HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 1990/05/07 •
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL
MAY 7, 1990
5:00 P.M. - SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
SILVER VIEW TASK FORCE PROPOSAL
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
AGENDA SESSION
7:00 P.M.
1. Joint Discussion with Planning Commission Regarding
Variance Request of People's Plus, 2280 County Road I,
to Build Temporary Fuel Recovery Building
2 . Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Request by
Terry Jo and Jay Sherman, 8443 Red Oak Drive
to Construct Second Principal Structure
3 . Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Request by
Steve Melby for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance,
8419 Spring Lake Road, Planning Case No. 290-90
4 . Discussion of Cable TV Channel 16 (Mounds View
Community Access Channel) Programming
5. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding New 10/610
Traffic Study
6 . Continued Discussion of Proposed County Road I Sidewalk
Extension
7 . Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Long Lake
Road Reconstruction - Storm Water Concerns
8 . Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Draft
Feasibility Report for Long Lake Road Reconstruction
AGENDA •
PAGE TWO
MAY 7, 1990
9. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding White Oak
Homeowners Association Permit Fee Refund Request
10 . Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding National
Public Works Week
11. Continued Discussion of Staff Memorandum Regarding Junk
Vehicles
12 . Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Mounds View
Branch Library Assessment Interest Waiver Request
13 . Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Long-Term
Financial Plan Public Service Program
14. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Surplus
Equipment
15. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Finance
Department Team Building Session
16 . Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Cash
Balance of the Park Improvement Fund 410
17 . Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Garbage and
Rubbish Haulers ' License Fee
18 . Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding City
Entrance Sign
19 . Staff Presentation of City Hall Space Needs Study
Proposals (Info to be provided Monday evening. )
20. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Greenfield
Park Baseball Field Fencing
21. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Municipal
Code Update - Chapters 22, 23, and 24
22 . Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Fire
Department Bond Referendum Request
23. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding 1990 State
Aid Cuts
24. First Quarter 1990 Department Head Reports
. Director of Public Works/City Engineer Minetor110
. Finance Director Brager
_ _ , .
..
V640_, ,/
Ali MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
0441111
i- OM: CLERK-ADMINISTRATOR PAUL 01000017
DATE: MAY 3, 1990
SUBJECT: PEOPLE' S PLUS, 2280 CO. RD. I , VARIANCE-REQUEST
People' s Plus at 2280 County Road I has requested a variance to
construct a temporary product recovery building on their site.
According to their consultant, Dahl & Associatees, Inc . , a fuel tank ,
which was installed in 1983 failed , date unknown , and an unknown amount
of fuel was spilled into the ground . This fuel , known as "free product" ,
is in the ground water table below the station site in the form of a
plume which is estimated at being 60 feet in radius. The failed tank
has been replaced and the remaining 2 tanks have passed Federally
prescribed pressure tests.
The MPCA has ordered the installation of a product recovery system to
remove the free product from the goundwater table. This will be
accomplished by pumping the water and product out of the ground , air
stripping the hydrocarbons from the water, and disposing of the water
into the sanitary sewer system after it has been measured to assure that
the product level in the water is within standards. It is expected that
the recovery process will take 2 to 4 years.
cached for your information is the following ,
1 . A letter and drawing from Dahl & Asociates, Inc . requesting the
variance.
2. A memorandum from City Planner Hren to the Planning Commission
outlining the issue for the Commission ' s May 2nd meeting .
3. A memorandum from City Planner Hren to me outlining the
Commission ' s action on May 2nd . City Attorney Karney will not
be available until May 4th for consultation on this matter.
I have placed this item as number 1 on your agenda.
According to the consultant, there is not a significant risk of an
explosive condition as the product is in the ground and not exposed to
the air or a source of ignition . The concern is that the product plume
surrounds the sanitary sewer service for the station and if a leak into
the sewer occurs, an explosive condition could develop, The City ' s
sanitary sewer is being monitored daily.
In a telephone conversation with Michelle on this date, she pointed out
that the building would be allowed if the site were large enough to
avoid the need for a variance. The Planning Commission had discussed
the posibiility of placing a time limit on the building . I would
110 gest that we could be placed in the position of having to extend it
clean-up takes longer than expected . It would be my recommendation
that we place a limit on the use of the building which would ultimately
result in its removal when clean-up has been completed . I will be
discussing this option with Mark Karney before Monday evening .
4you have any questions on this matter before May 7th, please let me
2 w. Staff will await your direction .
•
•
•
DAHL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Environmental Consultants, Contractors & Engineers
4390 McMenemy Road
Saint Paul, MN 55127
(612) 490-2905 * FAX (612) 490-2909
APRIL 27, 1990
Ms. Michelle Hem
City Planner
2401 Hwy 10
Mounds View, Minnesota
55112
Dear Ms. Hem:
RE: Requested variance for a temporary recovery building to be built on People's
Plus gas station located at 2280 West County Road I Mounds, Minnesota.
Dahl and Associates, Inc. request's that a variance be considered for a temporary,
10 ft by 10 ft., building at People's Plus gas station. The building will be on site
• until the contamination is cleaned up, which is expected to be from three to five
years. The building will house product recovery equipment.
Product recovery equipment is used to treat water and remove product, in this
case gasoline, from contaminated ground water. The treated water is then
discharged to the sanitary sewer under permit from the Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission. In addition, the air vented from the system will be within
standards set by the Air Quality Division of the M.P.C.A.
The building construction will be a 6" cement slab with 8" masonry block walls.
The roof will consist of insulation and metal construction. The equipment inside
will meet code as a class 1, division 1, group D for hazardous locations in
accordance with Chapter 5 of the National Electrical Code-1990. A permit
application has been submitted with the Fire Inspector for an above ground
storage tank for combustible liquids. Installation of this tank and all equipment
will be in accordance with the Fire Inspector's requests and requirements.
Property lines, current building location, gas pump island and driveway access, as
well as underground tank basin are important factors in Dahi's decision for the
recovery building location.
•
• Ms. Hem:
April 27, 1990
Page 2
Dahl is working closely with the M.P.C.A., to clean up this release. Dahl's contact
at the M.P.C.A. is Diana Eichfeld and she can be contacted at 643-3456 in regards
to the rapid deployment of a recovery system needed for this release. In addition,
Minnesota Statute 115.061, requires the recovery , as rapidly and thoroughly as
possible, of any substance which may cause pollution of waters of the state.
Sincerely Yours,
Kent Wolf
Project Engi• -
er
�
. Enclosures: 1. Site Map
2. Recovery System Layout Map
3. Recovery System Shed
•
iC j • • • • • -
z
73
o
D
v .
H 0
1
4.11111)
,,o ii
C
ailliaV
N _ _ i _ .... ,_ •
•
_ - _ ___ADAMS STREET
i C--- .. rig • +i! .'\ (. . .
i
tib:, ..
� '
11 I .0 0
111 M �..._.�, • MO I .
o . . )
+nt• ° • U1
Ili:" -4 _ ..
6=1 m P " I
`.11. -
ff. n
niJ
a1 I �
x
�900o nm
330• . 7 Y m z
a H N Uá
>0 x /t 00--vi zi
_. o : pill 2 °
( r _
MP
!•u
CO 7 m Z� o - •
v ;b .7
Z ? Km g(n a•
~ Z .•
m °
• .• 71 O. U) 0
30y D �� �� 11 lc
Ri
- -' No• i a m
Y 4 .
ITEM 6
411 MEMORANDUM
•
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: City Planner, Michelle Hren
DATE: April 26, 1990
SUBJECT: Fina Variance 2280 County Road I
Planning Case No. 295-90
The Fina Gas Station located at 2280 County Road I has applied for
a variance from the setback requirement to allow the construction
of a temporary building on the site. The building would be used
solely for the cleanup of the contamination of the gasoline. Once
the cleanup work has been completed the building would be removed.
The Setback required is 30 feet on both street frontages. The
proposed building would be setback approximately 20 feet from the
property line on the side street.
The site plans will be available Wednesday for your review. The
• applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission act on this
request at your meeting on May 2, 1990 so that the applicant can
meet the deadlines from the MNPCA.
If you have any questions please feel free to call me.
410
Y
MEMORANDUM
TO: Clerk/ Administrator, Don Pauley
FROM: City Planner, Michelle Hren
DATE: May 2, 1990
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Meeting , May 2, 1990
I will be at a conference Thur. and Fri.
The Planning Commission tabled action on the Fina variance request
pending information from Mark Barney. They want this information
by MONDAY NIGHT BECAUSE THEY SET A SPECIAL MEETING WITH THE CITY
COUNCIL ON MAY 7 AT 7:00PM TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE. They felt that
the City Council may want to have input in this variance request.
I will try to contact Mark during my MnApa Conference to find out
his response to:
1. Can the City require that the three untouched tanks be replaced.
2. Whose responsible for the tanks that do not leak at this time,
• but may later. Fina owns the station now, but Coon Oil is the
responsible party now.
3. Should this be considered as a Conditional Use in addition to
a variance because we may see more of these systems at other
gas station sites.
4. Can they put a time limit on this variance request.
5. Can they put $ assurance on the removal of the structure. There
was discussion regarding the permanency of the structure and
the PC was not opposed to having them remain as monitoring
wells once the contamination cleanup was completed. ( 18 months
-2 years) .
If Mark determines that a variance (setback) is all that is
required, the Planning Commission is expecting to discuss this with
the City Council at 7:00 PM and call to order during the City
Council meeting If Mark determines that a
conditional use permit would also needed to address this issue the
PC will not call to order and will wait until their next meeting.
The reason for this rush is because the Mn PCA has determined that
there is danger at the site and are afraid that an explosion may
occur. THis is due to the location of sewer line. The site is being
monitored for fumes from the sewer line.
•
I will fax this to Mark tonight so he hopefully will have a copy
tomorrow, Thursday to discuss this.
•
•
TIli MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
r OM: CLERK ADMINISTRATOR PAULEY 441111
IP
DATE: MAY 3, 1990
SUBJECT: REQUEST OF TERRY AND JAY SHERMAN, 8443 RED OAK DRIVE, TO BUILD
A SECOND PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE
Attached please find the following information .
1 . Letter and site plan from Terry and Jay Sherman requesting
approval to build a second principal structure and then demolish
the old house.
2. Memorandum from City Planner Hren providing some historical
background on similar cases in the last 8 years.
3. Memorandum from me to Planning Commission requestng their
recommendation .
4. Memorandum from City Planner Hren indicating that the Planning
Commission has recommended approval contingent on the provision
of a bond to cover the cost of demolishing the old structure.
I spoke with Mrs. Sherman on the morning of May 3rd and advised her of
* e recommendation of the Planninng Commission and that the issue would
e before you on May 7th. She indicated to me that the builder has
agreed to demolish the old structure and provide a bond to guarantee
that the work is done. Mr. and Mrs. Sherman should be at your May 7th
meeting to answer any questions you might have.
Your direction in this matter is requested .
April 11, 1990
Dear Mr Don Pauley and counsel members,
We are requesting the counsel's approval on a new home being built on
our existing property at 8443 Red Oak Drive. Enclosed is a copy of the
Certificate of Survey for each council member.
Presently this properly is owned by my mother, Dorothy Richardson, whom
has lived there for approximately thirty eight years. I have lived at
this address all my life. Because my mother and I have been here so
long, we would rather not move from this neighborhood.
My mother is terminally ill; due to this, my husband and I made the
decision two years ago that I would stay home and care for her medical
needs. Her condition requires special needs and equipment that
requires more living space and future space to expand our own family.
She has agreed to sell the property to us for the appraisal amount
which is $20,000.
We are asking approval from you to leave the existing home standing
until the new home is complete. Again we request this since we have no
place to go with my mother and all her medical equipment and needs.
Our contractor; Daily Construction 11000 Central Ave NE, Blaine, MN •
55434, has assured us that the new home would take 90 to 100 days
maximum to complete. Once the new home is completed they will destroy
and remove the old home within twenty to thirty days. From the start
of the new home till the finish of removing the existing home would be
within four months and 10 days.
We sincerely hope this request can be approved by you. I am eagerly
awaiting to here your answer.
If you have any questions you may contact me at 612/784-0723. Thank
you.
