Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 1990/08/20 Ilk CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 20, 1990 7:00 P.M. AGENDA SESSION 1. Silver View Park Proposal Review 2 . Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Wetland Ordinance Revisions - Public Hearing 3. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Space Needs Study - Continued Discussion 4. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Use of Undesignated Funds - Continued Discussion 5 . Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Construction Management Agreement - Continued Discussion 6 . Storm Water Management Utility Update Discussion - Presentation of Report by Short-Elliott-Hendrickson 7. Presentation of Water Treatment Plant Status Report t by Short-Elliott-Hendrickson 8 . Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Ardan Park Compost Site and Alternatives 9 . Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Proposed 1991 Property Tax Levy to be Certified to Ramsey County Auditor - Continued Discussion 10 . Draft of Public Service Program of Long Term Financial Plan (to be hand carried Monday evening) 11. Consideration of Staff Memorandum and Resolution Regarding Rescinding Fees and Charges for Permits and Services and Establishing a Uniform Schedule of Fees and Charges - (to be hand carried Monday evening) 12 . Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Elections (to be hand carried Monday evening) AGENDA PAGE TWO AUGUST 20, 1990 13 . Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Date of Public Budget Hearings 14 . Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Greenfield Park Baseball Field Improvements 15 . Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding JoAnn Perry Wetland Alteration Permit, 2201 Bronson Drive, Planning Case No. 309-90 16 . Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Job Values Review (to be hand carried Monday evening) 17 . Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Parks Maintenance Review Strategies (to be hand carried) • 111 U.k111 t 110 MEMO TO: MAYOR & COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: MARY SAARION, DIRECTOR PARKS, RECREATION & FORESTRY DATE: AUGUST 8, 1990 SUBJECT: SILVER VIEW PARK PROPOSAL REVIEW The Silver View Park proposal has been placed on the _agenda for discussion and review during the Monday, August 20, 1990 council agenda session. I will be out of town on vacation this week and therefore unable to attend. However, members of the Parks and Recreation Commission and Forester Wriskey will be present. Here are questions and issues which you may wish to discuss further to determine whether changes should be made when considering adoption of the proposal. 1. South side of sliding hill. Should the south side of the hill remain unmowed or should it be mowed to 8-10 inches or are there other suggestions? A decision must be made to determine the level of maintenance. • 2 . Pond weeds. The proposal suggests that the weeds should be harvested twice a year using the cable and hook method suggested by Environmental Specialists. This is a great concern of residents and is listed as a priority in the Pond section of the proposal, page 14 and 18 . 3 . Pathway. The proposal suggests that the pathway should be completed around the entire pond with woodchips as a surface material. The northerly pathway should be replaced with a hard surface material from Long Lake Road to Silver Lake Road and leading to the picnic shelter. 4. Buffer Area of -. • . • - . ... _ - .,„. . . _ and brush should be allowed to grow up to the path (allowing one cut on the pond side of the trail. ) The proposal suggests regulated control of the buffer area by means of selected pruning and trimming. The concept plan designates the pond and buffer area as a nature area. "Grooming" the nature area is contrary to the philosophy. Is everyone in agreement with this fundamental concept? What policies and enforcement will support this conceptual philosophy? 5. Time line and priorities. ? This question cannot be answered because funding has not been secured and funding determines when • projects can be initiated. The priority and time line is simply a scenario that the Task Force developed in the event that all the suggested funding was granted or approved without delay. { • MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: MARY SAARION, DIRECTOR PARKS, RECREATION & FORESTRY DATE: AUGUST 14, 1990 SUBJECT: LETTER REQUESTING COUNCIL'S AND STAFF'S PRESENCE AT MEETING WITH SILVER LAKE WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. I received a telephone call from Mr. Clifton Ash, president of the Silver Lake Woods Homeowner's Association requesting the Mayor and Council and staff's presence at the next meeting on Wednesday, September 5, 1990 at 7: 00 p.m. at City Hall. I mentioned this to Mayor Hankner and Councilmembers Wuori and Blanchard and they suggested that I go ahead and return a letter acknowledging that those who were available on that evening would attend the meeting. As a reminder I have given you a copy of the letter which was sent to Mr. Ash. Please put this on your calendar if you intend on