang sidewalk; address drainage problem by da 30,000$ 30,000$ Was scheduled for 2007 in
2008 City Hall Playground Equipment Replacement replace the playground equipment at City Hall includeing fiberfill replacement 32,000$ 32,000$
2008 Civil defence Siren Replacement Replace the City Hall (one of the three) civil defence sirens in the city. One was replaced via resol 16,000$ 16,000$
2008 Park Lighting Project Add/replace lights on all City property with energy efficient fixtures. Must have a positive cost/ben 150,000$ 50,000$ 100,000$
2008 Total 5,594,700$ 548,700$ 225,000$ -$ 302,000$ 100,000$ 291,000$ 600,000$ 500,000$ 100,000$ 2,295,000$ 300,000$ 70,000$ 113,000$ 150,000$
Funding Source
Project Cost
Year Project Description 2007 Dollars
Utility Franchise City Bonds Special
Project
Park
Dedication MSAS Assessments
Federal
Funds
DNR Trail
Grants City TIF
MNDOT
Cooperative
Agreement
Ramsey
County
CSAH
Funds
County
Road 10
Turnback
Funds
Other
Local
Funds
Funding Source
2009
2009 Roadway Major Maintenance Location to be determined 1,600,000$ 225,000$ 291,000$ 320,000$ 764,000$
2009 Water System Repair Program Annual program to maintain the city's water system (coordinated with street projects)30,000$ 30,000$
2009 Sanitary Sewer System Repair Program Annual program to maintain the city's sewer system (coordinated with street projects)10,000$ 10,000$
2009 Pathway Rehabilitation Program Annual program to maintain city pathways 20,000$ 20,000$
2009 Playground Equipment Maintenance Annual program (Replace playground equipment at a park to be announced)25,000$ 25,000$
2009 Pathway Construction Program Construct pathways as shown on the City Comprehensive Plan 104,000$ 104,000$
2009 Spring Creek Regional Pond - Construction Construct a regional Storm water Pond at 2940 and 2948 Woodale Drive; Option No. 4 as per Dra 260,000$ 260,000$
2009 Storm Water Project - Subwatershed EW-4 Sediment removal at west leg of Silverview Pond 7,000$ 7,000$
2009 Storm Sewer / Surface Water Rehabilitation Program Repair storm sewer and drainage issues throughout the City 30,000$ 30,000$
2009 Water Division Building Repair Program Exterior Brick Repairs: Booster Station, Reservoir, Water Treatment Plant No. 1, Wells 2, 5, & 6 - 220,000$ 220,000$
2009 Well Rehabilitation Project Inspect and rehabilitate Well No. 1 and Well No. 2 60,000$ 60,000$
2009 Well Number No. 2 Replace existing power source 100,000$ 100,000$
2009 Greenfield Park Soccer Field Develop a soccer field in Greenfield Park near Trunk Highway 10 50,000$ 50,000$
2009 CR 10 / Long Lake Rd Intersection Mill and overlay, new striping, new signal system, and landscaping 715,000$ 270,000$ 325,000$ 108,000$ 12,000$
2009 CR 10 / Silver Lake Rd Intersection Mill and overlay, new striping, new signal system, and landscaping 1,040,000$ 270,000$ 638,000$ 120,000$ 12,000$
2009 CR 10 / Trail Segment 6 10 foot bituminous trail - Red Oak to Pleasant View 481,000$ 200,000$ 50,000$ 231,000$
2009 CR 10 / Other gateway features Added Entry Features 312,000$ 312,000$
2009 CR 10 median enhancements through corridor Median treatments 65,000$ 65,000$
2009 Sysco Outlot A Development Construct a small parking lot and bituminous trailway on the Sysco Outlot A property - City is comm 378,000$ 150,000$ 228,000$ Medtronic to pay for any a
2009 Public Works Shop Addition / Rehabilitation (construction pha Indoor storage for trucks and equipment / Roof repair, windows, doors,parking lot,fence/ Includes 598,000$ 598,000$ $273,000 expansion / $32
2009 Greenfield Soccer Field look at developing a soccer field in the undeveloped area near Trunk Hway 10 50,000$ 50,000$
2009 Total 6,155,000$ 717,000$ 225,000$ 200,000$ 747,000$ 250,000$ 291,000$ 320,000$ 540,000$ 50,000$ 2,104,000$ -$ 228,000$ 24,000$ 459,000$
2010
2010 Roadway Major Maintenance Location to be determined 1,600,000$ 225,000$ 291,000$ 320,000$ 764,000$
2010 Pathway Rehabilitation Program Annual program to maintain city pathways 20,000$ 20,000$
2010 Playground Equipment Maintenance Annual program (Replace playground equipment at a park to be announced)25,000$ 25,000$
2010 Pathway Construction Program Construct pathways as shown on the City Comprehensive Plan 104,000$ 104,000$
2010 Lambert Park Building (Design Phase)Replace building structure: Develop Architectural Design, Plan and Specs. :Smaller than Hillview 30,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$
2010 Storm Water Project - Subwatershed EW-6 Construct new outlet under County Road 10 100,000$ 100,000$
2010 FEMA Update Update the 1981 Flood Insurance Study 10,000$ 10,000$
2010 Storm Sewer / Surface Water Rehabilitation Program Repair storm sewer and drainage issues throughout the City 30,000$ 30,000$
2010 Well Number No. 4 Rehabilitate and bring Well No. 4 back on line, add pipe to Treatment Plant No. 1 545,000$ 545,000$ Was scheduled for 2008 in
2010 Well Rehabilitation Project Inspect and rehabilitate Well No. 1 and Well No. 2 60,000$ 60,000$
2010 Water System Repair Program Annual program to maintain the city's water system (coordinated with street projects)30,000$ 30,000$
2010 Sanitary Sewer System Repair Program Annual program to maintain the city's sewer system (coordinated with street projects)10,000$ 10,000$
2010 800mZ Radio Program convert City communications to 800 Mega Hertz 35,000$ 35,000$ Cost is rough estimate. M
2010 CR 10 / Woodale Dr Intersection New signal system and landscaping 657,000$ 544,000$ 113,000$
2010 CR 10 / Trail Segment 7 10 foot bituminous trail - Pleasant View to Knollwood 233,000$ 150,000$ 83,000$
2010 CR 10 / Trail Segment 8 10 foot bituminous trail - Knollwood to Silver lake 222,000$ 150,000$ 72,000$
2010 CR 10 median enhancements through corridor Median treatments 65,000$ 65,000$
2010 Total 3,776,000$ 785,000$ 225,000$ -$ 199,000$ 15,000$ 291,000$ 320,000$ 300,000$ -$ 1,373,000$ -$ -$ 113,000$ 155,000$
2011
2011 Roadway Major Maintenance Location to be determined 1,600,000$ 225,000$ 291,000$ 320,000$ 764,000$
2011 City Hall Roof Replacement Replace roof area at City Hall that was installed in 1975 50,000$ 50,000$
2011 Pathway Rehabilitation Program Annual program to maintain city pathways 20,000$ 20,000$
2011 Playground Equipment Maintenance Annual program to maintain city playground equipment 25,000$ 25,000$
2011 Pathway Construction Program Construct pathways as shown on the City Comprehensive Plan 104,000$ 104,000$
2011 Lambert Park Building (Construction Phase)Replace building structure: Contract for Construction: Smaller than Hillview 260,000$ 130,000$ 130,000$
2011 Storm Water Project - Subwatershed AA-5 Arden Avenue Trunk Storm Sewer 511,000$ 511,000$
2011 Storm Sewer / Surface Water Rehabilitation Program Repair storm sewer and drainage issues throughout the City 30,000$ 30,000$
2011 Greenfield Park Parking Lot Project Resurface Greenfield Park parking lot - determine maintenance needed: seal coat, overlay…50,000$ 50,000$
2011 Fire Trucks - Two New Trucks Mounds View's share (16.5%) of the total cost to purchase two new fire trucks 250,000$ 250,000$
2011 Water System Repair Program Annual program to maintain the city's water system (coordinated with street projects)30,000$ 30,000$
2011 Sanitary Sewer System Repair Program Annual program to maintain the city's sewer system (coordinated with street projects)10,000$ 10,000$
2011 CR 10 / CR I Intersection Reconstruct w/ right and left turn lanes, new signal system, and landscaping 1,918,000$ 692,000$ ########113,000$