Si cerely, �-�,�
Fo 2)//I_"ai ;
Terry Jo Sherman
Jay Sherman
8443 Red Oak Drive
Mounds View, MN 55112
enclosures
V
`` 47•OSe.•°1•"77S'h�lOr--771.15(-7
y ,O 1,.=JM'��1n KY]$
N 1
=r 14
�Fd" _( N- -- 00'18 -- — , 3
u _ -. . .ro
0WY Ila OTo Cj I
y.Ny4 4 U 11 . d 3 $,
W=1- ° 0• 9
>OV 7 v„ .
7 W till
ZZ
��• g
N r=r
1<<w
W m w
1—�3:
CC Cod J
n O O 1
Yir fJ•
. co
4+ 0
N
wp4
O
.W
•+O 0
N f+1 41
CI 1.
w 4 01
+i.0
CO 01 4)
V1 FN
v
(;).01 4'
G a .v .
W N I..
1.1 ~M 444 4.4
N W
w 44. )o
w J
W 1.1 V1 61 o v
0 'C
44 0 11 101 w .1 41Iv 1i ICC T u1v aI
DV ) O If 7 7N<n�ve
LO'C
N•
-U. 4 N W N - ry J l.
m-O aw z CO
OO uza ' 1 is.+
•
u£MI
A IW - O Y \Iii t COlY "Q .. wwu 10 o-1V n ow - isd 1,O a a.
• � u,01J
VI
Lo O 4) u1.44 a ztea (U
d
Cr g d ...0 u 592
W ] rU)m0 O 1'9 > ' ---
.J F 3 N ..(71� 10.01
U. aQQ Q
h•% .D A., L ,i 1 I 3
____/.... _ .1.1.• 1 N 7 L
`CI N d V' '1 4 0.11
: 7 P N • 8
9 3
41,
i O i..b L at 1
ji:yr�\ j (
F Z N f1
2 71•'. C oS 1
Q S2 ! z ad ;, ,
i=V z t0 i 7
O 7
{Y Q Z M 1
• ,:g F tl zi 1 1
n(� ) • 3 ., < 1+6 J� 1
\1' 32S�H ,'SO
t C 5 •6p//� /
0� a» `
w pci
u ; t F --00'1Q -
f' ` x 0
.4. 2 4. 0 [
ce n\�o ado CCD' .A.
o1I
.)fl-1)---/
k \�
Li-Y = i X1. .h119n‘9io1 J.SOrwti0,9Z1•1SV3(Es m•••X491+.1
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Clerk/Administrator, Don Pauley
FROM: City Planner, Michelle Hren
DATE: April 19, 1990
SUBJECT: Terry Jo and Jay Sherman, 8443 Red Oak Drive
Please find attached a copy of the request from Terry Jo and Jay
Sherman, 8443 Red Oak Drive in Mounds View. The Sherman's have
requested that the City allow an existing home on the above
referenced property to remain while the new home is being
constructed. Once the new home is completed the old home would be
torn down or removed.
There have been two cases that the City allowed the existing house
to remain while the second house was being constructed. Please find
attached letters from the City outlining the conditions placed upon
the property that is being considered.
The survey submitted does not indicate if the house shown is the •
existing house or the proposed house. The City would need
assurances from the applicant that the proposed house would meet
the Zoning Ordinance requirements.
•
1 a
0 ' - -.:. .i:::. .,,',.;.: . ......J.-..,:;) ' "1. -
t
,w c .4•i C i )0 0 S Ie IdQ
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
GATEWAY TO THE NORTH 2401 HIGHWAY 10
MOUNDS VIEW,MINN. 55112
784-3055
September 24, 1987 CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Ms. Maria Preciado
8030 Long Lake Road
Mounds View, MN 55432
Dear Ms. Preciado:
This letter is in regard to your request to build a new house
behind your existing home which will be demolished once the new
home is completed and occupiable . The City Council has reviewed
the issue and is willing to approve your request if the following
conditions are met:
• 1. The completion and occupancy of the new residence be given
a deadline.
2. That you deposit with the City a security equivalent to
the cost of the demolition of your existing home and for
the restoration of your lot.
3 . That you enter into an agreement with the City prepared by
the City Attorney which will contractually obligate you to
construct the new residence within a given time period,
and occupy the residence following the issuance of an
occupancy certificate and immediately demolish the
existing structure.
In order to begin this process we request that you submit a site
plan and drawings of the proposed structure.
If you have any questions, please call me at 784-3055.
Sincerely,
CITY OF MOUN S VIEW
. Kim Herman
City Planner
KH/bac
0
CASE: 116-82, Item 5 on 11/3/82 Planning Commission Agenda
ITEM: Building Relocation
APPLICANT: Isabella Wille
LOCATION: 7911 Spring Lake Road
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
See attached letter of request.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
1. The existing building at 7911 Spring Lake Road will be demolished
immediately following the granting of an occupancy permit for the
relocated structure.
2. Instead of 50 feet as stated in the letter, the applicant is
proposing to locate the building 105 feet from the street (91
feet from the front property line) . Another building on the
block (7865 Spring Lake Road) is located 71 feet from the front
property line so this house would be set further back and thus
meet front yard setback requirements . The lot measures 115 feet
wide, the relocated house is 38 feet wide, and the applicant would
like to place the house 37 feet from the south line. All setback
requirements will be met (see sketch) .
3. The existing house is not connected to either Mounds View water
111
or sewer. Connection will have to be made to either Mounds View
or Spring Lake Park water and sewer. The property has been
assessed for both sewer and water availability. The City will
have to decide the best way to provide water and sewer service to
this lot as part of the building relocation approval.
4. See attached memo from the Building Inspector regarding the
relocated house ' s condition.
5. This item is being presented to the Planning Commission for your
review and recommendation to the City Council. It will go before
the City Council at a public hearing on Novcmbcr 8, 1982.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 11/4/82
Adopted Resolution No. 65-82 approving relocation of building request.
Gd (0,
A1/7&
. Mr. & Mrs. Louis Wille
7911 Spring Lake Rd.
Mpls . , MN 55132
October 22, 1982
Mounds View City Council;
As owners of the lot at 7911 Spring Lake Road would like to
inform you of our intent of relocating a house on this lot.
The home we wish to relocate is a one story rambler measuring
32f t. X 38ft. . We intend to excavate a full basement for
the house to be set on. Fri our inspection of the house it
does meet all building codes .
The lot at 7911 Spring Lake Rd. measures 115ft. wide by 465ft.
deep. We would like to set the house 50 feet back from the
road and 37 feet from our south lot line.
The house that presently sits on our lot will be demolised
as soon as an occupancy permit is granted for the relocated
house.
We would like to accomplish the relocation as soon as possible ,
• and appreciate your prompt attention to the above matter.
1
er truly your,,
n )41--)A7111'
Mr. Louis Wille
•
MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION •
FROM: CLERK-ADMINISTRATO 4010
DATE: APRIL 25, 1990
SUBJECT: REQUEST OF TERRY AND JAY SHERMAN,
8443 RED OAK DRIVE TO CONSTRUCT SECOND
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE
Attached please find a letter from Terry Jo and Jay Sherman of
8443 Red Oak Drive to myself and the City Council requesting
the City Council's approval that they be allowed to build a
new house at their address while residing in the existing
house with an assurance that the existing house would be
removed or destroyed after the new house is completed and
occupied.
Also attached please find a memorandum from City Planner Hren
with attachments outlining the requirements the City has
placed on two previous requests of a similar nature in 1982
and 1987. I have reviewed with Mr. Sherman these requirements
and he has agreed to enter into a written agreement with the
City which would obligate the construction of the new
residents within a specified period of time, immediate •
occupancy upon issuance of an occupancy certificate and
demolition or removal of the existing structure within a
stated period of time thereafter. Mr. Sherman indicated to me
that he would need to talk to his builder, Daily Construction,
to determine whether or not they would agree to be
contractually obligated to complete the house within a stated
period of time. Mr. Sherman did indicate some concern
regarding the financial obligation of providing a security
equivalent to the cost of demolition and lot restoration as
was required of Ms. Preciado but not required of Mrs. Wille.
Prior to the City Council receiving this request at their
May 7 Agenda Session, I would ask that the Planning Commission
review this material and provide the City Council with your
recommendation for inclusion in the May 7th packet. Your
attention to this matter is appreciated.
DFP/MJS
S
0 MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Pauley
FROM: Michelle Hren
DATE: May 2, 1990
SUBJECT: Terry and Jay Sherman, 8443 Red Oak Drive
The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council approval
to allow the new home to be constructed while the old one remains
as long as a bond to cover the cost of demolition of the old one
is obtained.
•
• MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 286-90
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AND VARIANCE REQUEST BY STEVE MELBY FOR A SECOND ACCESSORY
BUILDING AT 8419 SPRING LAKE ROAD, PLANNING CASE NO. 290-90
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the
request by Mr. Steven Melby for a conditional use permit to
allow a second accessory building on the property located at
8419 Spring Lake Road; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission understands that the
second accessory building is newly constructed on the lot; and
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code allows a second
accessory building by conditional use permit provided that the
total square footage of all accessory buildings does not
exceed 1,264 square feet; and
• WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that
the accessory building meets the minimum setback require-
ments; and
WHEREAS, the maximum square footage for an accessory
building allowed is exceeded by 142 square feet; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning
Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the
requested conditional use permit contingent upon the
following:
a. That the conditional use permit is recorded with
Ramsey County.
b. That the applicant understands that no other
accessory building will be allowed on this
property.
•
RESOLUTION NO. 286-90 111PAGE TWO
c. No motor vehicles other than licensed collectors
vehicles allowed
d. There will be no improved or unimproved driveway
access to the accessory structure.
e. That the building shall be a permanent structure
and maintain a uniform appearance with the
principal structure.
f. That if the use should change from what the
permit was granted for, the permit will be null
and void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the variance is granted
on the hardship that the City granted a building permit in
error for the construction of an oversized accessory building;
and further recommends that the building permit be amended to
reflect the change from garage to accessory building.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission
directs Staff to forward this resolution to the City Council
prior to approval of the minutes. •
Adopted this 2nd day of May, 1990.
ATTEST:
Chairman
(SEAL)
___ City Planner
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Planner, Michelle Hren
DATE: April 11, 1990
SUBJECT: Steve Melby, Conditional Use Permit and Variance
8419 Spring Lake Road, Planning Case
No. 290-90
Mr. Steve Melby has applied for a Conditional Use Permit and a
Variance for an oversized accessory building at the property
located at 8419 Spring Lake Road.
Mr. Melby was issued a building permit by the temporary build-
ing inspector while Mr. Tobias was on vacation. The site plan
that the applicant submitted did not indicate that there was a
garage that already existed on the property and as such was
issued a building permit. When Mr. Melby called for an in-
• spection, Mr. Tobias noticed that there was already a garage
on the property and indicated to Mr. Melby the problem.
The accessory building exceeds the allowable square footage
for a building of that type, therefore, the variance request.
The Planning Commission approved the Variance request and
recommended to the City Council approval of the conditional
Use Permit for the oversized accessory building.
Staff is looking for direction regarding the appropriate
resolution to prepare for this request.
111
r-
f r .
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
11)
STAFF REPORT
REVIEW DATE: March 21, 1990
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 5 (Agenda Session)
CASE NUMBER: 290-90
APPLICANT: Steven Melby
REPORT PREPARED BY: City Planner Michelle Hren
PROPOSED REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 8419 Spring Lake Road
•
The applicant, Steven Melby, has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for an
existing 542 square foot detached garage that was constructed last summer. The
building permit for this detached garage was issued, despite the existence of a 480
square foot attached garage. The applicant failed to indicate the existing attached
garage on the site plan sketch which was submitted along with the building permit
application (see attachment).
The Zoning Code allows, by CUP, a second garage provided that it meets the
requirements of the Code. The total square footage of the two garages is 922
square feet which is within the maximum limit of 1,264 square feet of garage
space. Based on these figures, the applicant could still have a shed under the
accessory building requirements.
The additional garage appears to meet all the requirements regarding accessory
building setbacks and conforms to Section 40.10, Subd. D(6) of the Zoning Code
(see attachment with heading, "Ordinance No. 443").
MMH/BAC
•
, •
. . .:".
. .
. . ,.
//
III /
ORDINANCE NO . 443
/ .
CITY OF MOUNDS .VIEU
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF MOUNDS VIEW BY
AMENDING CHAPTER
The Council of the City of Hounds View does hereby ordain:
SECTION I. 40 .10 , Subdivision D, shall be amended as
- follows:
(6) Gara.e exceedin• ei. ht hundred sixt -four (864) s.uare
feet.
a. The accessodrvFbandd40 . l0ust co C(1)wofhtSectCode .