attending. Thank-you. • a: • w • ' K _ s. Ni, of Vouv) ci do/ RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA GATEWAY TO THE NORTH 2401 HIGHWAY 10 MOUNDS VIEW, MINN. 55112 784-3055 FAX: 784-3462 August 9, 1990 Mr. Cliff Ash 2664 Lake Court Drive NE Mounds View, MN 55112 Dear Mr. Ash: • As requested, the Mayor, Councilmembers and I will attend the Silver Lake Woods Homeowners Association meeting on Wednesday, September 5 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall. For your information, the Council will be reviewing the Silver View Park proposal on Monday, August 20, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. agenda session at the City Hall in the council chambers. You are certainly invited to attend this meeting. Sincerely, Mary Saarion, Director Parks, Recreation and Forestry MS/SL • printed on recycled paper JVLQL1 MEMORANDUM Memo To: Mayor and Council Members From Ric Minetor, Acting Clerk-Administrator Date August 15, 1990 Subject: Wetland Ordinance Revisions- Public Hearing The next step in review and possible adoption of revisions to the wetland zoning ordinance is to set a public hearing 'date. I recommend setting this public hearing for September 24, 1990. • MEMORANDUM Memo To :Mayor and Council Members From :Ric Minetor, Acting Clerk-Administrator Date :August 16, 1990 Subject :Space Needs Study - Continued Discussion On August 6th, the Council requested the this item be placed on the agenda for continued discussion. I would like to point out that the construction of a new water treatment plant will leave a significant amount of unoccupied space. The new treatment plant construction will need to include at least some building restoration, due to the necessity to remove a portion of an outside wall to remove existing equipment. This restoration could be limited to only patching the area disturbed, or it could also include remodeling to make the area suitable for a new use. The cost associated with the remodeling could be included in the water treatment plant costs, or as an item in the general fund. The Council's direction in the amount of remodeling and the source of funding is requested. S _ . ikke_A-y\--) MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIlk FROM: CLERK-ADMINISTRAT044, DATE: June 26, 1990 SUBJECT: UNDESIGNATED RESERVES As you may recall, the Management Report submitted by Voto, Tautges, Redpath and Company along with the 1989 Annual Financial Report discussed on pages 17 and 18, copy attached, the need for adequate reserves . The Report also warned that the State was looking at basing aid cuts on the size of a city's reserves . What was not stated in the Report, but was discussed at the June 18th presentation is a further warning that undesignated reserves would confirm the premise on which this approach is based and that is, "Cities have more money than they need. " Undesignated reserves are surplus revenues which have not been set aside for a specific purpose. In our case, surplus reserves are identified as undesignated when the City's policy . on reserves has been met and the remaining funds are not identified for some other specific purpose. The summary of our current reserve status is on page 19 of the Management Report and page 20 of the Financial Report, copies attached, show that after all requirements of our reserve policy have been met a $342,989 undesignated reserve exists . In order to avoid the risk of these dollars being used by the State to penalize us, our auditors, Finance Director Brager and I would recommend that the funds be designated for some specific purpose(s) . Your options are many and varied and include the following, - b — - - - as a buffer against the "lean" years we see coming. B. Set aside for special long-term projects such as City Hall expansion/remodeling, a Street Maintenance fund to subsidize the annual cost for sealcoating and overlay, add to the Special Projects Fund or Park Improvement Fund, or create a new fund with a specific purpose and intent in mind. C. Designate for current projects or needs in the City. The list of unmet projects/needs is probably endless, • but I have taken the liberty to have the Department Head Team submit a list of proposed projects and MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL S PAGE TWO .,-- JUNE 26, 1990 prioritize them for your consideration. They are, in priority order, 1. Cold Storage Building - an $ 75,000 unheated structure on the Public Works garage site for storage of vehicles and equipment and road salt/sand mix. 2 . Cafeteria Plan - an IRS approved $ 4,610 program that would allow employees who are not insured through the City or have single coverage to use the unused portion of the City's contribution for such eligible activities as additional life insurance, dental insurance or disability insurance. 3 . 1991 Vehicle and Equipment Fund $ 50,000 Transfer - the transfer needed in 1991 to adequately fund this program. • Use of these funds to cover the transfer would free up monies for other expenses in the '91 budget. 4. Replacement of Cushman $ 12,000 - the Cushman unit is used to drag and line ballfields and other light park maintenance activities. 