Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2005/03/14CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Monday, March 14, 2005 7:00 p.m. (Amended as of Friday, March 11, 2005 @9am) 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, Thomas 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC INPUT: Citizens may speak to issues not on tonight’s agenda. Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the minutes. Also, please limit your comments to three minutes. 6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS A. YMCA Quarterly Report (oral report with handouts) 7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. Resolution 6421 Approving the Purchase of a Replacement Water Tanker Truck. Consistent with the City of Mounds View’s Long Range Financial Plan approved by City Council on December 13, 2004, Resolution 6403, Staff recommends that the City Council approve the purchase of a 2005 Sterling Acterra Chassis under state contract and award a contract to Boyer Ford in the amount of $55,593.00 plus tax and the tanker/street flushing system to ABM Equipment and Manufacturing for $59,553.00 plus tax. Finally, Staff recommends that the City Council approve the trade-in of the 1981 Tanker Truck to ABM Equipment and Manufacturing at a credited value of $8,000. This represents a final net City cost of $114,640.49 to replace the 1981 Tanker Truck ($4,585 per year over the life of the tanker truck). Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ B. Schedule a Public Hearing for 7:05pm for Monday, March 28, 2005 to consider the Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 758, an Ordinance Limiting Garbage Pickup Thursdays Only. C. Schedule a Public Hearing for 7:10 pm on Monday, March 28, 2005 to consider Resolution 6475, a Resolution Pertaining to a Proposed Interim Use Permit (IUP) for a Temporary Outdoor Membrane Structure at the Mermaid. D. Schedule a Public Hearing for 7:15 pm on Monday, March 28, 2005 to Consider a Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage at 5343 Clifton Drive E. Resolution 6476 Approving a Certificate of Correction for the Velmeir CVS Final Plat Approve Resolution 6476 approving the certificate of correction for Velmeir CVS Plat. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ F. Licenses for Approval Approve License applications as requested. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ 9. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. 7:20 Public Hearing for the 2005 Street Improvement Project, Resolution 6474 Approving the Feasibility Report It is recommended that the City Council approve a resolution approving the Feasibility Report for the 2005 Street Improvement Project. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ B. Resolution 6436 Approving the 2005 Public Works Seasonal Employee Positions Staff recommends approval of the 2005 Public Works Seasonal Positions. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ C. 7:25 Public Hearing to Consider a Variance Request for a Reduced Number of Covered Parking Spaces at Greenfield Estates Located at 7635 Greenfield Avenue After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and affected neighbors, the Council can take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Deny the requested variance. Resolution 6475 is attached for the Council’s approval if that is the chosen course of action. 2. Approve the variance as requested. To move forward with this option, the Council should direct staff to draft a resolution of approval with findings of fact appropriate to support the approval. 3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Council can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of 60-day requirements, the Council would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ D. Resolution 6472 Appointing a Planning Commission Member and approving the Planning Commission Chairperson Review the attached applications for Al Hull and Mike Marrone and appoint one of the two to fill the vacant position on the Planning Commission. A resolution is attached that also appoints the chair to the Planning Commission, Gary Stevenson. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ E. Resolution 6473 Approving Step/Longevity Increases for Deputy Chief Tom Kinney, Officer Ben Zender, Officer Kasey Keckeisen, Officer Steve Geringer, and Jodi Salmonson.. Staff recommends approval for Step/Longevity Increases. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ F. First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 758, an Ordinance Limiting Garbage Pickup to Thursdays Only. Staff recommends approval of into and first reading of Ordinance 758 pertaining to Thursday only residential garbage pickup. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ G. Resolution 6478 Converting one Patrol Officer Position to a Sergeant Position. Staff request Council approval to proceed with converting one patrol officer position to a sergeant position using the funding formula stated, and in accordance with Police Civil Service rules for the promotion which is to be effective May 1, 2005. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ H. Resolution 6477 Approving Transfers Between Funds for the Year 2004. Staff recommends approval to transfer funds for 2004. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ 10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. February 28, 2005 City Council Minutes. 11. REPORTS A. Reports of Mayor and Council B. Reports of Staff 1. Designate Council Representative to County Road 10 Corridor Design Theme Subcommittee C. Reports of City Attorney 12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, April 4, 2005 at 7pm Next Council Meeting: Monday, March 28, 2005 at 7pm CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Monday, March 14, 2005 7:00 p.m. (Amended as of Friday, March 11, 2005 @9am) 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, Thomas 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC INPUT: Citizens may speak to issues not on tonight’s agenda. Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the minutes. Also, please limit your comments to three minutes. 