40 .04 , SuY
b. The combined s uare foots a of all accessory
buildin s on ane
eullot
( 1cann) te
sxceedfone ,thousand two
hundred sixt
than
• c . If the •ara•e s•uaruareoteet,a.e lno others raccessore
thousand 1 ,000 ) s
storage building is_ allowed.
' d. The bde a�-uniformlaopearanceewith theidwellin tunit.
�rovl�e
e. The width of the buildin cannot exceed 35 feet nor
allow for more than a three vehicle access .
f . Should the•useitwshalltbe sub ectwto reconsidera
tion, rbe
evocation or other action - • • -
C haoter 40 .25 of this Code. '
{.6} (7 ) Accessory stets a building other than a garage exceeding
two hundred sixteen (216 ) square feet. .
a. The accessory building must conform with Sections
40 .04, Subd . F and 40 . 10 , Subd . C( 1) 174+ of this
Code .
b. The combined square foota
exceedfonelthousandrtwo
• uljc_
in s on one lot cannot
hundred sixty-four scuare feet.
• b- c . The accessory storage building shall not exceed four
hundred (400 ) square feet.
d . The building shall be designed and maintained to
provide a uniformappearance with the dwelling unit.
ORDINANCE NO.. 443 s ,
PAGE TWO -
!/ y y
•
•
e- e. The building;f::.;-.?-::7,4:»
�t " 0;, ' ,s`' - . : • ',".*:::!,::.:'7. -;'-..r.:.
q .must,bea ipermanent structure. : .-
f.� :Should:.the use for' which th `
-Shan .ed the - ` ei permit was granted by �' • �
g , permzt--shalt'be sub ect,_;tc'
•
reconsideration, revocation 'or other taction
regulated by Chapter 40.25 of this
Code.
•
• .•
Y4N '•L7c -.---- •. s` _ •• F. tr t . C : _t ...It' � y..�' , 3. ;' SECTION II. his ordinance shall take 'effect- thirty_
(30
) :
•
•
days afterthe• date of its publication -
. S ra + .
•
• Reade by the Council of r
Citdayof :June 198 .: y of Mounds View on this `27th
Passed by }the•Council of the- City of Mounds Vie ?.thisllt �_
, - day-:of.. --«July;- -,... ..a ,}. . ._ 1988 �.
t•-_•... i ^� a.) t 1- + .,--;,,,,,...-----;.----• ---:;.---!.::_-1--2--,--t.� a k • t;
• ._- • •r -+,. •3 i w - 1- ci:• 4--7 -1 F1 d eaT•� if ,e.• : 'r+.--• _.•w;
..•••''� •••••. Minneapolis,MN 55416
1NESTERN ': 920- 8888
. cousmacnom co.
117-41"1
•--
DATE
i GARAGE SIZE...22-__X - i` X. ---APRON_._._
CITY f. ` � ' DRIVEWAY SIZE
'' f
.
ADDRESS - �- %" IRODS ?1..CONDUIT PIPE
�• ;:?•;., ;- _WIRE MESH__ � .
NAME 1 f_
WORK — OVERHEAD DOOR SIZE_
PHONE
PERMIT OBTAINED BY L,)'' � � , ,•• SERVICE DOOR LOCATION �'� ''" � �•
SALESMAN -/ ! BLOCK SIZE & LOCATION
.WATERPROOF--- BACKFILL—
CEMENT
WATERPROOF BACKFILL -CEMENT MAN —
•
EXCAVATION BY
OLD GARAGE REMOVED BY GRADE FIAT '—=--- DROP OFF
OLD CEMENT REMOVED BY
1
•
ON .';'t NEY. ASPHA:.
D?.IVEWAY.SE CA?EFJLLNEC T:COH T=TT,
USE PLYWOOD TO PROTECT THE EDGE.
t i
x
z�
` r
r•
j v �%
• I
. •
, ..
- -:••••• AN•N•
- i
4' II ii 4
. CO. '-- ..---- --- - ------ • -'•-i - -.-------------
•. •'\
I •/I1
: Thal awe Is tar venue,
etel_......in 1 If i / 1 nalleses end and Magid aCit
li SI1 il !: ). / mesaresiting Is noire&
el lop • , (19 I I. i. • 1
. .
1 0 I e i i. , arr • ger Isar ma
1
!: I
a ,
V
it,••it
. l• / I NI f I: Ni
.4 • ..0— ——— 71———————_
: /
- ; it ..
! a , _
Q 0 II I i
I A I .4 1 /
. s
I V
1 r 1 1
--''' . • w
,...•,
42j • . • p
bl.
1
\s..
1
ii
g • •,. !I
I tad
I 1
.7%
HJ
/ .tr. ,------
. i....- *
/ .1...
-fp dead \I 1 il II
1 :Srir cgr
.11 Lan II , e . 1 0
L
I x ;
0 ft. 11 i CD i I 1 i ''. — k
1111 I .1 . i
,1
''''' 1,01.ll= _ •••• __
1 1 I '. i ---s:— ... i
.14 0 t, I " '
I ••.A.Vnt••
r..6.........=.1==.°
'=..... -1=77.,• j
g '"'"°= ji
I- L T 1 :1
„, a
1 --
1,,,teui Ij- III _./.".../...0.7.r.7:
.,..
i' if-212 .-4 ron 1
, I -:
) i
"4:1 •••••000 1
---"---I.••• i li 11
11 I COW?, g 1Z-4 •..L:j)1 I .. a
/ *WO n•
I\
•1 ' _____ li fr .
41001.4G NT.1 2,1 1 i
471 i
o o C 4'4% r•'-- --.-I ..1 1 C0111/4„.. .17)/
14,7 I
" :1
'Ll .lie1 I il 1 Il . i
I-
11.. i I .
.4 masa a. i
' I I
11 '' 'MILT LW
;
I e ,,,,04.1
li 1<„. 11 )
• ......_ ..„, !
=4 '
4.....,.. 1.1) II I
• ill
11
uN .1
i itftrical)mt.1
1 r., 2o 21 :4I If . •
.. . ill -
e !
Ihr_____m_,1 I 3*.
•
. --- -,
-, Isr777) . 1
1 , ! II
si I
tag
I 4. i 1 ra Lil 31
i T I.QI /- 11 - ..
• -4 1 N.,. _ I .! - .
V• !N,
•G :r.
III ID 'i . I
. i ._,_ 1 g
.-.
I
r 1
Ave
.11 1..... il ..c...t,,,,, 1,.=Lt.
r---1
.,.
84 •00011LN 1 Mort 1 :
11
14
il •I 1 i I iTi , i 1 1
mooned s ', I! I , li 1. 3 -2: 1 i I
'.) ;111.
1141 I— gll : 3 -. 1 ' - f I g I
, 00MIL
•••=112=1.. •-`1%.-A • •••_- i
--- -i MII • \-----" ,.....—
• • I . . _
• NO •
.1 N g \ 11111
\ /-"W.47- --
;
Catorry NO•0 il 1 1 -il • ••
*-
....
.... \
.
ii 1 II * .1 I w
, — I a, • -
I . NEW •••••TON a
I
'4
I N
7 \.•.•Con \
:••••• \
I -
jj
Steven Melby
,
8419 Spring Lake Road i
Planning Case No. 290-90
L \ .
1 1 _ \II\
—_HI
"fil-Tfidg
,....11/47.. ®II
•
_.,4114
_.7..„.
......,.. :. _
• •_.....
. ......=. . . _ ey LJH
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
FROM:
STAFF 4/&/1")/ 1
• DATE: MAY 2, 1990
SUBJECT: CABLE TV ACCESS PROGRAMMING
In the fall of 1989, Mayor Hankner, Jerry Skelly, Sr., and Mary Saarion met for a
breakfast meeting to discuss increasing cable programming for our city government
access channel. Mr. Skelly indicated his desire to form a citizen committee to oversee
the programming and to offer ideas and perhaps even implement city programs. It
was agreed that this was the ideal way of increasing programming.
Jerry Skelly, Sr., City liaison to the Cable Commission, since that time found three
Mounds View citizens who were interested in cable TV programming. Those three are
Don Hodges, Joanne Valley and Barb Haake. Jerry Skelly, Sr. requested staff to
schedule an initial meeting with this group. That first meeting was held on March 28.
The group agreed that in order to offer more program time on the 24 hour access
channel, it was important to produce programs for telecasting. Upon discussion, it
was decided that a first program should be a 30 minute informational program of
activities occurring in Mounds View. The group was given the task of suggesting
topics and speakers. During the meeting on April 10, the final choices after
brainstorming were the following:
II 1.2. New businesses in Mounds View - Michelle Hren
Clean-up Day Information - Don Pauley
3. Community Service Group Projects, Lions - Mylo Gjerde
4. Update of the Ramsey County Library - Commissioner McCarty
5. Citizen Profile - Senior Citizen Ione Carlson
Criteria used for choosing the speakers was that they were Mounds View citizens or
worked in Mounds View and that they were knowledgeable in to the topic to provide
information to the citizens.
e program pro•u '. - ... - . . •• -.. . : •, • -• - ... . -
•
Chambers Studio with Jerry Skelly, Jr. and Dale Irving as technicians.
Director Saarion reported on this cable project to the Council during the Monday,
April 16 agenda session. Council acknowledged the project. There were no
questions.
Other cable access programs which are aired include:
Mayor's Message, every two months.
Once every 2 months, information on recreation programs.
- Puppet wagon performances.
•
Information tapes such as recycling, NYSCA, etc.
Publicity tapes such as "Festival in the Park".
The monitor scrolls information during the times when tapes are not played.
-2-
The person responsible for the cable equipment and technical work is Jerry Skelly, Jr.
He arranges for additional skilled technicians when necessary. The equipment is not
used by other persons and remains in the Council Chambers studio unless it is •
transported for outdoor shooting.
The cable committee indicated a willingness to continue programming a monthly
"magazine" informational program with the temporary title of "A View from the
Mound". They also wish to pursue more program opportunities which offer
information to the citizens of Mounds View.
•
• Vti-rk,.
MEMORANDUM
Memo To :Mayor and Council Members
From :Ric Minetor, City Engineer/Director of Public Works
Date :May 2 , 1990
Subject :Proposed trail along County Road I
from I-35W to Quincy Street
The City of Shoreview has proposed constructing a bituminous
trail from Aldine Street in Shoreview to I-35W. Since a number of
children and adults are expected to use this trail to travel to
Pinewood School and other locations in MOunds View, the City of
Shoreview is asking if Mounds View wishes to participate in their
project in order for the trail to extend from I-35W to Quincy
Street. We currently have sidewalk along County Road I west of
Quincy to Highway 10.
The section of this trail in Mounds View would be approximately
1375 feet in length. According to Shoreview's feasibility study,
the cost of the Mounds View portion of a bituminous trail would
be $14 , 000 . This includes engineering, administration, and
• contingency items.
The feasibility report does not address the I-35W bridge concern.
The feasibility report calls for routing pedestrian and bicycle
traffic onto County Road I to cross under I-35W. The trail costs
identified do not include any off street crossing scheme for this
underpass. While County Road I is wide enough at this point to
allow some pedestrian and bicycle traffic, the issue of safety is
a concern.
If the Council determines that the proposed trail project would
be appropriate for Mounds View, the source of funds could be the
_ • . • • ' ear or to increase the
transfer from the Silver Lake Woods Improvements account.
•
MAY 02 '90 08:37 CITY OF SHOREVIEW F.
J9 ;� VILLAGE OF SHOREVIEW
J (jJJSt SUpj 91 RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
4665 NOP.7M YlCTOR1A MEET
Shoreview,Minnesota 55126 • Taiepnone 484.3353 •
I
May 1, 1990
Mr. Don Pauley
City Administrator
City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN. 55112
Dear Don:
In follow-up to our phone conversation today, the City of
Shoreview has the following understanding of the actions taken
or to be taken to proceed with a trail along County Road I
linking the two cities.
The Shoreview City Council approved a feasibility study for our
portion of the project on April 16, 1990. The feasibilty study
is now complete (a copy is attached for your review) and we have
an estimated cost of $64, 300. 00 for the section of path within
Shoreview. Shoreview has identified sufficient funds to build
this portion of the project.
Two of the major engineering considerations on the project are •
the need for a bridge over Rice Creek and the method of
proceeding under the I-35W bridge. Our feasibility study has
adequately addressed the bridge over Rice Creek. It will be a
prefabricated steel and wood structure.