2011 CR 10 / Trail Segment 11 10 foot bituminous trail - 100 yds NW of CR H2 to Woodale 355,000$ 200,000$ 100,000$ 55,000$
2011 CR 10 median enhancements through corridor Median treatments 65,000$ 65,000$
2011 Total 5,278,000$ 581,000$ 225,000$ 250,000$ 329,000$ 180,000$ 291,000$ 320,000$ 200,000$ 100,000$ 1,521,000$ -$ ########113,000$ 55,000$
Project Cost
Year Project Description 2007 Dollars
Utility Franchise City Bonds Special
Project
Park
Dedication MSAS Assessments
Federal
Funds
DNR Trail
Grants City TIF
MNDOT
Cooperative
Agreement
Ramsey
County
CSAH
Funds
County
Road 10
Turnback
Funds
Other
Local
Funds
Funding Source
2012
2012 Roadway Major Maintenance Location to be determined 1,600,000$ 225,000$ 291,000$ 320,000$ 764,000$
2012 Pathway Rehabilitation Program Annual program to maintain city pathways 20,000$ 20,000$
2012 Playground Equipment Maintenance Annual program to maintain city playground equipment 25,000$ 25,000$
2012 Pathway Construction Program Construct pathways as shown on the City Comprehensive Plan 104,000$ 104,000$
2012 Storm Water Project - Subwatershed AA-4 Replace existing outlet located north of Red Oak Court 2,800$ 2,800$ Do after Ardan Trunk Sew
2012 Storm Water Project - Subwatershed 35W-2 Sediment Removal 7,000$ 7,000$
2012 Storm Water Project - Subwatershed EW-7 New outlet pipe from wetland to Long Lake Road storm sewer system 1,400$ 1,400$
2012 Random Park Building (Design Phase)Replace building structure: Develop Architectural Design, Plan and Specifications 25,000$ 25,000$
2012 Storm Sewer / Surface Water Rehabilitation Program Repair storm sewer and drainage issues throughout the City 30,000$ 30,000$
2012 Well Rehabilitation Project Inspect and rehabilitate Well No. 3 and Well No. 5 60,000$ 60,000$
2012 Water System Repair Program Annual program to maintain the city's water system (coordinated with street projects)30,000$ 30,000$
2012 Sanitary Sewer System Repair Program Annual program to maintain the city's sewer system (coordinated with street projects)10,000$ 10,000$
2012 CR 10 / Edgewood Intersection Intersection improvements and landscaping 689,000$ 689,000$
2012 Total 2,604,200$ 141,200$ 225,000$ -$ 174,000$ -$ 291,000$ 320,000$ -$ -$ 1,453,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
2013
2013 Roadway Major Maintenance Location to be determined 1,600,000$ 225,000$ 291,000$ 320,000$ 764,000$
2013 Pathway Rehabilitation Program Annual program to maintain city pathways 20,000$ 20,000$
2013 Playground Equipment Maintenance Annual program to maintain city playground equipment 25,000$ 25,000$
2013 Pathway Construction Program Construct pathways as shown on the City Comprehensive Plan 104,000$ 104,000$
2013 Storm Water Project - Subwatershed EW-10 Storm sewer from Clearview Ave and Edgewood Dr to Clearview Ave and Irondale Rd.
2013 Storm Water Project - Subwatershed SC-1 Outlet from wetland to any future Silver Lake Road storm sewer 1,400$ 1,400$
2013 Storm Water Project - Subwatershed SC-3 Replace existing 24" CMP with twin 36" RCP's and install a special outlet structure
2013 Storm Water Project - Subwatershed NW-1 Cost share w/ City of SLP for drainage project for Park Square - N of 10/W of Pleasantvw 22,500$ 22,500$
2013 Storm Water Project - Subwatershed EW-8 Construct water quality wetland at long Lake Road and Ridge Lane 151,200$ 151,200$ Developer may fully const
2013 Storm Water Project - Subwatershed GF-5 Replace existing CMP culvert east of Lois and Knoll with RCP 9,800$ 9,800$ Do with Lois Street Recon
2013 Storm Water Project - Subwatershed GF-4 Improve outlet under Hillview Rd. to eliminate grouted riprap 2,800$ 2,800$ Do with Hillview Street Re
2013 Storm Water Project - Subwatershed GF-6 Ditch improvement on reach draining into Judicial Ditch #1 21,000$ 21,000$ Possibly do with a streets
2013 Storm Water Project - Subwatershed AA-2 Sherwood Road Trunk Storm Sewer 280,000$ 280,000$ Do with Sherwood Street
2013 Storm Water Project - Subwatershed EW-8 Trunk Storm Sewer from EW-6 (Co. Rd. 10 & H2) to EW-8 (Long lake Rd. & H2)
2013 Storm Water Project - Subwatershed EW-9 Repair, modify,and/or replace wetland outlet located near Woodcrest Dr. & Ironwood Rd.9,800$ 9,800$ Do with Irondale Street Re
2013 Storm Sewer / Surface Water Rehabilitation Program Repair storm sewer and drainage issues throughout the City 30,000$ 30,000$
2013 Water System Repair Program Annual program to maintain the city's water system (coordinated with street projects)30,000$ 30,000$
2013 Sanitary Sewer System Repair Program Annual program to maintain the city's sewer system (coordinated with street projects)10,000$ 10,000$
2013 CR 10 / Groveland Rd. Intersection Intersection improvements and landscaping 260,000$ 260,000$
2013 CR 10 / Spring Lake Road Intersection Intersection improvements and landscaping 260,000$ 260,000$
2013 CR 10 / CR H2 Intersection Realignment, new signal system, and landscaping 2,698,000$ 500,000$ 1,300,000$ 113,000$ 785,000$
2013 CR 10 / South/East end gateway sign South/east end entry feature 293,000$ 293,000$
2013 CR 10 / North/West end gateway sign North/West end entry feature 163,000$ 100,000$ 163,000$
2013 CR 10 / Other gateway features Civic Entry Feature 104,000$ 104,000$
2013 Total 6,095,500$ 568,500$ 225,000$ 813,000$ 149,000$ -$ 291,000$ 320,000$ 600,000$ -$ 2,227,000$ -$ -$ 113,000$ 889,000$
TOTAL ESTIMATED CITY COST 31,274,400 3,581,400 1,350,000 1,263,000 2,147,000 783,000 1,746,000 2,200,000 2,140,000 250,000 11,639,000 300,000 1,411,000 476,000 2,100,000
*Does not include capital equipment
Item No. 2B
Meeting Date: April 2, 2007
Type of Business: WK
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City Administrator Review _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Capital Improvement Program - DRAFT
Background:
The Five Year Financial Plan is comprised of several components. These
include:
o The Capital Improvement Program
o The Vehicle & Equipment Replacement Plan
o The General Fund Multi-year Operating Budget
o The Impact on Capital Projects Funds’ Cash Balance
o The Utility rate Studies
The Capital Improvement Program, also referred to as the CIP, is a planning
document that is utilized to forecast expenditures on capital items over the next
several years.
Discussion:
Attached is the current draft Capital Improvement Program.
Recommendation:
Staff is looking for direction on these matters. Specifically, Staff is looking for
Council direction and input on the current draft Capital Improvement Program.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item No: 3A
Meeting Date: April 2, 2007
Type of Business: Worksession
Administrator Review: ____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Code Development Process and Residential Fire
Sprinklers – Presentation by Kathi Osmonson
Introduction:
Kathi Osmonson, the Mounds View’s Building Official and Fire Marshal, has prepared a
powerpoint presentation that outlines the process by which building and related codes are
developed and the purposes behind their adoption.
Discussion:
One issue that is being considered for adoption relates to a requirement for all new homes,
twin homes and townhomes to be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. In her
presentation, Ms. Osmonson addresses the nationwide problem of residential fires and the
property damage and loss of life associated with these preventable tragedies. Ms.