6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS A. YMCA Quarterly Report (oral report with handouts) 7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. Resolution 6421 Approving the Purchase of a Replacement Water Tanker Truck. B. Schedule a Public Hearing for 7:05pm for Monday, March 28, 2005 to consider the Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 758, an Ordinance Limiting Garbage Pickup Thursdays Only. C. Schedule a Public Hearing for 7:10 pm on Monday, March 28, 2005 to consider Resolution 6475, a Resolution Pertaining to a Proposed Interim Use Permit (IUP) for a Temporary Outdoor Membrane Structure at the Mermaid. D. Schedule a Public Hearing for 7:15 pm on Monday, March 28, 2005 to Consider a Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage at 5343 Clifton Drive E. Resolution 6476 Approving a Certificate of Correction for the Velmeir CVS Final Plat F. Licenses for Approval 9. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. 7:20 Public Hearing for the 2005 Street Improvement Project, Resolution 6474 Approving the Feasibility Report B. Resolution 6436 Approving the 2005 Public Works Seasonal Employee Positions C. 7:25 Public Hearing to Consider a Variance Request for a Reduced Number of Covered Parking Spaces at Greenfield Estates Located at 7635 Greenfield Avenue D. Resolution 6472 Appointing a Planning Commission Member and approving the Planning Commission Chairperson E. Resolution 6473 Approving Step/Longevity Increases for Deputy Chief Tom Kinney, Officer Ben Zender, Officer Kasey Keckeisen, Officer Steve Geringer, and Jodi Salmonson.. F. First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 758, an Ordinance Limiting Garbage Pickup to Thursdays Only. G. Resolution 6478 Converting one Patrol Officer Position to a Sergeant Position. H. Resolution 6477 Approving Transfers Between Funds for the Year 2004. 10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. February 28, 2005 City Council Minutes. 11. REPORTS A. Reports of Mayor and Council B. Reports of Staff 1. Designate Council Representative to County Road 10 Corridor Design Theme Subcommittee C. Reports of City Attorney 12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, April 4, 2005 at 7pm Next Council Meeting: Monday, March 28, 2005 at 7pm Item No. 8A Meeting Date: March 14, 2005 Type of Business: CA WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City Administrator Review _______ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6421 Approving the Purchase of a Replacement Tanker Truck Background: In 1994, the City purchased a 1981 International 1810 Series Tanker Truck. This Tanker Truck has been used to perform many routine Public Works duties such as flooding rinks, flushing streets, sweeping for dust control, cleaning picnic shelters, cleaning portable toilets, watering boulevard repairs, removing graffiti removal from signs, buildings and playgrounds, flushing storm sewers, and testing sewer mains. The City has a practice of replacing trucks on a fifteen-year cycle. However, as a cost saving measure, the cycle to replace the Tanker Truck has been extended 25 years. This extension of the replacement cycle is possible due to the City of Mounds View maintenance practices, which allow for the longer vehicle usage. In comparison, most municipalities and other government agencies have selected shorter life cycles for trucks, typically 10 to 12 years. Discussion: Given the age and increased maintenance necessary, this Tanker Truck is no longer cost effective and has therefore reached the end of its economically useful life cycle. This Tanker Truck was scheduled for replacement in 2005 and monies have been allocated in the approved 2005 budget for its replacement. Before seeking the purchase of a new tanker truck, Staff explored several options. These were as follows: 1. Try to extend the life of the existing tanker truck. The Chassis was worn when we purchased it. The brakes need work and the front end parts need to be replaced (ie, tie rods, drag links, and steering sector). The clutch is wearing and the power steering pump leaks profusely. The tank itself is showing signs of severe rust. The ring gear on the flywheel of the rear pump engine needs to be replaced. The pump engine is also showing signs of wear with low compression. We tried to purchase parts for the pump, but they are no longer available. The conclusion is the tanker truck has truly reached the end of its useful life. 2. Place a tank in truck bed or dump box This would not be feasible. A minimum of 2,000 gallons of water is needed to flood rinks. The weight of 2,000 gallons of water is 16,600 pounds, or 8.3 tons. The City’s dump trucks simply cannot carry that weight. Even if the weight were not a consideration, the high center of gravity would be dangerously top heavy. We would also need a pump that would be able to convey 850 gallons per minute to get the water to flow properly to form ice or clean streets. The dump truck also would not be capable of maneuvering in the rink areas. 3. Trailering a water tank This would require such a large trailer that it would not be maneuverable either. This would also require a powered pump. 4. Borrow / Share use of a tanker truck Unfortunately, most tasks related to a tanker truck are season-related. Nearby cities utilize their tanker truck for the same purposes and at the same times as Mounds View. 5. Lease a tanker truck Staff explored this option. It was discovered that leasing was extremely expensive. Attached is a lease quote from Citi Capital for a tanker truck with an assumed value of $100,000. The best lease option was a sixty-month lease: however, the annual cost of this was $21,861.45. Over the course of the five-year lease the cost would be $109,307.25. 6. Purchase a used a tanker truck Staff researched this option by contacting several dealerships that specialize in this type of used vehicle. There currently is not a suitable used tanker truck available. Staff was informed that generally when a used tanker truck becomes available it is far past its useful life. Most are salvaged and in the rare event that the tank is still usable, it is sometimes remounted on a newer truck. 