Our proposed schedule would have the Shoreview City Council
approve the plans and specifications on June 4, 1990. The
project bid opening would occur no later than July 11, 1990, with
a project award on July 16, 1990. This schedule was established
so the trail -would be completed by the "beginning of the new
school year.
The City of Shoreview would certainly be happy to coordinate the
design, approvals and construction of the project in both
Shoreview and Mounds View if this is the desire of Mounds View.
I would propose. that a joint powers agreement be executed
establishing the sharing of costs and responsibilities between
the cities . The approval of this agreement could occur
simultaneously with the design of the project, so that the
schedule is not adversely impacted. Please contact either Chuck
• Ahl, our Public Works Director, or myself, if you require any
additional information.
CITY OF SHOREVIEW •
Dwight D. Johnson
City Manager
#90-12
i'IHf U . Ub•.r. Lill -JY X11.rt.vi Lvi r-.J.
•
PLANNING
(�� TRaENG NEEAING
tE] Qr UReAN DeSION
•
8S INC • IHREStif n$OUARE • 700 11,48:10 STRUT Sage' • MINNEARCLIS M•NNE$C;TA ss41$ • Pt4CNF. $12,270.0700 Mx. ' 7O36 :B
r
April 9, 1990
e- MINARY
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
City of Shoreview
4665 North Victoria Street
Shoreview, MN 55126
• Attn: Mr. R. Charles Ahl , PE
Director of Public Works
RE: County Road I Pathway
Feasibility Report
City Prgject 90-12 !
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council :
The following report details the results of our feasibility study investigation
for the construction of a bituminous pathway and a pedestrian bridge along the
• north side of County Road I between Aldine Street and Interstate Highway 35W,
. On March 5, 1990, the City Council of the City of Shoreview ordered the prepara-
tion of a feasibility study to examine the costs associated with the construc-
tion of the pathway and pedestrian bridge.
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
•
•
Approximately 3,650 lineal feet of eight-foot wide bituminous pathway is pro-
posed to be constructed along the north side of•County Road I within existing
right-of-way. The pathway construction is proposed to begin at the end of the
existing pathway at._Aldine Street, and extend west to a point approximately 300
. . . ai • t. . it • ..d
• at its western terminus to route pedestrian and bicycle traffic under the
existing Interstate Highway 35W overpass. The distance between the pathway and
County Road I will vary from 7 to 15 feet as required by existing land features.
The proposed pathway will require the construction of a bridge structure over
Rick Creek. The bridge is proposed to• be constructed between the existing ;r
County Road I roadway bridge and the existing St. Paul Water Department water
conduit frost box bridge structure. Ramsey County currently has plans for the
replacement of the County Road I bridge, but at this time, it is unknown when
the replacement work will be performed. The proposed plans for the new County
Road I bridge include 'an eight-foot wide sidewalk/pathway on the north side of
the bridge. The design for the pedestrian bridge constructed as a part of this
project should consider the proposed County Road I bridge reconstruction work.
IvtAFfiU�tiCPTtif 9ENN&M Aw ACSE.'AL$E:D JANVIS INC.rSAC
won]..1&NIFTY OCNAIO W RINGAOSE R(CMARO P.WC^ISFELD P?fER e-Jr.iNM; Tn0M4S CAP.= CPA;G A Avu'. 4 OOPud._E. 1 JNT 1u►,.K G SOINEr:ti
JOHN 8.MCNAMAAA SUCHAR0 O.P.GR.M DM Pi 111ECiOWOIN OttiNiS J.k3., C JEW Ev i•4,iS::N RAJ•t C:&L,f.4 . .:R',NAM 00v J E4 CKery,i
MINNEAPOLIS DENVER PHOENIX TUCSON Sr PETERSBURG SAN O(EGO
MHY a 'yu kio-j:Li'd Li 1 I. MJF �Hur"L v Lc�
Mr. R. Charles Ahl •
• April 9, 1990
Page 2
a
Various alternative bridge types and materials could be considered for the Rice
Creek crossing. The alternatives range from custom constructed concrete and/or . •
wood structures to prefabricated steel and wood structures. A number of com-
panies currently manufacture steel and wood prefabricated bridge structures
which are ideally suited for a project of this type. A prefabricated bridge
would be the most economical and easily constructed structural crossing, and it
would be adequate for the pedestrian and maintenance vehicle loadings proposed.
The bridge would be delivered to the project site complete for installation onto
concrete abutments. In the event County Road I bridge improvements are per-
formed in the future, and it is decided to incorporate the pathway into the
roadway bridge design, the prefabricated bridge could be easily removed and
salvaged for reinstallation at another .location.
As per the subsurface exploration program report prepared by Twin City Testing
Corporation, it is recommended that a timber pile foundation be used to support
the bridge structure. Two piles will be provided for each abutment to provide
adequate foundation support. The piles will be driven to an approximate depth
of 50-foot below existing grade.
For the purposes of this report, it has been assumed that a prefabricated steel
and wood bridge structure would be used for the pathway crossing of Rice Creek. •
The bridge is proposed to be eight feet wide, with a span of 75 feet.
Information is attached to this report detailing one of the types of prefabri-
cated bridge available.
The proposed pathway and bridge improvements are shown in attached Exhibit #1.
ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated project costs for the pathway and bridge construction are pre-
sented below. Please note that a 35 percent allowance has been included in
determining the total . project cost to allow for indirect costs such as engi-
neering, administration, legal and contingency items.
Item Unit
Number Item Qua.__.nti Price Extension .
1 Bituminous Pathway 3,250 SY $ 8.50 $27,625.00
' 8' Wide
2 Prefabricated Steel Truss 1 EA 20,000.00 20,000.00
Pedestrian Bridge (Complete)
Subtotal $47,625.00
35% Indirect & Contingency 16,670.00
Total Project Cost $64,300.00 •
i H`Y 02 '90 08:38 CITY uF 5HuKE'v I E l - _:'b
•
Mr. R. Charles Ahl
• April 9, 1990
Page 3
METHOD OF FINANCING
•
It is proposed that the total cost for the project be financed by City of
Shoreview defeasance funds. Based on the cost estimate presented in this
report, funding of approximately $64,300.00 will be required for project
construction.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The bituminous pathway and bridge construction presented in this report is a
possible addition to the City's current pathway system. The proposed construc-
tion will provide the extension of an existing pathway to the Shoreview City
boundary with the City of Mounds View.
We recommend that the City accept this report and authorize the preparation of
plans and specifications for the County Road I Pathway Project. Upon the
authorization of the plans and specifications, the project could proceed as
outlined by the following schedule:
Feasibility Presentation & April 16, 1990
Order Plans & Specifications
Approve Plans & Specifications June 4, 1990
Bid Opening July 11, 1990
Award Project July 16, 1990
Construction Start July 30, 1990
Construction Completed August 30, 1990
We are of the opinion that this project is feasible, that it will provide a
needed extension of the City's current pathway system, and that it will benefit
the City of Shoreview.
Sincerely,
BRW, INC. /,
•
Gary A. Ehret, PE
Project Manager
• GAE/sk
Attachment
File 8-9013
-1__J L._I_.L_L_L4.J 'I
'3AV ONI113NS ..;e4•4 •1
t•
S
1 CD
N
lI -I Z
m j 1i a t!
I .: a (t U
1- J 2
•
01 ,
m I , 1
1 3
-- ,N - I e�
_ S 3NIO1Y ? Y
Ili 1.___, 3 I /
II ; 1 c
I 1 r
6
\ j_±±aiih
p al
>- t rl
• 1 .. 1:1::JII
l ��I II • .Cwa � <
cc
0
CI 0
1— m a o 0 "itr ,.,
cc trI
Z •
G •
4 6 1 DO
12 '--;-'-"-.----:1--;• U gI ca 0
F
O f !: -OD
W•
VI N W
v m H 0 •'1 <
Y J W W I 1 C W Z
0 • Cm 2
aws I ac a o
• 0 o n_< us
• -1<+..-•------11 " o 0 g i N '
1 s W #
•
"' # I i ' CW O o p
r 011 ed 5• i _ 19
Ic., « H d
kS3��30r� 1 y� W W n
z.,..,...........:..... i '''',I. - 1 . 1
U.W s � 0 < 1
; " 1 Fel F a r
- �W nl lig' � } 1
F. OC J 3 +=_ ; i z3
U= s gas mir �Ia v� °v
0
...444.,...��'3
' �Y1Sb81p1 — s o
U0OW Z
110 MEMORANDUM
Memo To :Mayor and Council Members
From :Ric Minetor, City Engineer/Director of Public Works
Date :May 2, 1990
Subject :Long Lake Road Reconstruction - Storm Water Concerns
Rocky Keehn from Short-Elliott-Hendrickson will be at the agenda
meeting on May 7th to discuss the work necessary in conjunction
with the Long Lake Road reconstruction. The concerns are to
review the needs both at the County Road H-2 and Long Lake Road
ponding area and for the Sherwood to Ardan storm sewer section.
•
•
\,j,b/h/L_
111 MEMORANDUM
Memo To :Mayor and Council Members
From :Ric Minetor, City Engineer/Director of Public Works
Date :May 2, 1990 ,/ r...w
Subject :Draft Feasibility Report for
Long Lake Road Reconstruction
Attached is the draft feasibility report for Long Lake Road
Reconstruction. I have reviewed this report and concur with the
recommendations of the County. The City Council needs to consider
the proposed roadway sections , sidewalk, and right-of-way
requirements. City approval of the draft report is required by
the County.
The recommended roadway sections are:
A) Two 12 foot wide travel lane with 8 foot wide
shoulders/parking lanes, with curb and gutter on each
side, and
• B) Four travel lanes, 12 foot wide center lanes and 11
foot wide outside lanes, with curb and gutter on each
side.
Section A is recommended from County Road H to County Road H-2
and also from County Road I to 300 feet east of Eastwood Road.
Section B is recommended from County Road H-2 to County Road I.
Sidewalk is proposed along the west side of Long Lake Road
through the entire project. We have recommended a 7 foot width
for ease of maintenance. The west side seems appropriate since
_ S . . . . . - - .. . ' . - es s - -
side (Library, Mounds View Square, Hillview Park, etc. ) .
Right-of-way will be required for the section between County Road
H-2 and County Road I. The sidewalk and the need to relocate
Williams pipeline outside of the roadway are the reasons for the
additional right-of-way. The City will be responsible for
obtaining the necessary right-of-way.
The entire project is estimated to cost $2,284,500; the City's
portion of this cost is estimated at $693 ,200. We had been
estimating $400,000 in the long term financial plan. The current
concept is to utilize MSA funds and SWM funds as appropriate. The
Council could consider assessment of some costs to abutting
properties; however, this has not been proposed previously.
I recommend that the Council approve of the draft feasibility
plan and authorize the City Engineer/Director of Public Works to
sign the report for the City.
•
•
.C?4 .44'
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
01111
110M: CLERK-ADMINISTRATOR PAULE /'
DATE: MAY 3, 1990
,NI,
SUBJECT: WHITE OAK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION WETLANDS PERMIT FEE REFUND
REQUEST
Attached please find a letter from Mr. Tom Foster representing the White
Oak Homeowners Association to Councilmember Wuori requesting that the
City refund the entire $150 wetlands alteration permit fee reuest. Also
attached is a memorandum from City Planner Hren outlining her
recollection of the facts in this matter and recommending that only the
unused portion of the fee be refunded as is past practice.
In this case, the City did incur expenses related to publishing and
mailing notices for the public hearing which the Council has held in
other cases of this nature as cited in Michelle' s memo. At this time we
do not know the full extent of those costs as we have not been billed by
the Bulletin for the notice. I would expect that it should not exceed
$50, but will not know for a few more weeks. Once staff has determined
all of the expenses related to this matter, we will be processing a
refund of all of the unused fees.
Your direction in this matter would be appreciated .
•
•
•
•Councilmember Diane Wuori
Mounds View City' Council
City of Mounds View
Mounds View, MN 55112
April 23, 1990
Re: White Oak Homeowners Association Wetlands Ordinance Permit
• Dear Councilmember Wuori,
I want to thank you and the other councilmembers for your quick action on
our request for the variance to the wetlands ordinance. I would hope that
the. revision of the ordinance will include language that would make a future
request such as this not necessary.