5 . Greenfield Baseball Field Phase I $ 18,000 6 . Park Maintenance Tractor $ 25,000 - an additional tractor, larger than we currently have, to handle turf management and field grooming chores . 7 . 2 Light Bars for Squad Cars $ 2,000 8. Computer System for P.W. Garage $ 4,000 - a second system is needed in the garage as the current one has been overloaded with software and data and cannot efficiently perform all functions. 9 . Ignition Scanner $ 1,000 • 410 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL PAGE THREE JUNE 26, 1990 10 . Forestry Truck $ 6,000 - a replacement for the Luv which is rusting out 11. Wheel Balancer $ 2, 000 12 . Tire Machine $ 1,600 - replacement of an aging piece of equipment. 13 . Portable Breath Tester (PBT) $ 500 14 . GIS (geographical information) $ 5,000 Software - a land parcel tracking system to tie into computer mapping and track parcel specific activities. • 15 . Small Rider Mower - a small sit down $ 4,500 mower with zero turning radius for improved trimming around trees, etc. 16 . Skid Loader (Bobcat) $ 34,000 - a small bucket loader for use on small jobs and tight working areas . 17 . Lambert Park Parking Lot Paving and $ 8,000+ and Curb Total $ 254,010 I would like to reemphasize that the options listed are in no way exclusive or complete as ideas and preferences you may have are not necessarily covered. The only action the Council must take is to designate these funds to avoid the risk of our paying a penalty for having undesignated or "surplus" reserves. The Department Heads and I look forward to discussing with you our suggestions and any other options at the July 2nd Agenda Session. 410 DFP\mjs City of Mounds View,Minnesota it Management Report,Page 17 k Avoids or Favorable bond rating indicator. temporary overdrafts prior to major receipts. I .r City may study effects of +' Supplements revenues revenue cuts before gradual with investment earning& program reductions. I Benefits of Reserves I Provides the City greater options to deal sr Provides resources - with unexpected events. for minor projects or feasibility reports. • 411 sr Avoids overburdening of annual budgets for certain capital outlay. • The amount of General Fund reserve required to meet emergency and/or unanticipated expenditures is not readily quantifiable. Rather,the level of this requirement must be established it by the City based on the history of the City and the philosophy of"adequate"reserve coverage. ._ • ,s•. • • 14 . ■ • ten- - - • • r • w• ■■- • r. ■- - I - •-.I I•! • • difficult to quantify. State and Federal legislation dealing with shared aids is somewhat unpredictable. The City must strive to remain current on the effects of changing legislation and budget such aids accordingly. A reserve balance in the City's General Fund will mitigate the adverse effects of aid reductions which are received after expenditure budget commitments are I made. The State of Minnesota is apparently developing a unique view of what constitutes prudent fiscal management for Minnesota cities. Currently, the Minnesota Department of Revenue is exploring options for reducing LGA and HACA to cities as a method of reducing the State's budget shortfall. One method that has been under consideration for cutting aids is based upon city reserve balances. Presumably,cities with "large"reserve balances would experience "large" aid cuts. I •ity of Mounds View,Minnesota Management Report,Page 18 We recommend that the City strongly oppose this method of targeting aid reductions to cities for the following reasons: 1. The proposed targeting would penalize those cities which do practice sound fiscal management. 2. The proposed targeting would encourage less responsible fiscal management. This would result in financial crisis for individual cities and ultimately affect the bond ratings of all Minnesota cities including the City of Mounds View. 3. The targeting program would be virtually impossible to administer on a fair and equitable basis because financial management practices and fund structures are not consistent or easily comparable among cities. What may appear to be a low reserve balance of a city's General Fund may be an adequate reserve balance for such city. Examples are as follows: • Transferring monies from the General Fund to other funds for capital acquisitions or anticipated acquisitions. • • The use of Special Revenue Funds to account for basic services such as police,fire and other. • The use of Internal Service Funds for compensated absences and other purposes. • The reservation of General Fund balance for cash flow,compensated absences,etc. • Transferring of reserved balance amounts to other city funds. 4. Many cities have established reserve policies and made significant fiscal management decisions based on the established/targeted reserve policy. The effectiveness of such planning and fiscal management would be severely hampered(if not destroyed) by reserve balance "raiding"by the State. 