6. Remove the tanker truck from the City’s fleet If we do not replace the tanker truck, the following services will be impacted or eliminated: • To continue to provide skating rinks the man-hours will need to be tripled to match the tanker’s capabilities. • On snow days, rinks will not be maintained (swept and flooded) until all other duties are completed. • Street sweeping will slow down and there will be dust complaints on houses and cars, ect. • Street flushing. • Graffiti removal will be slower or not able to be removed from signs, buildings and playgrounds. • Buildings and shelters will require more labor intense means of cleaning. • Watering boulevards (i.e., repairs from water main breaks, and plowing damage). • Dust control on ball fields and pathways. • Tree watering during drought times. • Flushing storm sewer while vactor is involved with sanitary sewer cleaning. • Sanitary sewer main flow tests. 7. Purchase a new tanker truck as budgeted Staff is recommending that the Tanker Truck be traded in and replaced with a similar truck with similar equipment and options. A 2005 Sterling Acterra Chassis can be purchased on the State Bid from Boyer Ford Trucks for $55,593.00. The proposed tanker is recommended to be diesel powered to attain better performance with greater fuel economy. It is also recommended that the pump will run off the power plant engine through power take off (P.T.O.) and hydraulics instead of using a second engine to run the pump. This will save on maintenance and better utilize the truck’s motor. In addition to the truck chassis, other equipment is needed to fully complete the tanker truck. This includes the tank that is mounted to the truck chassis and the street flushing system. Staff highly recommends the inclusion of the stainless steel option. This would have a 20-year tank warranty and will not rust. Bids for these items were received at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 at City Hall. Attached is a copy of the specifications. A total of two (2) bids were received. The low bid of $55,555.00 was submitted by ABM Equipment and Supply of Hopkins Minnesota. The bid also included a bid alternate of $3,998 for a stainless steel tank. The bid has been reviewed and found to be in order. A complete bid summary is as follows: ABM Equip. & Supply Base bid $55,555.00 Bid alternate $ 3,998.00 TOTAL $59,553.00 Ruffridge Johnson Base bid $58,384.00 Bid alternate $10,277.00 TOTAL $68,661.00 The existing 1981 Tanker Truck is currently in a usable condition and retains a salvage value due to the City’s extensive maintenance program. The trade-in amount offered by ABM Equipment and Manufacturing is $8,000 (conditional on the City purchasing a tanker/street flushing system from ABM; otherwise the estimated trade-in value is $2,000). A summary of the proposed truck replacement follows: • 2005 Sterling Acterra Truck $55,593.00 • Tanker/street flushing system $59,553.00 Subtotal $115,146.00 tax $ 7,484.49 • Trade-In of 1981 Tanker Truck ($8,000) TOTAL $114,630.49 The 2005 General Fund, Parks Department Vehicle Account (Account 100-4360- 7040) has $105,000.00 budgeted for this purchase. It should be noted that this is the third piece of parks equipment to be purchased in 2005 from this fund. The other two pieces were as follows: Budget amount Total City Cost Remaining Budget Amount Tractor $70,000.00 $63,339.81 $6,660.10 Pick up truck $28,000.00 $25,604.30 $2,395.70 Pick up truck trade in $1,500.00 Total $10,555.80 It would be recommended that 2005 General Fund, Parks Department Vehicle Account (Account 100-4360-7040) be utilized for this purchase with no adjustments to said account. Recommendation: Consistent with the City of Mounds View’s Long Range Financial Plan approved by City Council on December 13, 2004, Resolution 6403, Staff recommends that the City Council approve the purchase of a 2005 Sterling Acterra Chassis under state contract and award a contract to Boyer Ford in the amount of $55,593.00 plus tax and the tanker/street flushing system to ABM Equipment and Manufacturing for $59,553.00 plus tax. Finally, Staff recommends that the City Council approve the trade-in of the 1981 Tanker Truck to ABM Equipment and Manufacturing at a credited value of $8,000. This represents a final net City cost of $114,640.49 to replace the 1981 Tanker Truck ($4,585 per year over the life of the tanker truck). Respectfully Submitted, Greg Lee, Director of Public Works RESOLUTION NO. 6421 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF A REPLACEMENT TANKER TRUCK WHEREAS, the City purchased a 1981 International 1810 Series Tanker Truck; and WHEREAS, said tanker truck has is no longer cost effective and has therefore reached the end of its economically useful life cycle and is therefore scheduled for replacement; and WHEREAS, Staff explored several options and is recommending that the Tanker Truck be traded in and replaced with a similar truck with similar equipment and options; and WHEREAS, a 2005 Sterling Acterra Chassis can be purchased from Boyer Ford Trucks under state contract for $55,593.00. Tax, license, and transfer fees would cost an additional $4,500.00 and WHEREAS, additional equipment, such as a communication radio, antenna, city identification logos, and safety warning lights, are necessary to fully utilize said truck; and WHEREAS, said equipment can be purchased from local equipment supply companies in the amount of approximately $2,000.00; and WHEREAS, a tank mounted to the truck chassis and a street flushing system are needed to fully complete the tanker truck, and WHEREAS, bids for these items were received and the low bid of $55,555.00 was submitted by ABM Equipment and Supply of Hopkins, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the low bid also included a bid alternate of $3,998 for a stainless steel tank, and WHEREAS, Staff highly recommends the inclusion of the stainless steel option, which would have a 20-year tank warranty and will not rust; and WHEREAS, said tank and related equipment and options can also be purchased and installed for $59,553.00 by the low bidder, ABM Equipment and Supply. Tax would cost an additional $3,870.95; and WHEREAS, the existing 1981 Tanker can be traded in to ABM Equipment and Supply for $8,500.00; and WHEREAS, the 2005 General Fund, Parks Vehicle Account (Account 100-4360-7030) has $105,000.00 budgeted for this tanker truck replacement purchase; and WHEREAS, this account has additional funds estimated to be in excess of $10,500 for other equipment purchases that were less than the budgeted amount, thus no adjustment is needed to said account. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows: 1. The purchase of a 2005 Sterling Acterra Chassis from Boyer Ford Trucks under state contract for $55,593.00, with tax, license, and transfer fees of $4,500.00 for a total estimated purchase price of $60,093.00 is hereby approved. 2. The purchase of additional equipment such as a communication radio, antenna, city identification logos, and safety warning lights which are necessary to fully utilize said truck in the estimated amount of $2,000.00 is hereby approved. 3. A contract with ABM Equipment and Supply of Hopkins, Minnesota in the estimated amount of $59,553.00 plus tax for the stainless steel tank and street flusher system is hereby approved. 4. The trade-in of the 1981 International 1810 Series Tanker Truck to ABM Equipment and Supply at a credited value of $8,500.00 is approved. 5. Including tax, license, and transfer fees, this represents an estimated final net City cost of $113,146.00 to replace the 1981 tanker truck. Adopted this 14th day of March 2005. (ATTEST) ____________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor (SEAL) ____________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator Mounds View Street Flusher Specifications: (Truck Mounted) TANK: 2,000gallon capacity (60” diameter x 156” shell length) Tank shall be constructed of 3/16 steel and shall be round in shape. Tank shall have 10 gauge dished steel heads to give barrel the strength that is needed for liquid loads. Heads shall have ¾” radius flange and shall be lap welded to the barrel shell. Heads shall be welded inside and outside, providing the flange reinforcement at the head seam where stresses are the greatest. There shall be two full sectional baffles, also constructed of 10-gauge steel. Baffles shall have staggered flow holes allowing complete drainage. The entire interior of tank shall be properly prepared and shall receive a corrosion resistant coating. VENT: The vent/overflow system is a separate assembly, completely automatic, located near the center of the tank. It shall utilize a 6” tube to allow venting for normal filling or discharge rates. Any overflow during travel shall be discharged under the tank. MANHOLE: There shall be one 20” steel manhole, located top of front of tank. Manhole shall have a 10” secondary hinged “quick-fill” cover. Manhole cover shall have a ring clamp for removal and access to tank. There shall be a stainless steel ladder for access to the manhole located at the front passenger side of the tank. FRAME: The tank frame shall be a rail frame with end plates and support plates mounted to each side frame rail and bottom of the tank. It shall be fully constructed of ¼” steel, ½” wood skids shall be placed between the tank and chassis frames. There shall be one driver’s side rear fill, 3” stainless steel “J” style fill lines plumbed externally to the top of the tank and elbowing back into the tank for a water break. This fill line shall have a 3” manual butterfly valve with a 2 ½ female cam lock coupler. A 20’ length of 2 ½” cotton jacket hose with a male cam lock coupler on one end of NSF hydrant on the other end shall be provided. WATER PUMP: The water pump shall be hydraulically driven from PTO (See hydraulic drive system section). The pump shall be contained in a heated housing to prevent freezing during cold weather periods. The PTO shall be a “hot shift”, with a control easily accessed from the driver position. Pump shall be Defco model A- 8200 rated at 800gpm, and shall have provisions to completely drain pump and pump plumbing. Tank to pump line shall be a 4” manual butterfly valve. Pump to tank line shall be 1” with 1” manual brass ball valve. Pressure gauge panel mounted in chassis cab. HYDRAULIC DRIVE SYSTEM: The PTO shall be a Chelsea “hot shift”, with control on the stainless steel operators control panel inside the chassis cab. The hydraulic pump shall be a gear pump mounted under cab. The hydraulic motor shall be activated by a 12v solenoid valve with switch on the operators control panel. There shall be a chassis mounted hydraulic fluid reservoir with sight gauge, filter, and check valve. A flow control shall be installed in the hydraulic system to allow variable flow to the hydraulic motor, thereby allowing the operator a simple cab controlled means to vary water pump discharge pressure. DISCHARGE PLUMBING: There shall be 6 street flusher nozzles with electric actuated valves, cab controlled. Nozzles shall be located on each side out rear of vehicle, one near center of driver and passenger sides, and one each side at the front of the vehicle. Controls shall be located in chassis cab on operators control panel. All plumbing to nozzles shall have provisions to completely drain. All intake and discharge line drain valves shall be ¼ turn ball valves. All discharge valves shall have (near valve head) a ¼” recirculation line. TANK LEVEL GAUGE: There shall be a water tank level gauge, 4-light MC products series 500. There shall be a cab read-out and curbside fill read-out, easily visible from the operators fill position. LIGHTS AND WIRING: All wiring shall be Truck-Lite or equal, and shall be sealed bulb type. Wiring to the lights mounted on the tank shall be run through external steel conduit, formed to the contour of the tank. DOT lighting shall meet or exceed state and federal regulations. There shall be one rear warning strobe, Whelen 2012, mounted near the top of the tank. Strobe switch on operators control panel in the cab. On the rear shall be mounted a directional LED lightbar with integral outside warning strobes and shall be located above the upper clearance light bracket. Controls for the directional lightbar shall be located on the operators control panel inside the cab. Combination stop/turn/tail lights mounted at the