Osmonson provides national and state fire statistics and responds to common myths about
residential sprinkler systems.
Attached to this cover sheet is an article that appeared in a recent edition of the League of
Minnesota Cities weekly bulletin which addresses the issue of proposed legislation dealing
with construction codes. The concern, as expressed by the LMC and the Association of
Minnesota Building Officials, is that the legislation would confer too much power to trades
groups and industry representatives. Their amendments could result in degradation of
essential life, health and safety requirements—the very tenets of governing Codes—and
could threaten cities ability to conduct independent code inspection activities.
Recommendation:
The information in the attached power point presentation is meant to inform and educate the
City Council and community in general about the code development process and one topic in
specific which is generating much debate—the requirement to provide residential sprinkler
systems in all new homes, twin homes and townhomes. If you have any questions prior to
the meeting, please feel free to contact Ms. Osmonson directly at 763-717-4024.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________ ___________________________
James Ericson Kathi Osmonson
Community Development Director Building Official / Fire Marshal
1
Building Code Building Code
DevelopmentDevelopment
Presented by: Kathi OsmonsonPresented by: Kathi Osmonson
International Code CouncilInternational Code Council
The ICC Model The ICC Model
Codes are the basis Codes are the basis
of the Minnesota of the Minnesota
State Building Code State Building Code
(MSBC)(MSBC)
MN Department of MN Department of
Labor and Industry Labor and Industry
creates amendments creates amendments
to the Model Codes to the Model Codes
creating the MSBCcreating the MSBC
ICC Body of Codes ICC Body of Codes
Includes:Includes:
Building IBC / IRCBuilding IBC / IRC
FireFire
MechanicalMechanical
State PlumbingState Plumbing
Fuel GasFuel Gas
Housing and Property Housing and Property
MaintenanceMaintenance
Referenced StandardsReferenced Standards
State Amendments State Amendments
create MSBCcreate MSBC
2
Purpose of the MSBCPurpose of the MSBC
““The purpose of the code is to provide minimum The purpose of the code is to provide minimum
standards to safeguard life and limb, health, standards to safeguard life and limb, health,
property, and continuing public welfare by property, and continuing public welfare by
regulating and controlling the design, regulating and controlling the design,
construction, quality of materials, use and construction, quality of materials, use and
occupancy, location, and maintenance of all occupancy, location, and maintenance of all
structures and equipment specifically covered structures and equipment specifically covered
by the code in a jurisdiction that adopts and by the code in a jurisdiction that adopts and
enforces the code.enforces the code.””MSBC 1300.0030MSBC 1300.0030
Code DevelopmentCode Development
Coconut GroveCoconut Grove
November 28, 1942November 28, 1942
492 people died 492 people died
trying to exit the trying to exit the
building through building through
doors that swung doors that swung
inward or were inward or were
hiddenhidden
Many code Many code
provisions resultedprovisions resulted
Continuing Research and Continuing Research and
DevelopmentDevelopment
3
Development ProcessDevelopment Process
LegislativeLegislative
Code change proposals may be Code change proposals may be
submitted by anyonesubmitted by anyone
Proposals are posted on the ICC website Proposals are posted on the ICC website
http://http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/codeswww.iccsafe.org/cs/codes//prior to prior to
code hearingscode hearings
Code hearings typically occur twice per Code hearings typically occur twice per
code cyclecode cycle
Development ProcessDevelopment Process
ICC committees hear the testimonies on ICC committees hear the testimonies on
proposed changesproposed changes
ICC members may vote on code changes ICC members may vote on code changes
if present at the hearingsif present at the hearings
Industry employs Industry employs ““lobbyistslobbyists””to testify for to testify for
code changescode changes
Code Officials also testify at the hearingsCode Officials also testify at the hearings
Importance of Code Importance of Code
OfficialsOfficials
It is imperative that Code Officials It is imperative that Code Officials
continue to review and testify on continue to review and testify on
proposed code changesproposed code changes
Life Safety focusLife Safety focus
No sales agendaNo sales agenda
Difficult to compete with fullDifficult to compete with full--time time
lobbyistslobbyists
4
Benefits of ParticipationBenefits of Participation
Maintain integrity of the codesMaintain integrity of the codes
Hands on educationHands on education
Continuing Education creditsContinuing Education credits
Represent jurisdiction nationwideRepresent jurisdiction nationwide
Create uniformity in enforcementCreate uniformity in enforcement
To be able to do our jobs betterTo be able to do our jobs better
Association of MN Association of MN
Building OfficialsBuilding Officials
State wide State wide
organization of organization of
Building OfficialsBuilding Officials
Supports membersSupports members ’’
participation at the participation at the
National Code National Code
hearingshearings
City support is crucialCity support is crucial
Local Code Development Local Code Development
CommitteesCommittees
AMBO supports the local IBC / IRC Code AMBO supports the local IBC / IRC Code development committeesdevelopment committees
Kathi Osmonson ~ Chairman of the IBC Kathi Osmonson ~ Chairman of the IBC Development Committee.Development Committee.
Subcommittees include:Subcommittees include:
StructuralStructural
Means of egressMeans of egress
Fire safetyFire safety
Mechanical Mechanical
GeneralGeneral
5
Local Code Development Local Code Development
CommitteesCommittees
Each subcommittee downloads their Each subcommittee downloads their
section of proposed code changes for section of proposed code changes for
reviewreview
A voterA voter’’s guide is created after reviewing s guide is created after reviewing
the the changeschanges
MN amendments are proposed nationally MN amendments are proposed nationally
in an effort for uniformityin an effort for uniformity
Region III CommitteeRegion III Committee
Includes:Includes:
WisconsinWisconsin
North DakotaNorth Dakota
South DakotaSouth Dakota
IowaIowa
IllinoisIllinois
MinnesotaMinnesota
Region III CommitteeRegion III Committee
MN is currently the only state in the MN is currently the only state in the
region with a development process in region with a development process in
placeplace
First joint meeting was held at the Region First joint meeting was held at the Region
III education February 5, 2007III education February 5, 2007
Goal is to work together, share the load Goal is to work together, share the load
and the input = more respect at the and the input = more respect at the
hearing phasehearing phase
6
Development ScheduleDevelopment Schedule
Code Development Hearings and Annual Code Development Hearings and Annual
Conference in Orlando FL September 20, Conference in Orlando FL September 20,
20062006
Final Action Hearings for the 2007 Final Action Hearings for the 2007
Supplement to the ICC Code Body in Supplement to the ICC Code Body in
Rochester NY May 21, 2007Rochester NY May 21, 2007
Annual Conference in Reno NV Annual Conference in Reno NV
September 30, 2007September 30, 2007
HOT TOPICHOT TOPIC
SECTION R313
FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS.
R313.1 General Fire protection systems. An
approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall
be installed in new one- and two-family
dwellings and townhouses in accordance with
NFPA 13D Section 903.3.1 of the International
Building Code.
September 2, 2003September 2, 2003
7
8
9
City of Mounds ViewCity of Mounds View
Residential Fire SprinklersResidential Fire Sprinklers
Your Personal Fire FighterYour Personal Fire Fighter
=
The Problem The Problem ––
Residential FiresResidential Fires
Nationwide (2005)Nationwide (2005)
78% of all structure fires occurred in 78% of all structure fires occurred in
residential properties. There is a residential residential properties. There is a residential
fire every 80 seconds.fire every 80 seconds.
Source: NFPA – Fire Loss in the US, 10/06
519,500
402,000
117500
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000 TotalResidentialAll OthersStructure Fires - Nationwide (2003)
The Problem The Problem ––
Residential FiresResidential Fires
Nationwide (2005)Nationwide (2005)
82% of all civilian fire deaths occurred in the home. 82% of all civilian fire deaths occurred in the home.
There was a civilian fire death in the home every There was a civilian fire death in the home every
143 minutes.143 minutes.
Source: NFPA – Fire Loss in the US, 10/06
3925
3145
780
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Total In the Home Others
Civilian Fire Deaths - Nationwide (2003)
10
The Problem The Problem ––
Residential FiresResidential Fires
Nationwide (2005)Nationwide (2005)
77.5% of all fire 77.5% of all fire
property loss property loss
occurred in residential occurred in residential
properties. properties.