During the process, several people told me that we were the first people
to comply in this manner with the ordinance, and some people thought
that we really didn't need to go through the permit process, as the
ordinance does allow the City to 'waive the process (48.06,subdivision 4. C,
In the case of a minor development or change involving . . .a single family
detached or a single family attached residence, the applicant may be exempted
from strict compliance to certain requirements of this ordinance, upon approval
by the city. ) .
In my conversation with city staff when I 'asked to get the approval under •
the minor clause provision, I was told I would have to go through the
planning and zoning commission inorder to get it to the Council -- and
therefore had to pay the $150 permit application fee. I can see that if this
was a major project, that a fee of .this type would be reasonable. In our case,
we were set for a hearing on Wednesday, April 18, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. in the
council chambers with the planning and zoning commission. I was there, along
with one of the planning and zoning commission members, but the meeting was
cancelled and we were not notified.
In my brief conversation with you tonight, you indicated I should request in
writing that the White Oaks Homeowners AssoLia - - e eir app Ica ion
fee back, if I felt it was not justified in this case. Based on the above,
I do f- - that way, and do request that the White Oak Homeowners Association
rete' e a refund of their application fee.
• .a. H. Foster
i
Sec. W ite e=�ners
Association
2516 Ridge Lane
Mounds View, MN 55112
4110
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Clerk/Administrator, Don Pauley
FROM: City Planner, Michelle Hren
DATE: May 2, 1990
SUBJECT: White Oak Homeowners Association
Don, I would like to respond to this letter from Mr. Tom Foster
regarding the White Oak Homeowners Association Wetland Alteration
Permit.
Paragraph One:
I would like to point out that City Staff arranged for this request
to be speeded up, therefore not following strict time submission
deadlines which would have unnecessarily delayed the request which
• required minimal review time as opposed to other wetland permit
requests.
Paragraph Two:
Mr. Foster implies that City Staff could have waived the reading
therefore causing them unnecessary delay. It was explained to Mr.
Foster that only the City Council has the right to waive the
reading on requests like this. This request was unusual because
there was a number of residences rather than one residence involved
in this request.
Paragraph Three:
It was explained to Mr. Foster how the fee structure was set up.
All Wetland Alteration Permits require a $150.00 application fee,
$50.00 of it is not refundable. Therefore the permit fee would be
slightly more than $50.00 and not the full $150.00 as Mr. Foster
suggests. If the project was more time consuming it is conceivable
that the permit would have been close to $150.00.
When Mr. Foster first applied for the permit he was told that this
request would go to the Planning Commission. After discussing this
with other staff it was determined that Wetland Alteration Permits
on their own are not required to go to the Planning Commission
unless the City Council directs them to and as such was never
0 scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting on April 18, 1990.
White Oak Homeowners Assoc 111
Page Two
The Planning Commission meeting on April 18, 1990 was canceled for
lack of agenda items. I called all Planning Commission members on
Monday and left recorded messages and or regular telephone
messages . Apparently one did not receive the message.
Mr. Foster was not contacted because he was not scheduled for the
meeting. It was explained to Mr. Foster that the Hearings are at
the City- Council level not the Planning Commission. I apologize and
it was my mistake to briefly assume that Mr. Foster would have
received that information at the City Council meeting on April 16,
1990, the Monday 2 days prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
If there was anyone present from the Homeowners Association I was
not aware of it because no one spoke to this issue at the Agenda
Session. I was not available for the Public Hearing on April 23,
to know if any one was present to comment on it then.
Paragraph Four:
The City Council has set the fee at $150.00 with $50.00 of it not
being refunded. There have been requests for decks(Sabri Ayaz, Bona
Road) , a chain link fence (Michael Read, Lois Drive) and other
minor single family projects that were required to pay the fee and
proceed through the same process. While Mr. Foster suggests that •
this is the first of its kind, he is right with respect to the type
of request but not with the degree of importance or insignificant
impact on the wetland.
The White Oak Homeowners Association took it upon themselves to be
respectable, law abiding residents to come forward and apply for
this permit knowing that the Wetland Ordinance is an issue
currently before the City. Mr Foster has basically asked for a
full refund because he attended one meeting that was canceled and
because of this the fee is not justified. Based on this and the
fact that other residents faced the same situation, unfortunately
- .. - - - - a ". _ . . . - - - . - •
.- . - ' •
- -
recommendation that this request not be treated any differently
than the other requests and the total deposit not be refunded. I
suggest that the refund will be as explained to Mr. Foster when the
application was submitted.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this further
please let me know.
111
/ , /7
111 MEMORANDUM
Memo To :Mayor and Council Members
From :Ric Minetor, City Engineer/Director of Public Works
Date :May 2, 1990
Subject :National Public Works Week
National Public Works Week is being celebrated the week of May
20th through May 26th this year. The theme of this years
celebration is "Gateway to the Future" . We will hold an open
house at the public works shop ( 2466 Bronson Drive ) on
Wednesday, May 23rd. The public is invited to stop by for coffee
and to view equipment and offices of their public works crew. The
1990's are here and the manner in which we adrress public works
concerns will shape our future. Recycling and solid waste
disposal is a major concern of the 90 's. Infrastructure
deterioration continues to be a major problem that will need to
be addressed. Many additional issues are surfacing and amidst all
the crisis - we still need to do the mundane day to day jobs and
delivery of services.
• In recognition of National Public Works Week, I am requesting
that the City Council consider the attached proclamation.
•
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
•
Office of the Mayor
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, public works services provided in our community are an
integral part of our citizens' everyday lives; and
WHEREAS, the support of an understanding and informed citizenry is
vital to the efficient operation of public works systems and programs such as water,
sewers, streets and highways, public buildings, solid waste collection, and snow
removal; and
WHEREAS, the quality and effectiveness of these facilities, as well as
their planning, design and construction, is vitally dependent upon the efforts and skill
of public works officials; and
WHEREAS, the efficiency of the qualified and dedicated personnel who
public works departments is materially influenced by the people's attitude and
understanding of the importance of the work they perform.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Susan M. Hankner, Mayor of the City of Mounds
View, do hereby proclaim the week of May 20 through May 26, as •
'NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEED'
in the City of Mounds View, and I call upon all citizens and civic organizations to
acquaint themselves with the problems involved in providing our public works and to
recognize the contributions which public works officials make every day to our health,
safety, and comfort.
Mounds View this 14th day of May, 1990
Attest:
City Clerk Mayor
S
TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNT I L
A04111
�c�I,�� /S
FROM: CLERK-ADMINISTRATOR` %,
0
414010
iv: APR I L 9, 1990
SUBJECT: JUNK VEHICLES
At your direction , I have discussed the referenced subject matter with
Police Chief Ramacher, CSO Bednar, and other members of the Police
Department. Essentially, we addressed the issue by asking the question ,
" Is there a better way for dealing with junk vehicles?"
We came to the conclusion that there are other ways for dealing with
junk vehicles, but they might not necessarily be better. For instance,
the City could limit the number fo vehicles parked on a piece of
property but then we will likely be dealing with an on-street parking
problem. We could require that cars be parked on paved surfaces only,
but unless we limited the area that can be paved on a lot, we will see
an increase in the area of paved surface which runs contrary to our
efforts to limit paved surface for storm water runoff purposes.
The question was then asked , "Do we really have a problem?" It is our
feeling that we have no more than 20 parcels in the City where an
"unreasonable" number of cars are being stored and in some cases these
lots are very deep and the cars can be seen by few, if any people.
Considering the size of our community, this does not appear to be an
inordinate number.
is the position of staff that in view of the limited number of
properties involved , the limited number of complaints we receive on an
annual basis, and the fact that any "solution" to this matter carries
with it certain problems, the City continue to enforce our current codes
which have to this date proved satisfactory. If the Council wishes to
consider stepped up activity in this area, staff will be happy to
suggest ways for doing so within the confines of current work loads and
budgetary restrictions.
Your direction in this matter would be appreciated .
A
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY CO
FROM: CLERK-ADMINISTRAT*� /ip
t.
DATE: APRIL 18, 1990
SUBJECT: MOUNDS VIEW BRANCH LIBRARY ASSESSMENT INTEREST
WAIVER REQUEST
As you may recall, several months ago you reviewed a request
from Mr. Gary Davis representing Ramsey County and the Ramsey
County Library Board requesting that the City Council waive
the collection of interest on the assessments for the Mounds
View Branch Library property. Mr. Davis indicated that the
interest was due and payable due to the fact that the closing
on the purchase of the property occurred after October 16 of
1989 and, as a result, the Library Board was expected to pay
an additional $2,933.74 in interest. Attached for your
information is a copy of a letter from Mr. Davis in response
to your request for additional information outlining the
details in this matter.
• I have discussed the matter with City Finance Director Don
Brager who has advised me that the debt service on this
project is more than adequately funded and the interest amount
of $2,933.74 is not needed to guarantee the retirement of the
debt on the bonds that paid for the initial public improvement
project. Your direction with respect to this matter would be
appreciated.
DFP/mjs
i
cl'
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY 45. i C
RAMSEY COUNTY ,0
tex
SUITE 400
350 ST.PETER STREET •,,HcS�/'a
TOM FOLEY ST.PAUL,MINNESOTA 55102 ' 8' TELEPHONE(612)298-4421
COUNTY ATTORNEY FAX 298-5316
April 11 , 1990
Donald F. Pauley
Clerk-Administrator
City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
Re: Request for Wavier of 1990 Interest Payment on
Prepaid Assessments due on the Property for
the Mounds View Library
Dear Mr. Pauley:
In response to your previous letter concerning the above-
referenced subject matter that was discussed at the January 16 •
session of the Mounds View City Council , you may be advised as
follows . The amount of interest that would be waived by the City
of Mounds View, if the City of Mounds View should approve the
Library Board' s request as set forth in its letter of January 3 ,
1990 , would be the sum of $2,933 .74 . This amount of interest ,
along with principal on the amount of $8 ,991 .84 , was put in a
prepayment account with the Ramsey County Taxation Department . I
am enclosing a letter dated November 1 , 1989 from Chris Samuel ,
Supervisor, Tax Accounting section of the Ramsey County
Department of Taxation and Records listing the components of the
above amounts and their total of $11 ,925 .58 .
The reason the closing on the property was delayed until
after October 16 , was as a result of the routine amount of time
it took to obtain the necessary approvals for the project (which
were a condition precedent to the purchase of the land) and the
necessity of accommodating the schedules of the various
individuals involved in the closing , while providing the
necessary documentation to the parties at the closing regarding
closing related costs.
April 11 , 1990
Page 2
111 I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any
questions concerning this matter, please contact me .
S' erely,
V I gre
1:2 : 40' • D •
A- istan County Attorney
GAD: sl
cc: Norm Vinnes , Director
Ramsey County Library
•
•
4 � , DEPARTMENT OF
� 1040 TAXATION AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
Gr 113-138 COURT HOUSE
; , ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 •
- �t DIVISION MANAGERS
.ns.s
RAMSEY COUNTY RICHARD D.WAft)
Property Valuation
LEONARD F.OLSON
Revenue
LOU McKENNA C.THOMAS OSTHOFF
Director PEGGY RECTOR
Records
ROGER VIK JOHN C.McLAUGiILIN
Asst. Director Abstract, Title.
and Ownership
To : Gary Davis, Assistant County Attorney
Ramsey County Attorney
From : Chris Samuel , Supervisor64
Tax Accounting Section
Date : November 1 , 1989
RE: Taxes and Special Assessments on Proposed Library Site
This memo is in response to your inquiry about the amount of taxes
and special assessments which must be paid on parcel 07-30-23-11-0011-7
which the county is purchasing as a site for a new library in
Mounds View.
Taxes •
Payable 1989 taxes have been paid in full . Since the county is
purchasing the property after October 16th the property will be
taxable for the Payable 1990 tax rolls. I estimate the Payable 1990
taxes to be $1 ,410 .
Special Assessments
There are three special assessments on the property with balances
outstanding. Installments of principal and interest on the total
outstanding principal were as of October 16th already extended to
the Payable 1990 tax rolls as follows :
Assessment Total
Name Principal Interest Installment
SAN S64R 0047 $105 .57 $38 .01 $143 . 58
WATER 0084 147 .00 11 .76 158 .76
SLW 81-3 5336 8 , 739. 27 2 , 883 . 97 11 , 623 . 24
Total $8,991 . 84 $2 ,933 .74 $11 ,925 .58
The $11 ,925 .58 can not at this point be paid. I suggest that
410
the money to pay this amount he placed in escrow to pay this
installment when tax statements are available sometime in March, 1990 .