5. The State is possibly seeking to pass its financial crisis onto local government. This would be a temporary solution to apparently poor fiscal management at the State leveL 6. The potentially lost reserve balance could diminish the city's bond rating and potentially deplete a city's reserve balance pledged to secure debt service requirements. The State has made significant attempts to improve the "equitable distribution" of State aids to cities over the past two years. The success of the action to date is questionable. The proposed otion to "raid"reserve balances of cities would be a clear message that the objective of the State is i. f equity among cities. The objective would be to control the local decision making process as it relates to financial matters. This would result in an erosion of the independence and effectiveness of city government. Additionally, such actions could eventually affect the bond ratings of all Minnesota cities. City of Mounds View, Minnesota Management Report,Page 19 The City's minimum cash flow reserve requirement is measurable. For the City of Mounds View, the minimum required surplus is$950,206 computed as follows: 1990 budgeted levy('includes Homestead Credit) $1,255,153 1990 anticipated Local Government Aid 645,260 Total $1,900,413 • One half of total $950,206 1111 The City has demonstrated that a financially sound General Fund is attainable through prudent fiscal planning. The City has met its cash flow required reserve and also has approximately Pr'o Y $477,000 of other General Fund reserves to fulfill the various other reserve requirements as 11 described in this report and to meet specific reserve requirements as established by formal City policy as follows: Designated for compensated absences $132,113 Designated for contingencies 271,101 • Designated for committed contracts 20,283 Designated for inventory 18,943 Designated for cash flow 950,206 Total designations 1,392,646111 Undesignated 342,989 Total Fund Balance-December 31,1989 $1,735.635 111 Without this adequate General Fund reserve,the independence and autonomy of the City may ft be impaired. The City of Mounds View has taken actions over the past several years to improve the financial position of its General Fund. We commend the City for these actions and encourage the City to continue to monitor this reserve balance. An adequate reserve structure will enable the City to retain its financial independence and integrity during the present change in economic environment. 111 I t I B ' CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW,MINNESOTA it • COMBINED BALANCE SHEET-ALL FUND TYPES AND ACCOUNT GROUPS December 31,1989 Governmental Fund Tvoes Special Debt Capital Assets General Revenue Service Project k Cash and investments $1,186,947 $336,694 $2,284,068 $5,401,841 1i ve tmenis with escrow agent Accrued interest receivable .ccounxs receivable 9,341 120,407 Note receivable Due from other governmental units 24,497 25,277 387 12,742 axes receivable: Delinquent 15,484 551 1,032 11. Due from county 7,371 639 4,326 ,pedal assessments receivable 24 204,453 221,601 ;hie from other funds 601,598 6,865 74,122 509,671 1 .,)re from developers 19,744 _nventories 18,943 ,=axed assets(net of accumulated depreciation) ii ',mount available in Debt Service Fund II Amount to be provided for retirement of general long term debt Total assets 51 874 608 S379.367 52.568388 $6,266,262 k Liabilities and Fund Equity is l/es- . (- ch overdraft $23,041 $10,920 5605,145 Accounts payable 539,925 4,222 22,957 taries payable 25,285 916 ..ontracts payable 20,283 1,929 329,111 Deposits payable 573 Due to other governmental units 8,529 45 , 41,829 II Interfund loan payable Due to other funds 28,894 190,651 518 823,803 Deferred revenue 15,484 750 149,891 215,697 Bonds payable I Lease payable Loan payable Deferred compensation payable Compensated absences payableIf Total liabilities 138,973 221.554 161.329 2,038.542 Fund Equity Contributions from property owners II Invested in general fixed assets Retained earnings: Reserved Ili Unreserved Fund balance(deficit): Reserved 2,407,059 176,000 Unreserved: Designated 1,392,646 158,457 4,332,692 It r gnated342,989 (644) (280,972) fund equity IP 1.735,635 157,813 2.407,059 4.227,720 II Total liabilities and fund equity S1,874,608_ 5379,367 52.568 388 56,266,262 asimissminoIt 0 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 1r MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Clerk-Administrator Paule DATE: July 20, 1990 SUBJECT: MOUNDS VIEW BUSINESS PARK SOUTH CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT Attached please find a letter from Mr. Bill Franke of Everest Development dated March 6, 1990, requesting that the City enter into an agreement with Everest Development compensating that firm for their construction management costs related to the installation of public improvements in Mounds View Business Park South. Also attached please find a letter from City Attorney Barney dated July 13, 1990, finding no objections to the proposed construction management agreement. • As you may recall, the City entered into a similar agreement for the original Mounds View Business Park project. The proposal for the Mounds View Business Park South agreement calls for the City to compensate Everest Development in the amount of $20,000 or 4% of construction costs, whichever is less, plus out-of-pocket expenses . As is the case with the original Business Park agreement. Everest understands that the City has limited tax increment funds available to them and whether the money is provided in the form of land buy-down or construction management, the total amount of funds available will not increase. Your direction in this matter is requested. Should you choose to approve the agreement, Everest previously submitted request for payment of construction management costs based upon the erroneous assumption that an agreement already existed. Staff has reviewed the costs submitted in the amount of $75,958. 