Source: NFPA – Fire Loss in the US, 10/06
$8,678,000,000
$6,074,000,000
$2,604,000,000
$0
$1,000,000,000
$2,000,000,000
$3,000,000,000
$4,000,000,000
$5,000,000,000
$6,000,000,000
$7,000,000,000
$8,000,000,000
$9,000,000,000
Total Residential Others
Property Damage - Nationwide (2003)
The Problem The Problem ––
Residential FiresResidential Fires
Minnesota (2005)Minnesota (2005)
5,043 fires or 72% of 5,043 fires or 72% of
all structure fires all structure fires
occurred in residential occurred in residential
properties.properties.
6951
4858
2093
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Total Residential All Others
Structure Fires - Minnesota (2003)
Source: MN Dept. of Public Safety - 2005 Fire in Minnesota
The Problem The Problem ––
Residential FiresResidential Fires
Minnesota (2005) Minnesota (2005)
29 or 73% of all 29 or 73% of all
civilian fire deaths civilian fire deaths
occurred in the home. occurred in the home. Civilian Fire Deaths - Minnesota (2005)
29
11
In the Home Other Locations
Source: MN Dept. of Public Safety - 2005 Fire in Minnesota
11
The Problem The Problem ––
Residential FiresResidential Fires
Minnesota (2005) Minnesota (2005)
$96.3 million or 72% $96.3 million or 72%
of all fire property loss of all fire property loss
occurred in residential occurred in residential
properties.properties.
154
92.8
61.2
0 100 200
In MillionsTotalResidentialAll OthersProperty Damage -
Minnesota (2003)
Source: MN Dept. of Public Safety - 2005 Fire in Minnesota
The Problem The Problem ––
Residential FiresResidential Fires
The Facts:The Facts:
Fires occur more in Fires occur more in
residential properties than residential properties than
in any other type of in any other type of
structure.structure.
Residential structure fires Residential structure fires
kill more people than any kill more people than any
other type of fire.other type of fire.
Residential structure fires Residential structure fires
cause more property cause more property
damage than any other damage than any other
type of fire.type of fire.
The Problem The Problem ––
Residential FiresResidential Fires
Who is most at Who is most at
Risk?Risk?
Statistics show that Statistics show that
seniors citizens age seniors citizens age
65 and over and 65 and over and
children under the children under the
age of 5 have the age of 5 have the
greatest risk of greatest risk of
dieing in a fire.dieing in a fire.
Source: U.S. Fire Administration
12
What is the solution to What is the solution to
this problem?this problem?
Residential Residential
Fire Fire
Sprinklers!Sprinklers!
The Solution The Solution ––
Residential Fire Residential Fire
SprinklersSprinklers
Residential fire Residential fire
sprinklers are like sprinklers are like
having a firefighter in having a firefighter in
your home 24 hours your home 24 hours
a day, 7 days a a day, 7 days a
week, 365 days a week, 365 days a
year.year.
The Solution The Solution ––
Residential Fire Residential Fire
SprinklersSprinklers
Residential fire sprinklers often contain Residential fire sprinklers often contain
and may even extinguish the fire before and may even extinguish the fire before
the fire department even gets the call to the fire department even gets the call to
respond.respond.
Source: U.S. Fire Administration
13
The Solution The Solution ––
Residential Fire Residential Fire
SprinklersSprinklers
Residential fire Residential fire
sprinklers save lives sprinklers save lives
by reducing the by reducing the
amount of heat and amount of heat and
toxic gases that are toxic gases that are
produced by an produced by an
uncontrolled fire.uncontrolled fire.
Source: U.S. Fire Administration
The Solution The Solution ––
Residential Fire Residential Fire
SprinklersSprinklers
Fire damage is greatly reduced because Fire damage is greatly reduced because
the fire is controlled or extinguished when the fire is controlled or extinguished when
it is small with very little water.it is small with very little water.
Source: Fire Marshal’s Association of Minnesota
MythsMyths
Myth:Myth:
All the sprinklers go All the sprinklers go
off at once like in the off at once like in the
movies.movies.
Fact:Fact:
Only the sprinklers Only the sprinklers
closest to the fire go closest to the fire go
off.off.
90% of fires are 90% of fires are
contained by the contained by the
operation of just one operation of just one
sprinkler.sprinkler.
Source: U.S. Fire Administration
14
MythsMyths
Myth:Myth:
Sprinklers cause a Sprinklers cause a
large amount of water large amount of water
damage.damage.
Fact:Fact:
Residential Sprinklers Residential Sprinklers
discharge 8 to 14 discharge 8 to 14
gallons of water per gallons of water per
minute and quickly minute and quickly
control the fire limiting control the fire limiting
both water and fire both water and fire
damage.damage.
A firefighterA firefighter ’’s hose s hose
will discharge 150 to will discharge 150 to
200 gallons of water 200 gallons of water
per minute.per minute.
Source: U.S. Fire Administration
VS.
MythsMyths
Myth:Myth:
Sprinklers could Sprinklers could
accidentally go off or accidentally go off or
leak.leak.
Fact:Fact:
The odds of a The odds of a
sprinkler accidentally sprinkler accidentally
going off are 1 in 16 going off are 1 in 16
million.million.
The chances of a The chances of a
sprinkler system sprinkler system
leaking are the same leaking are the same
as the regular as the regular
plumbing system in plumbing system in
your home leaking . your home leaking .
Source: U.S. Fire Administration
MythsMyths
Myth:Myth:
Residential fire Residential fire
sprinklers are ugly.sprinklers are ugly.
Fact:Fact:
Sprinklers are now Sprinklers are now
being designed to fit being designed to fit
in with most din with most déécor.cor.
15
MythsMyths
Can you find the sprinklers in this photo?Can you find the sprinklers in this photo?
¿
¿
MythsMyths
Myth:Myth:
Residential sprinkler Residential sprinkler
systems are systems are
expensive.expensive.
Fact:Fact:
For about the same For about the same
amount that it would amount that it would
cost to install new cost to install new
carpet in your home carpet in your home
you could have a you could have a
sprinkler system sprinkler system
installed.installed.
In new construction In new construction
the average cost is the average cost is
$1.50 to $2.00 per $1.50 to $2.00 per
square foot.square foot.
MythsMyths
Myth:Myth:
Your insurance Your insurance
company will charge company will charge
you more due to fear you more due to fear
of possible water of possible water
damage from the damage from the
residential sprinkler residential sprinkler
systemsystem..
Fact:Fact:
Many insurance Many insurance
companies will give companies will give
homeowners a homeowners a
discount of 5 to 10 % discount of 5 to 10 %
on their homeowners on their homeowners
insurance policy if the insurance policy if the
home is protected with home is protected with
residential fire residential fire
sprinklers.sprinklers.
16
0% Interest Loan Program0% Interest Loan Program
The Spring Lake Park The Spring Lake Park ––Blaine Blaine ––Mounds Mounds
View Fire Department offers a zero interest View Fire Department offers a zero interest
loan to residents of our communities to loan to residents of our communities to
equip their new homes or retrofit their equip their new homes or retrofit their
existing homes with residential sprinkler existing homes with residential sprinkler
systems.systems.
0% Interest Loan Program0% Interest Loan Program
The program provides up to $4,000.00 per The program provides up to $4,000.00 per
single family resident with payment to be single family resident with payment to be
remade over 24 months.remade over 24 months.
The Choice is yours!The Choice is yours!