—f c 1. �. t (_ ".l f , ,• - c
i l •
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL /3
110OM: CLERK-ADMINISTRA `R
Nr
DATE: APRIL iB, 1990 .1410
SUBJECT: 1990 LONG TERM FINANCIAL PLAN
PUBLIC SERVICE PROGRAM
As part of my developing the Administration portion of the Public
Service Program, I would like to solicit your early input. As you know,
the Administrationn portion includes the City Council , Advisory
Commissions, City Hall , Elections, Legal and Fire, Planning and the
Clerk-Administrator' s Office. I would like to know if you have any
projects, programs, or ideas that you would like to see included in the
draft of this document.
Obviously, you would have opportunity in the future to delete or add to
it. I thought it would be helpful to add any of your thoughts early on
so that we can begin to structure the document and think about what we
want to see as major activities in 1991 .
Any input you have would be appreciated .
.
tF/1')/
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
•
FROM: MARY SAARION, DIRECTOR I'"
PARKS, RECREATION AND FORESTRY
DATE: APRIL 25, 1990
SUBJECT: SURPLUS EQUIPMENT
Old, unused and broken equipment has been collecting in the lower level
of City Hall in the community room. Staff requests Council to declare the
following equipment as surplus equipment so that it can be dispersed in
an appropriate manner:
Two (2) old secretarial chairs
One (1) computer cabinet
Two (2) printers (1 dot matrix, 1 daisy wheel)
One (1) Micom word processor
Two (2) computer keyboards
Two (2) acoustical hoods
MS/SL
i
/ 5
•
TO: Mayor & Council
FROM: Don Brager, Finance Director - Treasurer
DATE: April 26, 1990
SUBJECT: Finance Department Team Building Session
Pursuant to previous Council direction I have obtained a revised
proposal from Government Training Service(GTS) for a team
building session for the Finance Department to be conducted by
Barb Arney and John Vinton. The revised proposal calls for one
full day team building session and one two hour follow-up. Costs
are $1,980 plus consultant's travel expenses and $50 to cover
costs associated with the Myers-Briggs type instrument and video
rental. In addition the City would be responsible for facility
rental and food and refreshment expenses as it is recommended
that the full day session be conducted at a site other than the
City Hall.
• I recommend Council approval of this proposal which is
approximately $1, 000 less than their previous proposal. This
team building session hopefully will improve working
relationships within the Department.
RECOMMENDATION: Council approve the proposal from GTS for a team
building session for the Finance Department at a cost of $2, 030
plus consultant's travel expenses.
DB/hs
C: \DEPTADM\GTS
Enclosure: GTS proposal
•
Government Training Service
01.1
Suite 401
480 Cedar Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 "
612/222-7409
CIN
April 9, 1990 Ls)
r;f
CO
Mr. Don Pauley "'vCity Administrator L4Mounds View
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
Dear Don:
Based on a meeting I had with Barbara Arney this morning, I am
submitting a revised proposal to provide consulting services to
the Finance Department, City of Mounds View. The consultants
for this on-going process will continue to be Barbara Arney and
John Vinton.
Team Building with the Department of Finance
One, full-day team building session
One, two hour follow-up session to check on progress and
help reinforce principles and practices learned at the •
full-day session
COSTS: $1980 plus consultants travel expenses (mileage at
$.21/mile) and $50 to cover the costs associated with
the Myers-Briggs Type Instrument and video rental
In addition to the costs listed above, the City will be
responsible for facility, refreshment and audio-visual
arrangements and costs.
As always, GTS is pleased to have the opportunity to work
.. - - _.,. ._
' forward to hearing from you regarding this revised proposal.
in erely,
Ma bat -
Program P = ner
Organizat o al Services
MS/at
Prop 6:23
CC:B. Arney •
J. Vinton
Member Organizations
Association of Minnesota Counties Minnesota Association Minnesota Community Colleges
League of Minnesota Cities of Regional Commissions State of Minnesota
Minnesota Association University of Minnesota
of Townships
Lthe4-yu
411
TO: Mayor & Council
FROM: Don Brager, Finance Director - Treasurer
Mary Saarion, Director of Parks, Recreation, & Forestryie
DATE: April 12, 1990
SUBJECT: Cash Balance of the Park Improvement Fund
During a review of the Mounds View Business Park Construction
Fund this March it was discovered that the cost of curb and
gutter and paving of the Silver View Park parking lot were
inadvertantly charged to the Business Park Construction Fund.
The work on the parking lot was a change order to the contract
with C.W. Houle for public improvements at the Business Park.
The total contract was in excess of $800, 000. The charges of
$54, 990. 69 for the parking lot were two lines on page 8 of a
15 page invoice. They were not noticed until the final costs
of the contract for the Business Park improvements were compared
to budget and found to be over budget. The reason for the the
contract being over budget was the change order for the Silver
Park parking lot work. These costs should have been paid for
with money from the Park Improvement and General Funds. The
General Fund's share of the parking lot paving had been included
in the 1989 Budget and money had already been transferred from
the General Fund to the Park Improvement Fund. To correct this
situation money was transferred from the Park Improvement Fund
to the Mounds View Business Park Construction Fund to reimburse
it for the costs of the Silver View Park parking lot.
This matter is being brought to your attention because prior to
- • . - e par ing o
were inadvertantly charged to the Mounds View Business Park
Construction Fund information was given to you on the cash
balance of the Park Improvement Fund. That cash balance has been
reduced by $54, 990. 69, the cost of paving the Silver View Park
parking lot. The cash balance of the Fund as of March 31, 1990
is $38, 605.95. Costs of the park shelter had been paid prior to
March 31 and the donations for the shelter from the Mounds View
Lions and the New Brighton Eagles had also been received prior
to March 31.
Should you have any questions on this matter please do not
hesitate to contact us.
• DB\MS\ts
NI-tem/L.-- i,
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CLERK-ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: MAY 1, 1990
SUBJECT: GARBAGE AND RUBBISH HAULERS' LICENSING FEE
Now that you have adopted Ordinance No. 486 implementing a new
garbage and rubbish code for the City of Mounds View, I would
like to recommend that the Council consider revising the
licensing fees for garbage and rubbish haulers to be more
reflective of the requirements of the new code. Currently our
licensing fees provide for a $55.00 per year for garbage and
rubbish haulers. The new garbage and rubbish code provides
for a license for the hauler plus a license for each vehicle
used by the hauler in the City. I would recommend that the
new licensing fee be $55.00 per year plus $5 .00 per vehicle to
cover our costs in issuing licenses. Attached for your
consideration is Resolution No. 3034 Amending Resolution 1462
Establishing Various Fees and Charges.
DFP/MJS
•
•
RESOLUTION NO. 3034 •
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 1462 ESTABLISHING
VARIOUS FEES AND CHARGES
WHEREAS, the Mound View Municipal Code is revised and
recodified by Ordinance No. 313 and establishes that various
fees and charges be levied for the purpose stated by
resolution of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Mounds View City
Council to establish those fees and charges provided for in
the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, it is the further desire of the Mounds View
City Council to ensure that all fees and charges adequately
reflect the expenses experienced by the City of Mounds View to
provide the subject service; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that Resolution No.
1462 initially establishing various fees and charges requires •
amendment to relect increased costs related to the licensing
of garbage and rubbish haulers as a result of an amended
garbage and rubbish code adopted by Ordinance No. 486.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that by the City Council
of the City of Mounds View that Resolution No. 1462
establishing various fees and charges is amended to reflect a
$55 .00 per year plus $5.00 per vehicle garbage and rubbish
hauler license effective July 1, 1990.
Adopted this 14 day of May, 1990.
ATTEST:
Mayor
(SEAL)
Clerk-Administrator
Li5;91/1.: /
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUN, 4
FROM: CLERK-ADMINISTRAT440
DATE: APRIL25, 1990 14,
SUBJECT: CITY ENTRANCE SIGN
I have received a proposal from Graystone Landscapingthfor a
revised City entrance sign and will bring a copy p
e
drawing for your review at the May 7th Agenda Session.
Attached is the cost estimate for the proposal from Graystone
Landscaping and City Forester Wriskey's review and comments on
the landscaping proposal. You will note that the total cost
for this project would be $8,285 .60.
Mr. Wriskey in a conversation with me endorsed the idea that
Graystone Landscaping be responsible for all landscaping due
to the extent of the project and the size of the materials to
be installed. Also, should the Council approve of this
project at the Knollwood Green site and the Knollwood Green
Homeowner's Association ultimately provide an easement for
this project, the dollarsts dueor the to theprecently approved amendmeect could be covered ntts
tax increment
• to our Tax Increment Plans.
Should you find these plans acceptable, the next step would be
to determine the exact location of the sign and landscaping at
the Knollwood Green site for review and approval by the
Knollwood Green Homeowner's Association and development of an
easement agreement. Once that is completed construction can
begin upon awarding of the contract to Graystone Landscaping
by the Council.
Your direction in this matter would be appreciated.
DFP/MJS
•
MEMO TO: DON PAULEY, CLERK-ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: RICK WRISKEY, CITY FORESTER
DATE: APRIL 18, 1990
SUBJECT: ENTRY SIGN LANDSCAPING
The landscape plan for the new entrance sign looks good. My only two
concerns are as follows:
1. That the species of oak be specified. This would preferably be a
red oak (Quercus rubra) or the native pin oak (Quercus
ellipsoidalis) and not the "eastern" pin oak (Quercus palustris).
2. That a replacement be considered for the two eastern red cedar.
Perhaps a juniper cultivar of comparable size like Welchi or
Mountbatten might fit the plan.
RW/SL
}
•
, GRAysToNE
LANDSCAPING INC .
2688 Maplewood Drive • Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 • 612/483-3395
March 30, 1990
Donald Pauley
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
Dear Don,
Enclosed you will find plans for the City of Mounds View sign.
The cost of the sign installed is $3515.60.
The landscape materials include:
1 3" BB Oak
1 8' Spaded Cedar
1 12' Spaded Cedar
3 3' Redtwig Dogwood
16 5 Gal . Buffalo Juniper
• 3 3 Gal . Sumac
17 5 Gal . Wilton Carpet Juniper
6 2-3' Boulders
100 L.F. Edging
800 S.F. Landscape Fabric
8 C.Y. Shredded Hardwood Mulch
200 S.Y. Sod Removal
250 S.Y. Sod
45 C.Y. Topsoil
The cost of this landscape installation is $4770.00.
_ . . - ions or comments.
Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this project.
Sincerely,
GRAYSTONE LANDSCAPING, INC.
Timothy B. Adrian
RLA
TBA:js
• Enclosures
COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL SITE DESIGN • INSTALLATION
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS
l CLQ •
FROM: MARY SAARION, DIRECTOR
• PARKS, RECREATION AND FORESTRY
DATE: MAY 2, 1990
SUBJECT: GREENFIELD PARK BASEBALL FIELD FENCING
The City has designated $14,000 of budgeted funds in the Parks Fund to improve the
Greenfield baseball field. The MVAA has indicated that increasing the distance of the
field is their first priority.
Staff has requested bids for field fencing renovations to include the following:
- Bring back the backstop to the path, a distance of 10 - 12 feet.
- Remove all fencing and realign to:
1. 300 feet - left field.
2. 360 feet - center field.
3. 250 feet - right field with a 12 foot fence height.
• 4. Curving fence to swerve around the 3rd base players bench.
To accommodate this expansion:
- Three trees must be removed in left field.
- The horseshoe pits must be moved.
- A portion of the path in the left field corner must be removed.
- The bleachers could be moved to the right side of the batters box which would
require the berm to be leveled.
Staff has received requests for moving the bleachers so that sun glare is not a
problem. This could easily be done, but staff foresees opposition from the immediate
residents. The bleachers would be close to their backyards posing as an eyesore and
barrier. Opposition in the past was given for the location of the portable restrooms in
this vicinity. For this reason, staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission suggests
that a letter be written informing the residents of this proposal.
•
-2-
The Parks and Recreation Commission has reviewed this proposal, approves and
recommends it to the City Council. The Parks and Recreation Commission did
1111 appreciate the 12 foot high right field fence extension rather than the cost associated
with the proposal for filling the ditch. The MVAA also understands that the cost is
prohibitive and agrees that the 12 foot high fence will provide adequate distance
protection to prevent too frequent homeruns. Representatives of MVAA have been
invited to the agenda meeting to offer their input.