11 and finds them to be consistent with the project and the documentation provided. Therefore, Staff would also recommend that should you approved the construction management agreement, $75,958 . 11 be paid to Everest Development as compensation pursuant to the provisions of the construction management agreement. 411 DFP/BAB Attachments rry n;3, JUL •. o, '. 90 LEIGHTON, KARNEY, CRABTREE C9bt.V® ATTORNEYS AT LAW ��°uNDs V}!yep ,. ROSEVILLE PROFESSIONAL CENTER,SUITE 620 4�N 1�V 2233 HAMLINE AVENUE NORTH •G/t`CCSZ% �lROSEVILLE,MINNESOTA 55113.5007 U TELEPHONE(612)636.9654 TELEFAX(612)636.2474 MARK A.KARNEY H.RICK FRITZ LEE J.LEIGHTON OF COUNSEL TODD CRABTREE July 13, 1990 Mr. Don Pauley City Administrator City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 Re: MV Business Park South Public Improvements Agreement Dear Don: I've reviewed the contract for Mounds View Business Park South Public Improvements and find it is a standard agreement with all of the standard provisions regarding the public improvements. This standard agreement has been used repeatedly throughout the State for public improvements and I cannot find any changes I would make to it at this time. The only thing I would caution you about is making sure the basis of compensation which has been filled in with costs, amounts, conditions regarding services rendered, all meet with the City's approval or agreement before the contract is signed. I assume you already have had Ric or other parties within the City review it to ensure those conditions and terms do not violate any of our City codes and are in accordance with our position on this contract. Yours truly, Mark A. Karney MAK:slr Enclosure • T _ • THE EVEREST GRO o' '.T viz, nj "'i arch 6, 1990 MAR 1990 s Mr. Donald F. PauleyRECEIVED Clerk/Administrator cc?-, OTT OF City of Mounds View MOUNDS VIEW �Q' 2401 Highway View, MN 55112 ��9Z �,`���� Mounds Re: Mounds View Business Park South Public Improvements/Construction Management Services Dear Don, Enclosed for your review and approval is an Agreement between Everest Investments, as agent for the City of Mounds View, Owner, and Everest Construction Company, Construction Manager, relative to the provision of construction management services for construction of public improvements at Mounds View Business Park South. • The Agreement has been prepared consistent with the Agreement utilized on Phase I of the Mounds View Business Park, in accordance with Section 3 . 6 (c) of the Contract for Private Redevelopment. Please review the Agreement, and contact me with any questions or comments you have. In the event you find the Agreement acceptable, please so advise, in writing. I apologize for the delay in preparation and forwarding the Agreement. Thanks for your cooperation. Very truly yours, THEE ST GROUP, LTD. /al- C. William Franke President Enclosure cc: Robert Deike w/enclosure !II CWF/jk 2685 Long Lake Road P.O.Box 13292•Roseville,MN 55113 (612)636-5500 m. 157 MEMORANDUM Memo To :Mayor and Council Members From :Ric Minetor, Acting Clerk-Administrator Date :August 16, 1990 Subject :Ardan Park Compost Site Alternatives Attached is a letter from Zack Hansen regarding the current situation at the Ardan Park compost site, and the County's recommendation for resolving the problems. Mr. Hansen will be attend the agenda session to discuss these recommendations, and the possibility of moving the site. One alternative is to relocate the compost facility on private property north of Highway 118 (new 10) , specifically on the former parking lot of the defunct drag strip. The owner of this parcel is out of town until after the 27th of August. Another alternative is the Long Lake Road Regional Park. Theoretically, a compost site could be located there; however, this may not be permissible under Met Council guidelines. I have discussed these ideas with Mr. Hansen and he will be able to discuss them. III Mr. Don Pauley June 27, 1990 Page two Before we proceed however, we need to know if the City of Mounds View concurs with the work plan, since the City owns the site. Clearly, some work on drainage and the fence is necessary if this site is to continue to be used for its intended purpose and to provide good service to resident. In the event the City does not wish to upgrade the quality of the site, we would recommend that the site be closed, as it could not be properly managed. Please contact me when you have reached a decision. In the event that the City wishes to proceed with site construction, we are prepared to have contractors commence work in short order. Thank you for you consideration of this matter. If you have any questions , please call me at 633-0316. Sincerely, 4111etk.C/4 ' ack Hansen • Solid Waste Division Manager cc: Duane McCarty, Commissioner Rob Fulton, Director of Public Health Mark Peloquin, Environmental Health Specialist Rick Wrisky, City of Mounds View III .