Without Fire SprinklersWith Fire Sprinklers
17
For More InformationFor More Information
For more information regarding residential sprinklers For more information regarding residential sprinklers
systems visit the following web sites:systems visit the following web sites:
U.S. Fire AdministrationU.S. Fire Administration
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/http://www.usfa.fema.gov/
Home Fire Sprinkler CoalitionHome Fire Sprinkler Coalition
http://www.homefiresprinkler.org/http://www.homefiresprinkler.org/
National Fire Sprinkler AssociationNational Fire Sprinkler Association
http://www.nfsa.org/http://www.nfsa.org/
Minnesota State Fire Marshals OfficeMinnesota State Fire Marshals Office
http://www.dps.state.mn.us/fmarshal/fmarshal.htmlhttp://www.dps.state.mn.us/fmarshal/fmarshal.html
Fire MarshalFire Marshal’’s Association of Minnesotas Association of Minnesota
http://www.fmam.org/http://www.fmam.org/
Item No: 3B
Meeting Date: 04/02/07
Type of Business: Work Session
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Proposed Tree Preservation & Landscaping Ordinance
Background
Staff has revised the tree ordinance since meeting with the City Council, Planning Commission
and Parks and Recreation and Forestry Commission in March. There have been many good
suggestions from everyone, and all the groups are very supportive of having a tree ordinance.
Both the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation and Forestry Commission felt strongly
that this ordinance should not prohibit single family property owners from doing what they want on
their property with their trees. The revised ordinance addresses this by exempting all R-1 and R-2
zoned properties from the section regarding “tree removal on lots without construction or grading
activity.” Staff’s thoughts are that the tree replacement and preservation requirements would only
be in effect if there is construction on the property, particularly a new home built. But does the
City want to impose these requirements on an R-1 or R-2 property owner who is just building a
new garage or deck?
"Exempting R-1 and R-2 properties when no "development" is occurring however creates a
loophole. There are presently three or four potential infill residential redevelopment areas in the
City. Submitting a subdivision application is the trigger for the tree plan, inventory, replacement
requirements, etc,. Knowing this, the land owner(s) could clear cut the lots without penalty
PRIOR to submitting the subdivision application thereby avoiding any requirements whatsoever.
Staff is unsure how to close this loophole without otherwise restricting the typical single-family
property owner. Staff will require some direction from the Council regarding this issue."
After the discussion at the March City Council Worksession, draft ordinance was amended to
increase the max fine for each significant or specimen tree illegally removed to $750. Other
penalties could include withholding a Certificate of Occupancy for new development, forfeiture of
all or part of a bond, escrow or financial guarantee and stoppage of a project if violations are
extreme.
There was some discussion as to whether the City should be exempted from these requirements
(see 1127.04 Subd. 2e). Presently the ordinance does exempt the City and its agents. Does the
Council wish to change that?
Other changes made to the ordinance include additional species were added to the high value
tree list and any tree in excess of 30 inches in diameter is now defined as a specimen tree.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council review and discuss this revised draft ordinance. Staff has
included an article in the May/June 2007 edition of the Mounds View Matters newsletter and
asked for feedback from residents. At this time, staff is proposing that Council not act on this
ordinance until after residents have an opportunity to respond.
CHAPTER 1127
DDDRRRAAAFFFTTT
333--
TREE PRESERVATION & LANDSCAPING
SECTION:
1127.01: Purpose
1127.02: Definitions
1127.03: General Tree Protection Requirements
1127.04: Tree Removal on Lots without Construction or Grading Permits
1127.05: Landscaping
1127.06 Appeal Process
1127.07 Violation and Penalties
1127.01: PURPOSE. The purpose of this chapter is to identify trees and woodlots
which are to be preserved in general and saved when development is occurring or at
any point thereafter. It is the City’s goal to ensure that development is compatible with
the natural environment and is accommodated without destroying desirable
environmental features and natural amenities. It is not the City’s intent, however, to
preserve significant trees or woodlots where substandard subdivision design, poor
drainage, excess slope in streets and driveways or inefficient utility construction will
result.
1127.02: DEFINITIONS: When used in this Chapter, the following words and
phrases shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the
context clearly indicates a different meaning:
DRIP LINE: The imaginary line at the outer edge of a tree or shrub, the point where
water would drip to the ground from the outermost branches or leaves.
HIGH VALUE TREES: Any tree from the list below.
Birches (River & Paper)
Black Walnut
Catalpa
Cherry
All Firs
Flowering Crabapples &
Hawthorns
Hackberry
Hybrid American Elm
Ironwood
Japanese Tree Lilac
All Lindens
All Maples
All Oaks
Ohio Buckeye
Pines (except Jack)
All Spruce
ROOT ZONE: That area of effective tree rooting (out to the extent of the branches plus
5 five feet).
-222888---000777
1
2
SIGNIFICANT TREE: A significant tree is defined as any live healthy High Value tree
measuring eight (8) inches in diameter or greater, measured at 4.5 feet above the
ground.
SPECIMEN TREE: Any High Value Tree over 16 inches in diameter, or any other
species over 30 inches in diameter.
TREE CROWN: The upper part of a tree, including the branches and leaves.
WOODLOT: An area of trees of significant or specimen size on at least twenty-five (25)
percent of the total lot area.
1127.03: GENERAL TREE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS. Developers,
landowners, and builders shall attempt to preserve the maximum number of significant
and specimen trees on lots as possible by using creative design techniques for the
location of structures and other improvements within property boundaries.
Subd. 1. Preservation Standards.
a. Structures and other amenities shall be located in such any manner that the
optimum number of trees shall be preserved.
b. Prior to the granting of a permit, the person requesting the permit shall
demonstrate that there are no feasible or prudent alternatives to the removal
of significant or specimen trees on the site.
c. Forestation, reforestation or landscaping shall utilize a variety of tree species
and shall not utilize any species presently under disease epidemic.
d. Development including grading and contouring shall take place in such a
manner that the root zone, as defined in Section 1127.02, of existing trees
shall not be affected
1127.04: TREE REMOVAL ON LOTS WITH CONSTRUCTION OR GRADING
ACTIVITY
Subd. 1. Tree Plan Required. A tree plan, which would include a tree inventory,
prepared by an arborist, landscape architect or forester, shall be submitted for
any project in which trees will be impacted as a result of said project. Tree
inventories shall identify existing healthy significant trees, specimen trees,
woodlots and smaller groups of non-significant trees within the limits of the
proposed project area. The inventory should clearly indicate which trees would
be lost as a result of the project and which trees would be saved. The tree
inventory shall be submitted at the same time as any other required application
submittals. This requirement may be waived at the discretion of the Community
Development Director and the City Forester.
3
Subd. 2. Replacement Standards. Replacement tree species shall be approved by the
City Forester in accordance with Section 1127.05.
a. For every significant tree removed, the permit holder or property owner shall
plant a new tree on a one-to-one replacement basis, up to five new trees on
lots less than an acre and up to ten new trees on lots one acre or larger. No
additional plantings shall be required on lots less than one acre where five or
more replacement and high value trees over eight inches in diameter would
remain or on lots one acre or larger where ten or more replacement and high
value trees over eight inches in diameter would remain.
b. For every specimen tree removed, the permit holder or property owner shall
plant five new trees on lots less than an acre or ten new trees on lots one
acre or larger.
c. Replacement trees shall be planted no later than twelve months beyond the
date of tree removal. The owner or permit holder shall guarantee the survival
of the replacement trees for two full growing seasons beyond the year of
planting. In cases where replacement cannot occur within the specified
timeframe, an extension may be granted at the discretion of the City Forester
or Community Development Director.
d. Replacement Quantity Reductions. The number of required replacement
trees may be reduced when deemed appropriate at the sole discretion of the
City Forester based on existing site conditions.
e. Exceptions. Replacement requirements shall not apply to trees lost as a
result of utility trimming or maintenance, work conducted by or on behalf of a
governmental agency in pursuance of its lawful activities or functions,
disease, storms or other acts of natural occurrence.
Subd. 3. Trees within development areas designated for preservation shall be protected
from construction damage by placing a snow fence or flags in a perimeter five
feet beyond the tree’s dripline, within which area no equipment shall traverse or
materials, debris or fill shall be placed.
Subd. 4. Additional Removals. If, through the course of a development activity, it
becomes necessary to remove additional trees beyond what was previously
approved in the Tree Plan. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to submit
such request to the City in writing, explaining the reasons necessitating the
additional removals, and obtain written approval of the Community Development
Director or designee before proceeding.