rear, with two additional stop and turn lights mounted below the rear warning strobes near the top of the tank. White back-up lights shall be mounted in a vertical plane with the lower stop/turn/tail lights at the rear and shall be energized when the transmission is placed in reverse with the ignition on. FENDERS AND BUMPERS: Over the rear wheels shall be single axle aluminum contour fenders with painted steel mounting brackets. Above the single axle fenders shall be stainless steel hose trays, full length of barrel shell with 8” side flanges. Trays shall be closed to the front and open to the rear. At the rear of the vehicle shall be heavy-duty steel platform bumper. PAINTING: All surfaces shall be properly cleaned, prepared, and primed prior to painting. Valspar (or equal) paint shall be applied, three coats to match chassis. DOT conspicuity tape shall be applied to each side. MOUNTING: Tank shall be mounted to chassis using spring bolted angle mounts. Behind the rear wheels shall be mounted two full rubber mud flaps behind the wheels and ahead of the rear wheels. All electrical, hydraulic, pumping, and valve controls shall be tested after installation and mounting. FRONT REMOTE WATER MONITOR: A POK 1 ½” remote controlled water monitor with electric fog nozzle, mounted at the front of the vehicle with joystick controls located inside the chassis cab. Monitor has 350 degree rotation with –30 to +50 degree elevation and flow capacity to 350gpm @100psi. DUMP VALVE: A 10” steel square Newton Quick-dump shall be provided at the rear with electric actuator and tip down extension chute. Switches for the valve shall be located in the chassis cab and at the valve location. HOSE REEL: There shall be one Hannay model EF24-23-24 electric rewind hose reel, mounted in an aluminum compartment on the driver side. Reel shall have a 100’ x 1” single jacket REELTEX booster hose with adjustable flow nozzle. The valve shall be a 1” manual brass ball valve located inside the aluminum compartment. This discharge line shall also have the ¼” recirculation line. FLUSHER NOZZLES: Additional street flusher nozzle with valve and actuator, switch on operator’s panel. FILL LINES: Additional “J” style fill with valve. PUMP DRIVE SYSTEM DEDUCT: PTO to gearbox pump drives system in lieu of hydraulic drive system. OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT- STAINLESS TANK: Stainless steel tank and framing constructions in lieu of mild steel. Item No: 8E Meeting Date: March 14, 2005 Type of Business: Council Business Administrator Review : _____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View City Council From: Kristin Prososki, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Approval of a Certificate of Correction for the Velmeir CVS Final Plat Introduction: Staff received a phone call from Loucks Associates, the engineering firm for the CVS Pharmacy development, stating that a certificate of correction needs to be filed for the Velmeir CVS Plat. A copy of the plat, with the correction noted, was sent to the City (see attached). The only change to the plat is the dimension listed for the southeasterly line of Lot 3, which is currently shown as 219.81 feet, should be corrected to display a dimension of 218.81 feet. Discussion: The Council approved the Velmeir CVS Final Plat on June 28, 2004. The plat, as approved, shows that the length of the southeasterly line of Lot 3, Silverview Terrace Apartments, is 219.81 feet. The plat needs to be corrected to show the actual dimension of 218.81 feet. This correction does not actually change any lot lines, but will change the text that displays the dimension. All other information on the plat is correct and has been approved by Ramsey County. Recommendation: Approve Resolution 6476, approving the certificate of correction for the Velmeir CVS Plat. Respectfully submitted, Kristin Prososki Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Section of Plat with Correction Noted 2. Certificate of Correction 3. Resolution 6476 Velmeir CVS Plat Correction Report March 14, 2005 Page 2 Velmeir CVS Plat Correction Report March 14, 2005 Page 3 Velmeir CVS Plat Correction Report March 14, 2005 Page 4 RESOLUTION NO. 6476 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION FOR THE VELMEIR CVS PLAT, ORGINALLY APPROVED ON JUNE 28, 2004 WHEREAS, The Velmeir CVS Final Plat was originally approved by the Mounds View City Council on June 28, 2004; and WHEREAS, it has become known that a text error exists on the plat relating to the dimension of the southeasterly line of Lot 3, Block 1; and, WHEREAS, it is necessary that the plat be corrected to reflect the actual dimension of the southeasterly line of Lot 3, Block 1; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding this correction: 1. Copy of Plat with Correction Noted 2. Certificate of Correction 3. Staff Report NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council hereby approves the certificate of correction for the Velmeir CVS plat. Adopted this 14th day of March, 2005. __________________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk / Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 08F Meeting Date: Mar 14, 2005 Type of Business: CA City Administrator Review: _______ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Barb Benesch, Administrative Assistant Item Title/Subject: CONTRACTOR LICENSES FOR APPROVAL Please consider the following contractor licenses for approval. All contractor licenses will expire on December 31, 2005. All applicants have submitted appropriate fees and proof of insurance. Those companies that are “new” include applicants that have never been licensed with the City or they may have been licensed with the City in the past, but were not licensed in 2004. Those companies renewing their license were licensed, at a minimum, in the year 2004. The type of license they are applying for follows the company name. Blacktop Driveway Company Asphalt Renewal Condor Fireplace HVAC New Gartner Refrigeration & Mfg. HVAC New Limited Edition Siding Siding New Precision Landscape & Tree, Inc. Tree Trimming/Removal Renewal Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Benesch Item No. 9B Meeting Date: March 14, 2005 Type of Business: CB WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City Administrator Review _______ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works Item Title/Subject: Resolution No. 6436 Approving the 2005 Seasonal Public Works Seasonal Employee Positions Background On March 26, 2001 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5546, which describes the procedure for hiring seasonal employees. This resolution requires that the City Council approve all seasonal positions. Discussion Annually the City Council has approved the hiring of seasonal Public Works positions. Resolution No. 5546 requires that approval take place six weeks prior to actual hire of seasonal employees; therefore, this is typically done in January or February. Seasonal Employees benefit the City by providing labor services that are relatively less expensive and are available during periods of greater labor demand. In return, seasonal employees benefit from the skills and work ethics they learn on the job. As a result, the employees, the City, citizens, and taxpayers all benefit from this program. PAST PRACTICES Historically, there have been three time periods throughout the year when the City Council approves the seasonal positions in the Public Works Department: Summer Seasonal Employees – There are a total of ten (10) positions, five (5) in Public Works and five (5) in the Parks Division. Duties include general Public Works and parks maintenance duties. The employees generally are employed for about three months in the summer – mid-to late-May to mid-to late-August. Typically one Parks Division seasonal employee begins employment in April. Fall Seasonal Employee – There are two (2) seasonal positions, one (1) in the Public Works Sewer Division, and one (1) in the Parks Division. Historically, summer positions have been extended to cover duties performed in the fall. Staff recommends these seasonal positions be designated as completely separate positions with separate contracts. Duties performed by the Public Works Sewer Division seasonal employees include working with the two Sanitary Sewer Maintenance employees and the Surface Water / Storm Sewer Maintenance employee to create two separate crews of two employees to maximize efficiency. The duties of the fall seasonal employee in the Parks Division include fall activities such as leaf clean up and providing assistance to both Public Works and Parks in year-end maintenance activities. These positions would start approximately in late August. The Parks Division seasonal employee would work until the end of November. The Public Works Sewer seasonal employee would work until the end of December, weather permitting. Winter Seasonal Employee - This is only one seasonal position and was previously referred to as the Ice Rink Maintenance position. The main duty of this position is to service and maintain the City’s ice rinks and warming houses. This position typically runs from December to February of the following year. BUDGET ISSUE The Seasonal accounts are assigned to several departments, including: Parks, Athletic Fields, Pavement Management, Storm Water Management, Surface Water, Water, and Sanitary Sewer. For the last several years, the combined expenditures for seasonal employees in these accounts have been exceeding the budgeted amount. In 2001 there was a deficit of $15,509.95, in 2002 - $14,651.20, in 2003 - $31,547.95 and in 2004 - $21,830.47. The seasonal employee budgeting deficit has not caused any major financial issues for the City. The impacts have been that this deficit reduced the year-end balance in the affected funds. However, to address this issue, the proposed 2006 budget for seasonal employees will be adjusted to better reflect actual historical expenditures. For the 2005 budget, since the expenditures have not yet occurred, Staff would like to propose two options. OPTION 1 – CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE Retain the current level of service by employing a total of ten (10) summertime Public Works Positions OPTION 2 – REDUCED LEVEL OF SERVICE Reduce the level of service in some areas of Public Works and Parks by employing a total of seven (7) summertime Public Works Positions. Eliminating three summer seasonal position will reduce the expenditures by $16,000 to $20,000. Attached is a memorandum from the Public Works Supervisor quantifying the impacts of Option 2. Based on impacts listed in the memorandum and the fact that the there have been additional services that the City must now provide due to federal mandates, Staff recommends that the Council approve retaining the historic staffing levels by employing a total of ten (10) summertime Public Works Positions. PAY RATES For the 2004 season, the new hires started at the hourly rate of $10.00/hr with the possibility of advancing to $10.50/hr after one month of satisfactory performance. Returning seasonal workers were compensated at $10.75/hr. Due to the difficulty in finding qualifies individuals, the low number of applicants applying for these positions in 2004, and the overall cost of living, Staff is recommending that new hires start at the hourly rate of $10.25/hr with the possibility of advancing to $10.75/hr after one month of satisfactory performance. Returning seasonal workers would be compensated at $11.00/hr. This represents a 2.4% average overall increase over previous 2004 rates. Each summer seasonal employee will work 40 hours per week. The fall seasonal employee and ice rink employee may also work 40 hours per week: however, hours may be fewer. All seasonal positions will remain on staff for a period no longer than six months. Estimated Timeline April 4, 2005 Deadline to receive applications April 5-8, 2005 Review applications April 18 to April 22, 2005 Interview April 25, 2005 Contact successful applicants / Send out letter for hire Mid to Late May, 2005 Summer seasonal employees start work Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council approve the 2005 Public Works seasonal employee positions. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Lee, Director of Public Works RESOLUTION NO. 6436 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA APPROVING THE 2005 SEASONAL PUBLIC WORKS POSITIONS WHEREAS, Resolution No. 5546 requires that seasonal positions must be approved by the Mounds View City Council; and WHEREAS, Seasonal Employees benefit the City by providing labor services that are relatively less expensive and are available during periods of greater labor; and WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View Public Works Department does have a need to hire seasonal employees; and WHEREAS, the Public Works Department is recommending that seasonal positions be approved for three periods throughout 2005; and WHEREAS, said periods are: Summer, Fall, and Winter; and WHEREAS, this resolution is consistent with the requirements in Resolution No. 5546; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows: NOTE: City Council to Select one of the next paragraphs for approval OPTION 1 – CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE 1. The 2005 Summer Seasonal Public Works Positions are approved – a total of ten (10) positions. These positions would start in approximately mid-to late-May 2004 and terminate in mid-to late-August 2005. However, one Parks Division seasonal employee typically begins employment in April. OPTION 2 – REDUCED LEVEL OF SERVICE 1. The 2005 Summer Seasonal Public Works Positions are approved – a total of seven (7) positions. These positions would start in approximately mid-to late-May 2004 and terminate in mid-to late- August 2005. However, one Parks Division seasonal employee typically begins employment in April. 2. The 2005 Fall Seasonal Public Works Positions are approved - a total of two (2) positions. One position in the Public Works Sewer Division and the other in the Parks Division of Public Works. These positions would start approximately in mid to late August 2005. The Parks Division seasonal employee would work until the end of November. The Public Works Sewer seasonal employee would work until the end of December, weather permitting. 3. The 2005 Winter Seasonal Public Works Position is approved - a total of one (1) position. This position would start approximately in early December 2005 and terminate near the end of February 2006. 4. All Public Works seasonal positions will be filled, with new hires starting at the hourly rate of $10.25/hr with the possibility of advancing to $10.75/hr after one month of satisfactory performance. Returning seasonal workers will be compensated at rate of $11.00/hr. 5. Each position will work forty (40) hours per week; however the Fall and Winter positions may work less than forty (40) hours per week. 6. All Public Works seasonal positions will remain on staff for a period no longer than six months. Adopted this 14th day of March 2005. (ATTEST) ____________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor (SEAL) ____________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW Memo To: Greg Lee, P.W. Director From: Tim Pittman, P.W. Supervisor/Steve Dazenski, Parks Supervisor CC: Steve Dazenski, Parks Supervisor Date: February 25, 2005 Re: Reduction in seasonal help As per our discussion due to budget cuts and the oversight of the adjustment of wages to the seasonal positions funds, the public works/ parks departments would have to reduce the amount of (3) seasonal employees to be hired for the 2005 season. The public works/parks department has been hiring (10) seasonal employees for a number of years to assist in duties, (1) water dept., (1) surface water dept., (3) streets dept., (5) parks dept., these tasks consist of mowing, patching roads, catch basin repairs, boulevard restoration, parts pick-up and delivery, tree trimming, landscaping, street sign replacement, crosswalk painting, hydrant maintenance, valve box raising, trash & debris pick-up, trail repair and maintenance, these are a few of the areas that the city benefits. With the reduction of (3) seasonal employees at a pay rate of $10.75 per hour for 3 months of quality service cut would save the city approximately $15,480.00. This will not resolve the total deficit, which has occurred in the past few years. In 2001 there was a deficit of-$15,509.95, in 2002 -$14,651.20, in 2003 -$31,547.95 and 2004 -$21,830.47. The 2003 / 04 deficits were considerably higher due to the surface water program that was put into effect by law and the under staffing in the parks department to accomplish leaf removal, establish rinks and maintain them. Staff has taken on more responsibilities due to laws, (Surface Water Management Program) in which the City of Mounds View is required to fulfill a percentage of requirements each year. The requirements each year get greater in demands to be fulfilled. There have been more sidewalks and trails added to the City of Mounds View to maintain with out an increase in the public works/parks staff. With the reduction of these seasonal employee’s in various departments there will be projects that will not get done or a reduction in quantity, some examples of tasks that will be affected are as listed by department: Water Dept. (2) Full time employee’s in this dept. 1. No painting of un-painted fire hydrants. 2. Only raise a hydrant if it ‘s broken due to an accident/fatigue and needs repair. Planned on raising 10-12 this season. This amount was accomplished last summer. 3. Valve program, which was implemented last year, would be reduced to only checking and raising the valves in the normal operations of every day job, and new project areas. Planned on doing another 1/3rd of the city’s valves like last summer. This program would not be carried on this summer if such a reduction takes place. 40 valves were raised last summer. 4. No disassembling/ rebuilding have used hydrant that are in stock for future projects, these hydrants are no longer available. Staff acquired used hydrants from the City of Coon Rapids during a conversion project, thus enables the City of Mounds View to keep their hydrants uniform and save money by rebuilding the surplus hydrants. Total of (5) were rebuilt last summer. Staff is intending on getting more hydrants from the City of Coon Rapids and Spring Lake Park were we have also received parts for this style hydrant. 