Staff suggests that once the fence is removed, an ag-lime warning track be installed.
The warning track would cover 2 feet beyond the fence line to serve as a maintenance
strip. The ag-lime is recommended rather than a concrete maintenance strip for cost
and safety reasons. The fence posts are currently driven without a maintenance strip.
The additional costs of a maintenance strip are given on the bid sheet.
Extra funds could be used for new topsoil and re-seeding or re-sodding the field in the
fall, after the playing season concludes.
Staff recommends awarding the bid to Able Fence to include $4,557 for fence removal
and re-installation and new fencing, plus $950 for new material installed on the
backstop plus 10 percent contingency for a total of $6,057.70 to be funded with
budgeted monies in the 1990 Parks Fund, 100-4360-703-000.
•
MS/SL
•
•
GREENFIELD PARK FENCING BIDS
FENCE & CONCRETE
COMPANY LABOR BACKSTOP MAINTENANCE STRIP
Century Fence $8,240 $6,512
Keller Fence $8,130
Able Fence $4,551 $950 $8,520
•
•
t
•
• f
KELLER
Fence Company, INC
i
2281 Hampden Avenue P.O. Box 14154 St. Paul, MN 55114 612/646-8305
PROPOSAL
To: Mrs. Mary Saar ion
Date: April 25, 1990
City of Moundsview
2401 North Highway 10 proposal Number: 041665
Moundsview, MN 55112
FOB: Jobsite
Regarding: Fence Modifications at Greenfield Park
Keller Fence Company, Inc. proposes to furnish and install the
following:
Remove approximately 930' of 72" high chain link fence with
2 1/2" top and bottom rail with driven line posts. Relocate
existing backstop approximately 10' South of present
• location. Reinstall all 72" material plus an additional 150'
and also install 110' of new 144" chain link mounted on a
framework consisting of 2 1/2" line posts with 1 5/8" top,
middle and bottom rail. Bleachers will be relocated by
owner.
FOR THE SUM OF $ 8,130.00
_ . . . ' . . 's firm for a period of thirty (30) days
from,the. date of this proposal. Kel er en
opportunity to quote on this project andthione tthat
nitdit meritsiy your
favorable review. If you have any q
information, do not hesitate to call us at the above number.
Ikncerel,
K FENC CO1P„NY, INC.
4(
t •ti
111111 S ' . K LLER
•
SINCEMT
CENTURY FENCE COMPANY
' • ti P.O. BOX 100
FOREST LAKE, MINNESOTA 55025
PHONE (612) 464-7373
. DATE: April 27, 190an"."'""E"°E
PROPOSAL TO: Mounds View Park & Rec Dept. s .
2401 Hwy. 10 H
Mounds View, MN 55112 P Greenfield Park
T
Attn: Mary Saarion o
INSTALLED ® PREPAID DELIVERY
MATERIAL ONLY fl F.O.B. Job Site FREIGHT COLLECT E SCHEDULE
FENCE OVERALL
STYLE Palisade HEIGHT 6' & 12' LINE POSTS 21/2" SPACING 10 SET Driven
FABRIC 9-2 SELVAGE KK COATING Galy. GATE FRAME TOP RAIL 1-5/8" MIDDLE BOTTOM1-5/8"
DESCRIPTION
Furnish and Install:
80 L.F. - 6 ft. high chain link fence complete with top & bottom rail
120 L.F. - 12 ft. high chain link fence complete with top & bottom rail
11 Ea. - Line posts, 1 ft. longer to set 4'
• 984 L.F. - Ties, bands for relocation
2 Ea. - 3" o.d. end posts (12' )
1 Lot - Misc. fittings
Lump Sum = $8,240.00
Note: Remove & reinstall 6 ft. fence and backstop.
Add new 6 ft. fence, 80 L.F. , and new
12 ft. fence, 120 L.F. , to complete project.
Note: Aad for 12" x 4" concrete maintencuLce curb
under fence. Add = $6,512.00
WE i;ESENE THE RICiT TO REVISE
:�
THIS L:;T.,TIC1 IF NOT ACCEP SO
WITHIi'CO DAYS
ACCEPTANCE: THIS PROPOSAL WHEN ACCEPTED IN WRITING BY PURCHASER AND BY CENTURY FENCE COMPANY'S MAIN OFFICE
BECOMES A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES. THE CONDITIONS ON THE REVERSE SIDE ARE MADE A PART
OF THIS CONTRACT.
TERMS OF PAYMENT: NET CASH UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE OR AS OTHERWISE STATED HEREIN.
BUY.SIGNATURE SUBMITTED BY:
Charles A. Waldenburg, Saes ager
DATE CENTURY FENCE COMPANY
- � t
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
FROM: MARY SAARION, DIRECTOR
PARKS, RECREATION AND FORESTRY
DATE: MAY 2, 1990
SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL CODE UPDATE
The changes for both Chapter 22 and Chapter 24 are identical. It is the
finance department that prepares the report on all departments fund
accounting.
The addition is stating that the director will prepare an annual report of
recreation activities in a given year.
•
Chapter 23 was reviewed, with no recommended changes.
MS/SL
•
• CHAPTER 24
RECREATION ACTIVITY FUND
24.01 ESTABLISHMENT.
There is hereby established and created a fund
designated as the "Recreation Activity Fund", hereinafter
referred to as the "Fund" .
24 .02 PURPOSE.
There shall be deposited in said fund all cash fees
charged by the City for recreation activities authorized by the
City, and supervised by the Director of Parks, Recreation and
Forestry or such other designee as authorized by the Council.
24. 03 USE OF FUND.
Such funds shall be used for the direct operating
expense of City authorized recreation activities. These expenses
shall include but shall not be limited to, compensation of
instructors, rents or the purchase of equipment or supplies for
recreational activities.
• 24.04 EXPENSES.
All expenses from the Fund shall be approved by the
Council. The Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry may
recommend expenses for approval.
24. 05 ACCOUNTING.
The Dircctor of Parks, Rccrcation and Fore3try The
Finance Director/Treasurer shall be responsible for and shall
prepare an annual accounting of said fund. This shall include
all revenues, expenses and balances at the end of each calendar
year. All funds received shall be deposited with the City
Treasurer as provided for in Chapter 5. 01. The Director of
Parks, Recreation and Forestry shall prepare an annual report
outlining the recreation activities offered in a given calendar
year.
24. 06 TRANSFER OF FUNDS.
The Council may transfer funds into the Recreation
Activity Fund from any source, but there shall be no transfer of
funds from the Recreation Activity Fund except for the purposes
enumerated in Chapter 24. 03 (213) .
•
CHAPTER 22
LAKESIDE PARK FUND
22 .01 ESTABLISHMENT.
There is hereby established and created a fund
designated as the "Lakeside Park Fund", hereinafter referred to
as the "Fund" .
22 .02 PURPOSE.
The purpose of the Fund is to account for expenses
relating to the operation, maintenance, and improvement of
Lakeside Park. There shall be deposited in the Fund
contributions and/or donations received from other governmental
units, corporations and/or individuals; transfers from other City
Funds; and, fees charged for recreation activities conducted at
the Park authorized by the City and supervised be the Director of
Parks, Recreation and Forestry or such other designee as
authorized by the Council.
22 .03 USE OF FUND.
Such funds shall be used for the direct operating
S expense, maintenance and improvements of Lakeside Park and for
the direct operating expenses of recreation activities conducted
at the Park.
22.04 EXPENSES.
All expenses from the Fund shall be approved by the
Council. The Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry may
recommend expenses for approval.
22 . 05 ACCOUNTING.
•• _ - - - _ _ 0. - - , - - - _ - - - _ _ - - - The
Finance Director/Treasurer shall be responsible for and shall
prepare an annual accounting of said Fund. This shall include
all revenues, expenses, balances at the end of each calendar
year. All funds received shall be deposited with the City
Treasurer as provided for in Chapter 5. 01. The Director of
Parks, Recreation and Forestry shall report annual regarding
activities and operations of Lakeside Park.
22 .06 TRANSFER OF FUNDS.
The Council may transfer funds into the Recreation
Activity Fund from any source, but there shall be no transfer of
funds from the Recreation Activity Fund except for the purposes
.
enumerated in Chapter 24.03 (213) .
23.01
CHAPTER 23
41, PARK AND PLAYGROUND FUND .
23.01. ESTABLISHMENT.
There is hereby established and created a fund designated
as the "Park and Playground Fund" , hereinafter referred to as the
"Fund" .
23.02. PURPOSE.
There shall be deposited in said fund all cash payments
received by the City pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 42.13
of this code. (278)
23.03. USE OF FUND.
Subdivision 1. Chapter 42. 13 Payments. Such payments
shall only be used by the City for the acquisition of land for
parks, playgrounds, public open space or storm water holding
areas or ponds, development of existing parks and playground
sites, public open space and storm water holding areas or ponds,
and debt retirement in connection with land previously acquired
for such public purposes. (278)
• 23.04. TRANSFER OF FUNDS.
Chapter 42. 13 deposits may not be transferred out of the
fund, except for the purposes enumerated in 23.03, Subd. 1.
Other receipts may be transferred by the Council into the general
fund for the purposes enumerated in Chapter 23.03. (208) (278)
•
•
•
s
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CLERK-ADMINISTRATOR 4
DATE: MAY 1, 1990
SUBJECT: FIRE DEPARTMENT BOND REFERENDUM REQUEST
As I had previously indicated to you, the three City
Administrators/Managers had requested additional and detailed
information from the Fire Department regarding their specific
capital requests to be funded by the proposed bond referendum.
Attached for your information is a copy of the additional
information provided by the Fire Department. In a telephone
conversation with Ron Fagerstrom, he has advised me that the
Department has prepared a short slide presentation for the
three City Councils and is prepared to conduct a tour of their
facilities for your edification. I am contacting the City
Administrators\Managers of Blaine and Spring Lake Park in an
effort to coordinate a joint meeting of the three City
Councils as previously requested by Mayor Hankner.
It would be appreciated if you would advise me of any
expectations you might have regarding this joint meeting in
• order that the appropriate forum can be established for your
discussions. As you can probably guess, it will be very
difficult to schedule something where all members of all three
City Councils will be available and, for that reason, knowing
your expectations will help me in attempting to organize this
event.
Should you have any questions, please let me know.
DFP/mjs
•
SPRING LAKE PARK FIRE DEPT., INC.
CAPITAL BUDGET - INFORMATION FOR BOND REFERENDUM
•
To help everyone better understand our fire station coverage, a short
summary is in order. Our entire area, Blaine, Mounds View and Spring Lake
Park, is divided into two Districts. District One encompasses all of
Mounds View and Spring Lake Park and the southern part of Blaine up to
99th Avenue from University Avenue on the West to the south side of 35W on
the East. District Two encompasses everything north of District One from
University Avenue east to Sunset Avenue.
Each station is assigned a first due or primary response area for all
calls and an increased secondary response area to ensure two stations
responding to all structure fires, mobile homes, HazMat incidents, etc.
For example, Station 2's primary response area includes the north half of
Spring Lake Park west of 65 and the southwest corner of Blaine to 99th,
but it's secondary response area includes all of Spring Lake Park, Mounds
View to Long Lake Road and up to 109th Avenue to Xylite in Blaine.
INDIVIDUAL ITEMS COST
Station 1/Administrative Offices/Furnishings
1810 Highway 10 (at Spring Lake Road) $ 1,000,000
Station 1's response area, primary and secondary, includes part of Blaine
11111
and all of Mounds View and Spring Lake Park.
Station 1 originates back to 1944 with subsequent additions and repairs.
The initial apparatus bay was constructed by the firefighters. At the
present time, the ceiling height will not accommodate the newer apparatus
and given the condition of the exterior walls in the original section, I
would not recommend trying to increase the station height for new doors.
As all of you know, our administrative offices are presently located in
Station 1 . We are like peas in a pod, a lot of togetherness with
inadequate space to function properly. We had included a new
administrative office building in our budget, but because of constant
recurring problems related to maintaining our current station which has no
crew quarters, inadequate floor drainage system, inadequate ventilation
system, inadequate electrical delivery system, and walls/footings not
designed for adding a second floor, we feel the present station should be
razed and a new station built which would include administrative offices.