4
1127.05 TREE REMOVAL ON LOTS WITHOUT CONSTRUCTION OR GRADING
ACTIVITY 1 :
Subd. 1. No more than two significant or specimen trees shall be permitted to be
removed per year on lots upon which no development or grading activity is
occurring, unless an approved Tree Plan has been obtained. Trees removed
because they are an obstruction to traffic or power lines, or trees removed
because they pose a hazard to structures or sewer systems, or have been
identified by the City Forester as diseased or hazardous, shall be excluded from
these requirements.
Subd. 2. Tree Plan: A tree plan will be required if more than two significant trees and/or
specimen trees per year are removed. If determined necessary by the
Community Development Director or City Forester, the tree plan shall be
prepared by a forester, arborist or landscape architect, and may be reviewed by
the Parks, Recreation and Forestry Commission prior to approval by the
Community Development Director and City Forester. The tree plan shall include
the following information:
a. A scaled map designating all forested areas and existing and proposed uses
of such areas.
b. Location of all existing structures, roads, utilities, and driveways on the site.
c. A written narrative describing specific activities and reasons for developing
the plan, and how these actions and activities will affect the forest. Specific
examples include, but are not limited to: better forest management (thinning
or removal of dead or diseased trees), improved wildlife habitat, recreational
use, outdoor education, and trails.
Subd. 3. Tree Replacement. As a condition of a tree plan approval, tree replacement
may be required.
1127.06 LANDSCAPING:
Subd. 1. Applications for development in the R-3, R-4, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, I-1 and PUD
districts shall be accompanied by a detailed landscape plan. The landscape plan
should be developed in accordance with the site plan submitted for approval.
Subd. 2. Detailed landscape plans shall include the following information:
a. General: name and address of developer/owner, name and address of
architect/designer, date of plan preparation, date and description of all
revisions, name of project or development, scale of plan, north point
indication.
1 Parcels in the R-1, Single Family Residential, and R-2, Single and Two Family Residential zoning districts are
exempt from the provisions of this section.
5
b. Site analysis: Boundary lines of property line with dimensions based upon
certified survey, name and alignment of proposed and existing adjacent on-
site streets, location of all proposed utility easements and right-of-way,
location of existing and proposed buildings, topographic contours at two (2)
foot contour intervals, location of parking areas, water bodies, proposed
sidewalks, and percentage of site not covered by structures and impervious
surfaces.
c. Landscape data: A planting schedule table shall include symbols, quantities,
common names, botanical names, size of plant materials, root specifications,
and special planting instructions.
d. Typical sections and details of fences, retaining walls, berms and other
landscape improvements.
e. Typical sections of landscape islands and planter beds with identification of
materials used.
f. Details of planting beds and foundation plantings.
g. Delineation of both sodded and seeded areas indicated in square footage.
h. Where landscape or inorganic materials are used to provide required
screening from adjacent and neighboring properties, a cross section shall be
provided at a legible scale illustrating the prospective of the site from the
neighboring property and property line elevation.
Subd. 3. Number of plant materials required: In order to achieve an appropriate and
complete quality landscaping of a site, the following minimum number of plant
materials shall be provided as indicated below:
a. One (1) overstory deciduous shade tree for every two thousand (2,000)
square feet of the total building footprint.
b. One (1) coniferous tree for every two (2,000) square feet of building or one (1)
coniferous tree for every two hundred (200) feet of site perimeter, whichever
is greater.
c. One (1) understory shrub for every three hundred (300) square feet of
building or one (1) shrub for every thirty (30) feet of site perimeter, whichever
is greater.
d. One (1) ornamental tree for every two thousand (2,000) square feet of
building or one (1) ornamental tree for every two hundred (200) feet of site
perimeter, whichever is greater.
e. The number of plant materials required in Subdivision 3 a-d may be reduced
by fifteen percent in each category in the I-1 districts.
6
f. In the event a site plan layout does not have adequate space to
accommodate plant quantities as required herein, such quantities per species
can be reduced, provided that total required height or caliper is maintained.
The Community Development Director and City Forester must approve all
changes.
Subd. 4. Minimum size of plantings and species requirements:
a. Only tree species from High Value Tree list or other tree species as approved
by the City Forester shall be used.
b. Overstory deciduous – 2 ½ inch caliper.
c. Coniferous – 6 feet in height as measured from grade.
d. Shrubs – 24 inch plant (potted).
e. Ornamental trees – 2 inch caliper.
Subd. 5. Method of installation: All deciduous and coniferous trees shall be ball and
burlap and staked and guyed per National Nurserymen’s Standards. All shrubs
shall be potted.
Subd. 6. Use of Landscaping for Screening:
a. Where natural materials, such as trees or hedges are approved in lieu of the
required screening by means of walls or fences, density and species of
planting shall be such to achieve screening year round.
Subd. 7. Maintenance. Property owners shall be responsible for the upkeep of all
required plantings and landscape materials. Upon written notice from the City, a
property owner shall be required to trim broken or damaged tree boughs, remove fallen
trees or storm damaged trees and remove diseased trees as identified by the City
Forester.2 Uprooted or diseased tree stumps shall be removed or ground down below
grade.
1127.07 PLAN REVIEW PROCESS
All tree inventories, preservation plans and landscape plans shall be reviewed by the
City Forester. The Parks and Recreation and Forestry Commission may also review
such plans at the request of the Community Development Director or the City Forester.
When such plans are required as part of a development application (e.g. development
review, conditional use permit, minor or major subdivision) the Planning Commission
and City Council shall have approval authority. For such plans submitted when no
official planning action is necessary, the Community Development Director and City
Forester shall retain administrative approval authority.
2 Refer to Chapter 605, Tree Disease Control.
7
1127.08 APPEAL PROCESS
Administrative decisions by the City Forester and/or Community Development Director
may be appealed to the City Council. An appeal shall be filed in writing no more than
fourteen (14) days following the date of the administrative decision by the City. The
appeal shall be scheduled for consideration by City Council at the next regularly
scheduled City Council meeting which is at least seven (7) days from the date of the
appeal.
1127.09 VIOLATION AND PENALTIES
Except as provided herein, no significant or specimen tree shall be removed from any
property in the City. Any violation of any provision of this Chapter shall constitute a
misdemeanor offense. Property owners or permit holders having been cited for illegal
tree removal may be fined up to $750 for each significant or specimen tree illegally
removed. In addition to the punishment specified in this section, the City may enforce
this Code by any other appropriate form of action which could include withholding a
Certificate of Occupancy, forfeiture of all or part of a bond, escrow or financial
guarantee and stoppage of the project.
Item No: 3C
Meeting Date: April 2, 2007
Type of Business: Worksession
Administrator Review: ____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Request from Charlie Hall Representing the Mermaid,
Regarding their On-Premises Animated Sign
Introduction:
As reported at the Council meeting on March 26, 2007, Charlie Hall, owner of the Mermaid
Entertainment and Event Center located at 2200 County Road 10, has submitted a letter
concerning the Mermaid’s animated on-premises sign fronting County Road 10. Mr. Hall is
seeking permission from the City to replace their sign, which was damaged last year after a
lightning strike, utilizing newer LED technology.
Discussion:
Mr. Hall has explored repairing the sign however it has been determined that parts are no
longer available through the manufacturer or vendor. It had been expressed to Mr. Hall in a
letter dated March 9, 2007 that a sign moratorium had been adopted which prohibits new
electronic changing message signs. While the moratorium does allow damaged signs to be
replaced, the caveat is that the sign may only be replaced to the same condition and method
of construction and operation that existed prior to the damage. (Sect. 3.03 of Ord. 784.) Mr.
Hall is urging the City Council to make an exception to the ordinance to allow them or the
future owner to replace the existing, damaged sign with a new sign using new technology, as
the old technology cannot be replicated.
Mr. Hall has also inquired as to whether the City Code presently would allow for the
advertising of off-premises goods or services on their on-premises sign. The Code is
somewhat silent on this matter as a result of previous ordinance amendments eliminating
content-based regulation. Billboards, however, are defined in the code as a sign upon which
goods or services located off site are advertised. Billboards may only be located in certain
predefined areas and only with an IUP, so it clearly could be argued that advertising a good
or service NOT available at the Mermaid would render the sign equivalent to a billboard and
thus prohibited, as the City is presently at its maximum threshold for billboards—ten. If the
City Council agrees that the intent of the Code was to prohibit off-premises advertising on an
on-premises sign, clarifying language will need to be added to the City Code.