- ABLE FENCE INC. FREE ESTIMATES DATE SOLD 114 E. ACKE:Z STREET • ST.PAUL,MINN. 551 17 ---0- Office: 222.4355 Ce...„ r,e- . Data ,_ _ __We propose to sell and install a ' o7�yc ur property in accord nc ' th:ketghndquantiyie*1Ssted below. WOOD--SB AB FT DE $ cause Wireoa Line Posts Jar Term f 4.Top Rail 4 High , Type - Name • ..1 deo -,..57; "i Underground Utilities 4iit no Address] 4." ff ii l•ke • 8 10 City. (f%7_�Q�cA z�-1J/ �' tf� County '�1 Cross Streets 1�e li �t' i �," Phone _:�2 s"-"r". Zone_._ _ Map Locat ion _ii__ ."' / ,4. - QUANTITY SKETCH' - i6 ( . ' ! 1•c ' /,e 1''tom"fC, ` SiHi.4 iA • Ox ,M' / i , ,, rer'e'C-9G. i 4. 0 ' 4 O/ � C,toAe1eel Ars(.5' Ni. •,. ": ' ter+ , 4-4.76 A- � - ,f4 f 1 t.?? X t VS C. Ex4 5 ,n) '" i e D t 4 �-iz e •• /' i$° 6 •iter- a-44d.4 d- eei9 q r �s'alc?t� ?- -'-7Qo� -41 41 ' P c s Jaz 6, }-tfci 11 Tax Permit STREET•••1 .11:6MMINOINSMEMEMIN.WARY I Total We are satisfied with the installation et Gin fence. :.. .. By: / e41 ---ens'/Ae"Z 7". Referral ❑ Newspaper 0 Signs 0 Other ACCEPTED: By: Knuckle up 0 Twist up 0 • By: _ Top rail of fence to: follow round 0 be level 0 PAYMENT TERMS All quotations subject to conditions beyond our cot7.3.—. CustareT Bilins cess, X: Different Than rove agrees to furnish building permits, property lines and stake fence location. This quotation does not. include clearing trees, brush o: other ebstract s frcn: workig area. M ~.on r, . , . . .R RAMSEY COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT Hal Norgard, Chairman .- - DIVISION OF SOLID WASTE Diane Ahrens John T. Finley 1910 West CountyRd. 8 #206 Ruby Hunt McCarty Duane Roseville, MN 55113 Donald E. Salverda Warren W. Schaber .k-, 633-0316 298-5972 RAMSEY COUNTY Zack Hansen,Manager • June 27, 1990 Mr. Don Pauley - City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 RE: Site Maintenance at Mounds View Yard Waste Site Dear Mr. Pauley: The State prohibition on mixing yard waste with other garbage has resulted in the extensive use of community yard waste sites in Ramsey County. The site in Mounds View is no exception, as more residents than ever have used the site to dispose of leaves and grass . This increased use has led to site maintenance problems , which is why I am writing to you. The site is currently in a condition that is close to unusable. The site has developed a severe problem with water , as there is virtually no drainage pattern. This has caused water to pond in several places to a depth of about one foot , and has made the remainder of the site very muddy. This combination has left only small areas available to dump yard waste, so that residents dump their grass clippings at scattered areas on the site. This condition will likely create an" odor problem if it is not addressed. - . . OS • . • . n . a - - - - - - e - - - o u n d i n• the site is in disrepair ; in some spots there are openings allowing people to dump yard waste on the site when the site is closed. These items should be corrected in order for this site to continue to function as intended. the Department has prepared a work plan to repair the surface and the fence, which will resolve the security and drainage issues . The work would include hauling a significant portion of the yard waste currently on site to another location, grading the west half of the site, building a base of gravel and crushed asphalt on the west half of the site , and repairing/replacing the fence . We estimate that this will cost about $14 ,000 . We would plan to add a base of gravel an crushed asphalt to the east half of the site in 1991 , to complete the reconstruction. The Department would pay for the cost of construction . Printed on recycled paper Mr. Don Pauley June 27, 1990 Page two • Before we proceed however, we need to know if the City of Mounds View concurs with the work plan, since the City owns the site. Clearly, some work on drainage and the fence is necessary if this site is to continue to be used for its intended purpose and to provide good service to resident. In the event the City does not wish to upgrade the quality of the site, we would recommend that the site be closed, as it could not be properly managed. Please contact me when you have reached a decision. In the event that the City wishes to proceed with site construction, we are prepared to have contractors commence work in short order. Thank you for you consideration of this matter. If you have any questions, please call me at 633-0316. Sincerely, 0 *fr‘ ‘241‘id44 ck Hansen Solid Waste Division Manager cc: Duane McCarty, Commissioner Rob Fulton, Director of Public Health Hark Peloquin, Environmental Health Specialist Rick Hrisky, City of Mounds Viev '4fr-tA/Y l3 TO: Mayor & Council FROM: Don Brager, Finance Director - Treasurer DATE: August 17, 1990 SUBJECT: Date of Public Budget Hearings Pursuant to Truth In Taxation legislation