This might entail acquiring adjacent property and would require setback
variances from Spring Lake Park. Given the location of our volunteers
assigned to Station 1 and travel distance to the three cities, the present
location is the best. Our average response time from Station 1 is five
minutes, the best in the department. The present building has seen its
best day - all of us have certainly gotten our "money's worth" out of it.
Now it is time to rebuild to include all the necessary items we need as
well as amenities for the volunteers such as crew quarters for routine
lounging and standby duty. [See reasons for Stations 4 and 5 additions;
the same reasoning applies here. ]
•
-1-
New Station 2/Furnishings
89th Avenue immediately west of Blaine Auto Body $ 650,000
New Highway 610 will make the present station inoperable. The building of
a new Station 2 has been in our long range plans for years with the land
for the new Station included in our Capital Budget from August 1985 to
January 1988.
The new station, as opposed to the existing station, must meet all
building/safety requirements, provide crew quarters, fitness facilities
and other ancillary necessities to enable the volunteers to do their job
in an effective, safe environment with the least amount of time expended.
With our enhanced physical fitness program, the fitness or workout room
will provide us with an area to do just that - improve on the physical
fitness of all our firefighters. We intend to make the use of these rooms
available to all local police.
Station 3
Buchanan and 109th Avenue
This station's response areas lie entirely within Blaine but it also
responds on multiple calls/alarms anywhere in the district. A 2000 gallon
super tanker is on order for Station 3. Given the water supply problems
the past two years in our entire area, having a reasonable water supply
of our own will ensure our being able to function in a more effective
manner.
Stations 4 and 5 Crew Quarters Additions [with exercise rooms] /Furnishings
Station 4 - 10290 Lever Street
Station 5 - 1200 Paul Parkway $75,000/Station $ 150,000
Station 4's response area includes eastern Blaine and eastern Mounds View
to Long Lake Road.
Station 5's fire response area lies wholly within the city of Blaine. On
multiple calls or alarms, one engine and crew from Station 5 are relocated
to standby at Station 1. This station also responds anywhere in our
response area as needed. A 2000 gallon super tanker is housed at Station
5 and is used not only in rural areas but can be used in urban areas of
all three cities in case of water supply problems.
The success of the small crew quarters at our present Station 2 has
demonstrated the need and advantage of adding crew quarters to Stations 4
and 5. All five stations are manned from time to time because of storm
alerts or multiple fire calls in our area. This practice gives us a
faster response time for all emergencies and better coverage for our
Orotection area.
-2-
t 1,
At the present time the crews at Stations 4 and 5 are required to work, •
eat and sleep on the apparatus floor, a very unsafe and poor practice.
Having crew quarters encourages crew members to spend more time at the
station which again improves our response time. This type of personal
treatment encourages more dedication and longevity from our current
firefighters and helps in recruiting new firefighters which is a
continuous problem.
The inclusion of an exercise or fitness room at these two stations is a
continuation of our enhanced physical fitness program to maintain
physically fit , adept firefighters and thereby help reduce workers
compensation claims. Again, we propose opening all fitness rooms to the
local police in our fire protection district of Blaine, Mounds View and
Spring Lake Park.
Training Tower/Burn Building $ 50,000
This is a joint venture between Columbia Heights, Brooklyn Center, Fridley
and us. With each department contributing $50,000, we will have a
$200,000 facility available to all of us. This will be the third item we
have purchased jointly with other departments. Our current air handling
system is jointly owned by Columbia Heights, Fridley and us, and our
HazMat vehicle is jointly owned by Coon Rapids, Fridley, Columbia Heights,
St. Anthony and our department. Joint ownership of this type of facility
makes sense since there is not a continuous or daily need for it by any of
our departments.
At the present time we have no facility to use for ladder training on a
regular basis. We have to ask building owners to let us use their
respective buildings, and some of them are understandable reluctant to do
so. We have no place to conduct flammable liquid spill fire and
containment procedures, nor any facility to use on a steady basis for
forcible entry practices.
• - p us o er op ons o
further enhance our training program. The proposed location of this
facility is in the northern area of Fridley which means we will not
receive any complaints from the local residents because of smoke generated
during our training sessions.
S
-3-
OApparatus - Immediate Needs 1991/1992
Engine 1 - located at Station 1 $ 225,000
The chassis is a 1964 Pirsch which was partially refurbished with a new
diesel motor being installed in 1981. At the present time, the body has
serious rust/deterioration problems. In fact, there are holes in many
locations. The water tank has developed serious leaks, and our repairs
are stopgap; the tank should be replaced but the cost is approximately
$5,000 to remove it and install a new one because of other rust and
deterioration problems. Because of the age of the chassis, I do not
recommend any further major rehabilitation for this unit - it has seen its
day.
This unit, the busiest engine in the department, does not meet current
standards for the protection of the crew, has cramped crew quarters, lack
of adequate protection, noise levels, etc. Further, the compartmentation
design is inadequate to allow for current needs which have developed over
time. We need more storage space as well as a larger water tank.
Engine 4, located at Station 4 $ 210,000
This unit is a 1974 Pirsch with a Waukesha gasoline engine. Our
Sexperience indicates that these engines, which run hot, do not have the
longevity that we would like. Everyone of these units has had major motor
repairs. In fact, because of the Waukesha engine problems we have
experienced, diesel motors were installed in Ladder 9 and Engine 1 after
they both literally disintegrated.
Again, this unit does not meet present standards for crew safety and has
limited storage capacity for both equipment and water. Severe rusting has
set in extending to parts of the frame. We have been repairing the rust
problems as best we can.
Because of the deteriorated body condition and age of the unit, motor and
running gear, I would not recommend that we refurbish and install a diesel
motor. Our experience with Engine 1 has shown that this is not a
practical solution - replacement is.
Ladder 12, located at Station 3 $ 500,000
At the present time, Ladder 12 at Station 3 is approaching obsolescence.
In the early 70's we converted a 1953 GMC tanker to this ladder truck, and
in the late 70's a new chassis was installed. Now the crew cab, which we
built, and the original body are rusting away. I thought we could
refurbish this unit; however, the people at General Safety, a fire truck
manufacturer at North Branch, said otherwise. The chassis will not take
•the weight increase which would be needed.
-4-
- x
One of the items I planned to address under the refurbishing of Ladder 12 •
was the alteration of the ladder rack for longer ladders. The ladders we
presently carry will not reach the highest buildings in District 2, the
first response area of this unit. Further, because of the design of many
of the homes in North Oaks West, conventional ground ladders would not
work. Hence we have included an aerial device as a replacement, probably
some type of platform rig. With a hydraulic ladder we do not need the
same amount of manpower to operate it as we do to raise a 35 or 40 foot
ground ladder. In most cases one person is all that is needed.
To adequately do our job, we need an aerial ladder unit in each district.
Because of the increase in calls and simultaneous calls, this is more of a
necessity now than ever. Our current unit is just wearing out and because
of current construction and development, it no longer meets the needs of
its first response area. All of us have certainly more than gotten our
moneys worth from this unit.
Communications/Command Van $ 75,000 '
At the present time we do not have any type of command/communication
vehicle that we could use at large or complicated incidents such as a
HazMat call, large grass/woods fires, multiple alarm calls, etc. We need
someplace to store all of our reference material, have a place for the
Incident Commander to confer with his staff and outside agencies, and have
the communication capabilities to coordinate all the needed activity. •
This has sorely been lacking and given the current method of funding the
Capital Budget, we have never included it because all the funds were going
to main line fire apparatus.
Currently our Command Post activity has to be conducted either from a
private car or our Utility Pickup Truck where conditions are cramped and
necessitate constant movement from inside to outside to confer/write
reports. Under this scenario, you have no method to confer with your
staff or other agencies, etc. protected from the elements. Also, you are
not isolated effectively from disturbing elements such as the public and
news media as you try to keep abreast of reports from sector or field
• .. . • - . - • • v , rt 14 -
necessity
. -necessity of securing adequate resources via radio, telephone or computer.
Engine 6, 1993 $ 240,000
This unit is a diesel powered 1977 Pirsch pumper, and by 1993, it will be
17 years old. Our original Capital Budget had used a useful life of 20
years for engines and 25 years for ladder trucks. This has proven not to
be the case as is evident from the commentary in regard to other apparatus
listed previously.
-5-
1
Ladder 9, 1993 $ 600,000
• This unit is a 1971 diesel-powered (repowered in 1988) Pirsch, 85 foot
aerial ladder. By 1993 it will be 23 years old - time to be replaced
before major problems occur with the aerial ladder.
Both Engine 6 and Ladder 9 will make good reserve units. By replacing
them before they are no longer serviceable, we will be able to have two
units to fill in when first line engine/ladder trucks are out for repairs
or general service.
With the size/type of our operation, it is a necessity to have a fully
equipped reserve pumper and ladder truck that can be relocated where
needed. At the present time we attempt to fill gaps by relocating our
Quick Response Vehicle or taking a station out of service - neither of
which is a prudent thing to do. The Quick Response unit, carrying much
less water and an auxiliary pump, is not adequate for a first line unit on
a structure fire. If one of the ladder trucks goes out of service, there
is no unit to take its place; we must send for the serviceable unit left
which causes unacceptable response times.
By taking a station out of service, we thereby reduce the number of
available firefighters to assist at calls. If we had a paid department,
this would not be a concern. However, given the decision to have us
continue as a basic volunteer or paid on call operation, factors such as
this have to be weighed heavily when deciding how much and type of
•apparatus is needed.
Engine/Super Tanker 3, 1991 $ 183,000
By including this 2000 gallon water tanker unit in the Bonding Referendum,
we will gain in savings accrual in our CIP budget for succeeding years.
Subtotal $ 3,883,000
Current Capital Budget Expense Items;
Engine 2 - to be delivered in May 1990 147,000
Stations 2/3 Additions - Mortgage Balance 4/12/90 116,615
Station 5 - Mortgage Balance 4/12/90 105,810
Small tools/equipment/hose/etc. 47,575
Unexpected Expenses/Future CIP 100,000
TOTAL BOND REFERENDUM $ 4,400,000
-6-
Viti/h/Li c;?3
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL 40411
FROM: CLERK-ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: MAY 1, 1990
SUBJECT: 1990 STATE AID CUTS
Although I will be providing you with a memorandum in the near
future regarding the results of the 1990 Legislative Session,
I thought it appropriate to provide you with a report as soon
as possible regarding the impacts of cuts in state aids to the
City of Mounds View.
The 1990 Tax Bill provides that the state will withhold an
estimated $46 million in state aid from cities in pay 1990 and
pay 1991 combined. Cities will loose $15.6 million in local
government aid and homestead and agricultural credit aid,
which the City of Mounds View does not receive, in pay 1990
under the Tax Bill. The aid cut is permanent and therefore
will save the state another $15.6 million in pay 1991.
Cities subject to levy limits, including Mounds View, cannot
• increase their levies in.pay 1991 to make up for the 1.53% aid
cut. Also, the repeal of all City levy limits will not take
effect until pay 1993 (formerly pay 1992) to coincide with the
scheduled repeal of County levy limits.
As stated earlier, local government aids will be frozen in pay
1991 at the reduced 1990 level, however, cities' levy limit
bases will not be further reduced by the foregone LGA
inflation increases. Therefore, at this time, our local
government aid 1990 and 1991 will only be reduced by the
amount provided for in the Tax Bill which at this time is
estimated at $31,159. Exactly how this reduction in local
-
taken out of one or both of our local government aid payments
in 1990 is unknown at this time. I have requested that
Finance Director Brager review the 1990 budget and advise me
of the current status of the City's contingency account and
other uncommitted funds in order to identify sources that
could be eliminated from the City's 1990 budget to absorb this
loss in aids.
It should be pointed out that there is no guarantee that the
City will not experience additional aid cuts in the future.
The Tax Bill builds in future aid reductions for local
•
a
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL111
PAGE TWO
MAY 2, 1990
governments by stating that, if the aid cuts made in the Bill
for pay 1992 are not at least $175 million compared to current
law, counties, cities, and special taxing districts will be
subject to further aid cuts based upon their revenue bases.
We will not know what the impact of that provision will be
until sometime in 1991, hopefully prior to certification of
our 1992 aids.
It is my hope that Mr. Brager and I will be able to provide
you with detailed information at your May 7th Agenda Session
in order that you may take action at the May 14th Council
Meeting to implement cuts in the City's 1990 budget equal to
the loss in local government aids. Should you have any
questions prior to May 7th, please let me know.
DFP/mjs
•
•
•
•