Legal Review:
Before sending the letter to Mr Hall dated March 9, staff had asked Kennedy & Graven to
review the ordinance in response to Mr. Hall’s request. The legal review indicated that the
moratorium would in fact prohibit the replacement of the existing Mermaid sign if a more
advanced technology were utilized.
Mermaid Sign Request
April 2, 2007
Page 2
Recommendation:
Direction is requested from the City Council in response to the request from Mr. Hall. If the
Council believes the sign can be replaced despite the moratorium, it will need to direct staff to
prepare a resolution which finds that either extenuating circumstances warrant approval or
that the sign replacement would fall outside the provisions of the moratorium. The resolution
would be brought back for Council action on April 9, 2007. If the Council chooses this option,
a condition prohibiting off-site advertising would be incorporated into the resolution.
If the City Council does not support the replacement of the Mermaid sign using newer LED
technology, a resolution indicating as much would be prepared for the Council’s
consideration on April 9, 2007. Such a resolution will address the fact that a moratorium is in
place and that the City has not completed its study on the issue of electronic signs and the
safety considerations associated with them.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
306301v1 SJR MU125-11
1
ORDINANCE NO. 784
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A ONE YEAR MORATORIUM
ON THE INSTALLATION, ERECTION, CONSTRUCTION, REPLACEMENT,
MODIFICATION OR IMPROVEMENT OF STATIC OR CHANGING
ELECTRONIC, DIGITAL, VIDEO, DISPLAY SIGNS OR BILLBOARDS AND
FLASHING, MOTION, ANIMATED, CHANGEABLE COPY
AND ILLUMINATED SIGNS IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Background.
1.01. The City of Mounds View regulates signs in all zoning districts;
1.02. Section 1008.02 of the Mounds View City Code defines certain signs as follows:
ANIMATED SIGN: a sign that has any moving or rotating part; or uses movement
or change of lighting to depict action or create a special effect or scene;
CHANGEABLE COPY SIGN: a sign or portion thereof with characters, letters or
illustrations that can be changed or rearranged electronically or manually without
altering the face or the surface of the sign. A sign on which the message changes
more than eight (8) times a day shall be considered an animated sign for the
purposes of this Section. That portion of the sign on which the only copy that
changes is an indication of the time and temperature shall be considered a public
informational sign. Portable or non-permanent changeable copy signs shall, for the
purposes of this Section, be considered temporary signs.
FLASHING SIGN: a sign or portion thereof whose illumination is characterized by
a repetitive cycle in which the period of illumination is either the same as or less
than the period of non-illumination. For the purposes of this Section, flashing will
not be defined as occurring if the cyclical period between on-off phases of
illumination exceeds four (4) seconds.
1.03. Section 1008.01 prohibits signs in all zoning districts of the City that are located,
designed or maintained in a manner which are likely to cause confusion or interfere with the safety
of motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and other users of public streets and rights of way and visibility of
traffic signs, traffic control devices, crossroads, driveways or crosswalks;
1.04. Section 1008.12, subdivision 1, of the Mounds View City Code prohibits flashing
signs, except those that provide public services information including time and temperature per
Section 1008.02;
306301v1 SJR MU125-11
2
1.05. Representatives of the sign industry have issued press releases indicating the
intention to deploy digital billboard networks in the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul and
their surrounding ring suburbs;
1.06. These digital billboards have been observed by the Mounds View Zoning
Administrator, and the electronic, digital, video, display signs, billboards and billboard networks
were determined to fall within the City ordinance definitions for flashing, animated or changeable
copy signs;
1.07. The City of Mounds View has several existing billboards and pylon signs along
major public roadways within its corporate boundaries that currently do not have electronic, digital,
video, display signs, billboards and billboard network displays;
1.08. The City of Mounds View regulates signs and displays on signs in order to reduce
potential traffic safety hazards and visual blight. A major study on electronic signs prepared by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHA) found that “motion or the illusion of motion of lights or
other display features, including animation, has “the greatest potential for motorist distraction as
well as a dominant visual impact on the aesthetic environment”. (FHA Report, Part VI, Section L.)
The FHA study also found that control of the message interval and message cycle as well as
appearance of flashing must be regulated to prevent contributing to traffic hazards. (FHA Report,
Part VI, Sections G-J.) Signs, including changing image signs, that display graphics that are
animated, or portray motion, or display rapidly moving messages may contribute to traffic safety
hazards and /or have adverse aesthetic impacts on the visual environment;
1.09. There is a need to conduct a study so that the City of Mounds view can consider
possible amendments to its sign ordinance and zoning regulations pertaining to electronic, digital,
video display signs, billboards, billboard networks, flashing, motion, animated, changeable copy
and illuminated signs;
1.10. There is a need for an interim ordinance to be adopted for the purpose of protecting
the planning process and the welfare of the citizens of the City until such a study has been
completed. There is a need to restrict certain signage until the study has been completed and any
modifications to the City's sign ordinance and zoning regulations are accomplished; and
1.11. Minnesota Statutes, section 462.355, subdivision 4, permits the adoption of interim
zoning ordinances during the planning process.
Sec. 2. Findings.
2.01. The City Council finds there is a need to conduct a study so that the City of Mounds
View can consider possible amendments to its sign ordinance and zoning regulations pertaining to
electronic, digital, video display signs, billboards, billboard networks, flashing, motion, animated,
changeable copy and illuminated signs.
2.02. The City Council finds that there is a need to adopt a moratorium ordinance for all
Zoning Districts within the City while the studies referenced in section 2.01 of this ordinance are
being conducted.
306301v1 SJR MU125-11
3
Sec. 3. Planning Study; Moratorium.
3.01. The City of Mounds View Staff are directed to undertake a study regarding
electronic, digital, and video display signs, billboards, billboard networks, flashing, motion,
animated, changeable copy and illuminated signs. The scope of the study should include review of
regional and national studies, local research, ordinances in other jurisdictions, review of relevant
studies and a legal analysis of applicable case law, sign display operational literature, existing
electronic signs and other factual and quantifiable information.
3.02. Upon completion of the study, the matter is to be considered by the Planning
Commission for its review and recommendation to the City Council.
3.03. A moratorium is hereby adopted on the installation, erection, or construction of any
new sign or the alteration, modification or replacement of any existing sign, so that the new or
existing sign (as altered or modified) uses static or changing electronic, digital, or video display or
flashing, motion, animated, or changeable copy. The moratorium applies in all Zoning Districts.
The moratorium does not apply to repair or replacement of either an existing legal sign or an
existing legal nonconforming sign that has been damaged by less than 50 percent of its market value
(using the replacement cost approach to value), as determined by the building official, provided that
the repair or replacement only restores the damaged sign to the same condition and method of
construction and operation that existed prior to the damage.
3.04. The moratorium is adopted pending completion of the study authorized by this
ordinance and the adoption of any amendments to the City's sign ordinance or Zoning Ordinance.
No sign alteration shall be completed without a permit, and no sign permit may be issued for any
sign within the scope of this moratorium.
Sec. 4. Enforcement. The City may enforce this ordinance by mandamus, injunction or
other appropriate civil remedy in any court of competent jurisdiction.
Sec. 5. Term. Unless earlier repealed by the City Council, the moratorium established
under this ordinance shall remain in effect until February 11, 2008. The moratorium period may be
extended for a reasonable time, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 462.355.
Sec. 6. Effective Date. This emergency ordinance is effective immediately upon adoption,
as provided by Section 3.06 of the Mounds View City Charter.