the City must set a public hearing and a continuation date for consideration and adoption of it's 1991 property tax levy and budget. The dates selected may not be the same as the County's or the School District's. The County has selected December 11 and 18 at 6: 00 p.m. The School District has selected November 26 and December 10 at 6: 30 p.m. Our hearing may be held between November 15 and December 20 on any weekday after 5: 00 p.m. or at any time on Saturday. The public hearing may be held on the same day as a regularly scheduled meeting provided that the public hearing on the proposed property tax for payable 1991 is dealt with first, the subjects of the public hearing and the regularly scheduled • meeting are not intermingled and that the final property tax levy for payable 1991 is adopted at the conclusion of the public hearing(unless a continuation hearing is scheduled and held) . Regularly scheduled Council meetings in December do not meet the Truth In Taxation requirements. December 10 has been selected by the School District and December 26 is past the deadline of December 20. Should the Council wish to not have additional meetings during December the hearing and the continuation date could be scheduled for the dates of the December Agenda Sessions, December 3 and 17, and the Agenda Sessions could be held after the public hearings. Should the Council wish to hold the hearing and the contination on a day other than the Agenda Sessions I would suggest Wednesday December 5 and 12 or Thursday December 6 an. . . - - - Saturday would be conducive to good attendance on the part of the public even though they are permitted by the Truth In Taxation law. The date selected for the City's public hearing on the 1991 property tax levy must be certified to the County along with the City's proposed property tax levy on or before August 27, 1990. Staff awaits Council's direction in this matter. DB/hs 41) C: \DEPTADM\budhearing /7 • MEMO TO: MAYOR & COUNCIL FROM: MARY SAARION, DIRECTOR PARKS, RECREATION & FORESTRY DATE: AUGUST 16, 1990 SUBJECT: GREENFIELD PARK BASEBALL FIELD IMPROVEMENTS Fourteen thousand dollars was budgeted from monies in the General Parks Capital Construction budget for 1990 for the improvements at Greenfield Park baseball field. The Greenfield improvement plan which was approved called for $12,870 of the $14, 000 for the baseball field improvements. Approximately $3 , 000 of this amount will be saved because a decision was made to seed the entire field rather than sod a portion. In this way, a hardier grass can be grown and the turf will be uniform throughout the field. Staff wishes to use this $3 , 000 savings from the general capital construction fund to substitute the manhole which was proposed for the sprinkling system mechanics and instead purchase the materials and labor of a garage type of building. This building would provide more diverse and practical use as an equipment shed, concession booth and housing for the sprinkling system mechanical • hardware. The cost savings of the sod and the substitution of the manhole pit cost would pay for this garage and installation. Because Greenfield project is in two separate approvals, the council is required to approve the use of the field improvement savings of approximately $3 , 000 plus the substitution of the manhole at $2, 000 to combine and use for the purchase and installation of a garage style building. No additional funds are requested, but instead council is requested to approve the monies saved in the field improvement proposal to be used for the substitution of a garage rather than a manhole for the sprinkling system proposal. In this way no additional monies are requested or would be spent, just re-shuffling of project items between the two proposals, (Greenfield baseballfield and sprinkling) . Public Works Foreman has received two bids on a garage including installation as follows: Isanti Garage - $4, 100 Wausau - $4,300 • Public Works Foreman Ulrich and Director Minetor will be present to answer any additional questions regarding this request. 4 y ,. /5 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Assistant Engineer Gamble DATE: August 15, 1990 SUBJECT: JOANN PERRY WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT 2201 BRONSON DRIVE, PLANNING CASE NO. 309-90 The applicant has requested a wetland alteration permit to construct a deck onto the back of her house at 2201 Bronson Drive. The proposed deck would be situated between the house and the below-ground swimming pool in the back yard; however, the proposed site lies within the 100 foot buffer zone of a wetland. Section 48 . 