____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich
City Clerk-Administrator
(seal)
1
SPRING LAKE PARK – BLAINE – MOUNDS VIEW FIRE DEPARTMENT
FIRE REGULATIONS #-##
PUBLIC SAFETY 800 MHz RADIO BUILDING AMPLIFICATION SYSTEM
GOVERNING REGULATIONS
IFC Section 104.1
1.0 General.
Except as otherwise provided, no person shall erect, construct, change the use of or
provide an addition of more than 20% to, any building or structure or any part thereof, or
cause the same to be done which fails to support adequate radio coverage for the
Minnesota Regional Radio Communications System, including but not limited to
firefighters and police officers. This section shall not apply to: buildings of less than
8,500 square feet, or any building constructed of wood frame; provided none of the
aforementioned buildings make use of any metal construction or any below-grade levels
or parking areas. Any part of any R -3 occupancy building, including below-grade levels
and parking areas, is exempt from the requirements of this section. For the purposes of
this section, parking structures and stairwells are included in the definition of “building”
and stair shafts and elevators are included in the definition of “all parts of the building.”
For purposes of this section, adequate radio coverage shall be an average received field
strength of no less than –93 dBm, or 1% BER, measured at 30 to 36 inches above the
floor over 90% of the area of each floor and other critical areas determined by the Fire
Chief or the Fire Chief's designee such as fire command centers, stairwells, elevators,
high hazard areas, basements, and parking areas. Without an in-building radio system,
only the received signal level standard must be achieved as the talk-out path is equivalent
to the talk-in path in this regional radio system.
2.0 Amplification systems allowed.
Buildings and structures which cannot support the required level of radio coverage shall
be equipped with either a radiating cable system or an internal multiple antenna system
with FCC type accepted bi-directional 800 MHz amplification as needed. If
amplification is used in the system, all required FCC authorizations must be obtained
prior to the use of the system. If any part of the installed system or systems contains an
electrically powered component, the system shall be capable of operating on an
independent battery and/or generator system for a period of at least 12 hours without
external power input. The battery system shall automatically charge in the presence of an
external power input.
2
3.0 Testing procedures.
3.1 Acceptance test procedure.
With or without an in-building radio system, it will be the building owner's
responsibility to have the regional radio system performance tested to ensure that
two-way coverage on each floor of the building is a minimum of 90% of the total
floor area and the critical areas designated.
3.1.1 Talk-in From the Regional Radio System Coverage Testing
The talk-in coverage testing process shall be the same for buildings with and
without in-building amplification systems.
During test measuring, the center of the test equipment receive antenna shall be
between 30 and 36 inches above the floor.
On each floor of a building to be tested, the floor space, except for designated
critical areas, shall be divided into square or rectangular areas of approximately
the same size and shape. Each floor shall have at least ten grid areas; however,
the maximum size of grid areas shall not exceed 2,500 square feet. In buildings
with support columns laid out in a grid, the corners of each grid may be arranged
at the columns for ease in identifying grid corners while testing is in progress. In
buildings, such as a warehouse, with large open areas, tests shall be conducted
near the center of each grid although the exact center may not be easily accessible
due to the location of large machinery, storage racks, and the like. In buildings
with divided office spaces, with or without floor to ceiling partitions, tests shall be
conducted in an office at or near the center of a grid. In buildings with a large
open area and an attached two-story, split-level office or other area, the lower
level of the two-story, split-level attachment shall be considered as an extension
of the large open area.
In multi-story buildings and parking ramps, testing shall begin at the lowest level,
including any sub-grade level(s), and continue up one floor at a time. In -building
amplification may only be required on the lowest level or levels of a multi-story
building or parking ramp.
Average radio signal field strength shall be measured and recorded in each grid
and in each designated critical area defined above. Average field strength may be
obtained through use of an instantaneous measuring instrument and a computer
that samples the actual field strength at very short time intervals and averages the
sample values. As an alternative, a field strength measuring instrument with an
analog or digital readout of average field strength may also be used.
Measurements shall be made while the measuring instrument is moved over a
distance of four to ten feet. If the average field strength varies over the
measurement path, the lowest (most negative) value shall be recorded. The test
3
instrumentation used shall have been calibrated within the six-month period prior
to the testing.
The percentage of area passed shall be calculated as 100 times the result of
dividing the number of grids and critical areas that are at least at –93 dBm or 1%
BER by the total number of grids and critical areas tested.
The donor antenna in an in-building amplification system may receive up to 87
800 MHz radio frequencies of approximately equal field strength from the
regional system, plus some others of approximately equal field strength from
other radio systems. At any time, the donor antenna may be receiving at least 60
radio frequencies of approximately equal level in the pass band ranges. For that
reason, it shall be assumed that the output level of talk-in amplifiers will be at +
3.2 dBm per channel maximum. Therefore, grid and critical areas tests shall be
conducted while the headend amplifier is disconnected and a signal of + 3.2 dBm
is inserted into the connector downstream from the headend amplifier.
Any in-building talk-in amplification system shall have pass band filters before
the input to the first (headend) amplifier that shall pass 806 to 817 MHz and 821
to 824 MHz only. In the future, within six months after notification by the Fire
Chief or the Fire Chief’s designee, the pass band filter frequency range shall be
changed in accordance with instructions, or an additional pass band filter for 700
MHz band frequencies shall be added. When the donor antenna is installed, the
average signal level received on the nearest Anoka County site control channel
shall be measured at the antenna connector. A signal at that average received
signal level shall be inserted into the cable to the headend amplifier and filter
while the output level of the headend amplifier is measured, and the output level
of the amplifier shall be set at + 29 + 1 dBm.
Alternative in-building amplification systems that do not involve broadband pass
band filters will be accepted provided that similar testing can be demonstrated.
3.1.2 Talk-out to the Regional Radio System Testing
With an in-building amplification system, the talk-out (to the regional 800 MHz
radio system) shall be measured at the same grid and critical area locations as the
talk-in measurements were made. The measurements shall be made using a three-
watt portable radio with a well-charged battery to transmit into the in-building
radio system while field strength is measured out of the connector that is normally
attached to the donor antenna. To pass, the field strength at the donor antenna
shall be the measured value at the connector plus the donor antenna gain and
minus a free space loss factor. The free space loss factor shall be –93 dB for a
distance of one mile to the nearest Anoka County base radio location, adjusted by
6 dB each time the distance is halved or doubled. The acceptable range for
passing shall be between –65 and –95 dBm.
Gain values of all amplifiers shall be measured and the test measurement results
shall be kept on file with the building owner so that the measurements can be
4
verified each year during the annual tests. In the event that the measurement
results become lost, the building owner will be required to rerun the acceptance
test to reestablish the gain values.
3.2 Annual tests.
When an in-building radio system is required, the building owner shall test all
active components of the system, including but not limited to amplifiers, power
supplies and backup batteries, a minimum of once every 12 months. Amplifiers
shall be tested to ensure that the gain is the same as it was upon initial installation
and acceptance. Backup batteries and power supplies shall be tested under load
for a period of one hour to verify that they will properly operate during an actual
power outage. If within the one-hour test period, in the opinion of the testing
technician, the battery exhibits symptoms of failure, the test shall be extended for
additional one-hour periods until the testing technician confirms the integrity of
the battery. All other active components shall be checked to determine that they
are operating within the manufacturer's specifications for the intended purpose.
3.3 Five-year tests.
In addition to the annual test, the building owner shall perform a radio coverage
test a minimum of once every five years to ensure that the radio system continues
to meet the requirements of the original acceptance test. A radio test shall also be
performed whenever there is a change in or to the building that may have an
impact on coverage. Examples of the types of changes that may change radio
coverage are interior remodeling that adds and/or changes partitions, removal of
windows, and the addition of metalized treatment to window surfaces. The
procedure described in section 3.1 shall be used for these tests.
3.4 Qualifications of testing personnel.
All tests shall be conducted, documented and signed by qualified and competent
personnel that includes: persons in possession of a current FCC license, or a
current technician certification issued by the Associated Public-Safety
Communications Officials International (APCO) or the Personal Communications
Industry Association (PCIA), or a qualified radio engineer licensed as a registered
professional engineer by the State of Minnesota. Testing personnel shall have test
equipment that is appropriate for the testing procedure, and that test equipment
shall have been calibrated within six months prior to the testing. All test records
shall be retained on the inspected premises by the building owner and a copy shall
be submitted to Fire Department officials.
3.5 Field testing.
Fire and police personnel, after providing reasonable notice to the owner or the
owner's representative, shall have the right to enter onto the property to conduct
testing to be certain that the required level of radio coverage is present.