05, Subd. 5(c) , of the Wetland Zoning Ordinance indicates that all structures shall be set back at least 100 • feet from the wetland. However, Section 48.06, Subd. 4(c) , allows for minor development in a buffer zone with a wetland alteration permit. The proposed deck would not seem to deter from the purpose or preservation of the wetland, however, Staff is looking for direction as to the appropriate resolution to prepare for this request. TJG/BAB Ulaim 162 MEMORANDUM Memo To :Mayor and Council Members From :Ric Minetor, Acting Clerk-Administrator Date :August 20, 1990 Subject :Job Values Review We have received proposals from 2 firms, Ernst & Young and Hay Management Consultants for review of the current job values. The proposals are significantly different; the Ernst & Young proposal would simply review the current time spent, profiles and re-evaluate the job values. The Hay proposal includes updating and creating new time spent profiles. The difference is reflected in the cost. Ernst & Young estimate $1,500 for the review; additional costs might be incurred if time spent profiles or job descriptions are revised. The Hay proposal assumes all job descriptions and time spent profiles will be reviewed and updated; this is estimated to cost $12,000 to $14 ,000. The options we have for reviewing the current job values include using one of these firms , having our current consultant (Personnel Decisions, Inc. ) review position descriptions and time, spent profiles that are of concern, or leaving the current system alone except for new positions or positions that did not have incumbents when originally valued. The City of Cottage Grove had originally used the Control Data method and then recently had Hay completely redo their job values. In discussing this with the City Manager, the primary reason for redoing the job values was a lack of credibility among the Council and employees in the Control Data system. He indicated that he was familiar with both systems and feels the relative values is not significantly different. This decision will impact the revaluing of the positions of Building Official, Public Works Foreman, and Director of Public Works/City Engineer. The recent revaluing of these positions indicate significant increases in the job value over the benchmark values previously used. The building official moved from 78 to 82, the Public Works Foreman moved up from 82 to 97, and the Director of Public Works moved from 97 to 106. The salary ranges should be adjusted to reflect the change in job values. The question is whether to make the adjustments at this time or to review all the job values and adjust all positions at the same time. Staff seeks Council's direction in both areas; the next action regarding review of job values, and when to adjust the values of the currently revalued positions. A,E6111 l77 MEMORANDUM Memo To :Mayor and Council Members From :Ric Minetor, Acting Clerk-Administrate Date :August 17 , 1990 Subject :Parks Maintenance Strategies Mary Saarion, Mike Ulrich, and I discussed the options and concerns about Park Maintenance following the August 15th special meeting. We arrived at a recommendation for a Parks Maintenance strategy which _I believe is acceptable to all parties involved and also which is more efficient in many areas. The thrust of our strategy was to allow decisions to be made at the lowest reasonable level ; and avoid unproductive time in obtaining approvals which often are based solely on the recommendation of the person requesting the approval . You previously received Mary's memo regarding accountability in parks operations . This served as the basis for a number of our comments . In addition , we discussed the staffing and responsibilities of the parks maintenance staff. We recommend that the responsibility for preparation of the parks operation budget be transferred to the Public Works Department; and specifically the Public Works Foreman. This budget would include all personnel costs, materials, capital equipment items, etc. normally utilized in the maintenance of the parks. The items included in this area include turf management, ball field maintenance, maintenance of parking lots, maintenance of shelter buildings, preparation and maintenance of ice rinks, etc. Minor repair and improvements may also be included. Parks Capital and Parks Improvements would continue to be budget areas under the Director of Parks, Recreation, and Forestry. Projects to be accomplished through these areas would not be handled by City forces, but rather would be let out for bid. There would necessarily be coordination between these budgets as maintenance needs are dictated by the equipment in the parks, and at times, parks improvements can be necessitated by maintenance concerns. We also believe the current level of staffing is adequate under the assumption that parks improvement projects are not done in- house. The time frames of some of the part-time employees may need to be changed. We feel continued discussion on the feasibility of obtaining part-time help in the early spring is necessary. However, we do not feel the overall cost of part-time help will change. We are also considering taking bids early in the year on minor work on a unit basis. When a contractor was required for this type of work, the lowest available contractor from this bid would be contacted to do the work. This allows us to schedule minor jobs around other time constraints and also to combine city forces and contractors in these small projects. I recommend that the parks operations budget be transferred to Public Works and that the Public Works Foreman develop this budget and be responsible for implementation, with review by the Public Works Director.