5. Locating of utilities will be performed by (2) full time employee’s at full time rate, verses (1) full time employee and a seasonal worker at less than half the pay rate. This will also take time away from the preventative maintenance of the wells and other daily duties. 6. The exercising of gate valves through out the city would not be accomplished; this is an important maintenance procedure. These valves are extremely important in emergency situations to isolate areas. Examples: water main breaks, service line repairs that do not shut off at the residents home of repair, and during flushing season. 7. None to little of updating the water ties book will occur. These are the measurements off the corners of a building to state were a utility is located, such as the water shut off on a property. 8. Grounds maintenance around the well houses is an on going task as like the parks. Seasonal employees usually do this. Street Dept. (2) Full time employee’s in this dept. 1. With out the labor help in this department, due to the conditions of the roads, it will be extremely difficult to keep up the required maintenance depending on the rating of the street. This service requires a crew of a minimum of (4) personnel to accomplish this job. This has been an issue in the past few years with the additional help of seasonal. 2. Trails/pathways, although this is funded thru the Parks Dept. the streets dept. assists in the repairs / maintenance of them. With the reduction of seasonal staff, these would be put at a lower priority. Crack sealing and area replacement is scheduled for this summer. These are maint. Items that need to take place before they can be chip sealed. They are scheduled for chip seal in 2006. 3. Water main break repairs that occur during the winter months need to be attended to in the spring; as of 02/23/05 we have had (7) repairs that need to be addressed. This consists of restoration of the pavement and the reconstruction of the boulevard area. This consists of a crew of a minimum of (4). 4. Boulevard repairs that may have occurred do to snow removal is usually a job that is performed by (2) crews, 1 fulltime employee and 2 seasonal employees’ per crew on each side of the city. With the reduction of seasonal staff this will be reduced to (1) crew and the job will take twice the time to complete. 5. Crosswalk/parking lot stripping is a project that is done every year; these are painted lines that wear off due to the volume of traffic. There are over 40 crosswalks, and (7) parking lots in the City of Mounds View. This is a (2) person crew, 1 fulltime employee and 1 seasonal to do this project. This will become a crew of (2) fulltime employee’s if the reduction should take effect. 6. Vandalism is a on going problem in the summer months, street signs are defaced, graffiti on streets, sound walls, and other city owned structures. This is an example of were a seasonal employee would be doing a task with out the direct supervision of a fulltime employee. 7. Traffic control is assisted with flagmen/women if needed. This is more cost effective to use a seasonal employee than a fulltime. Park Dept. (1) Full time employee 1. Weed removal is very time consuming and also very important to a park’s appearance. Most days there are (2) seasonal weeds whipping and periodically there are two seasonal that go and spray the parks, control weeds around playgrounds, shelters, sidewalks, and athletic fields. 2. Mowing is an every day event during the summer months with (2) operators. One on the trimming mower and the other on the larger mower. We tried reducing mowing in the city in the mid 90’s, and received complaints from citizens. It took 2 to 3 years to get turf back up to standards and a great deal of labor and turf products. 3. Graffiti removal and painting of park buildings and rink boards will be pushed back due to lack of time and manpower. Graffiti should be acted upon as soon it is reported so as not to become an on going nuisance. Graffiti is not only offensive but removal of it is time consuming and expensive. 4. Athletic field maintenance is very time consuming and needs to be done everyday. One seasonal is in charge of dragging the fields, doing the foul lines, finding the base pegs and painting the outfield lines weekly. It is very important that the fields be groomed daily to keep the fields safe and playable. 5. (2) Seasonal do trash and shelter cleaning twice a week. Once on Monday and once on Friday. They check the parks for trash and problems with the park. They also clean the insides of all the park buildings. 6. Major Projects such as extending the warning track on field one at Silver view Park would require all of the seasonal and many full time park employees. Many of these kinds of projects are performed during the summer. If seasonal were reduced these projects would not be feasible. 7. The Greenfield Park playground replacement project was approved by council and is scheduled to be installed this spring. It will require several seasonal and full time staff. By reducing our seasonal staff this project would not be able to be accomplished in house, and would be contracted out. 8. Irrigation maintenance and repair is always an issue. Usually there is one or two seasonal that go out with a full time employee and go to each park that has irrigation and fix heads, broken lines, etc. Shutting down and blowing out the systems (winterizing) at the end of seasons. In order to keep our athletic fields safe and provide quality playing surfaces. City Hall and the MVCC have irrigation in order to maintain turf quality that is required in these settings. Maintenance to provide irrigation must be performed regularly. 9. Wood chipping trails and parks are done by (2) or more seasonal. Usually there is one seasonal driving the truck to each spot you have to go to and the other seasonal are scooping the chips. This job with (1) seasonal would be very time consuming and the amount of work that would get done would go down substantionally. Wood chipping in the parks and around the trees is important for the maintenance/ trimming and the chips hold moisture for the trees. 10. Equipment maintenance is performed on all park equipment such as mowers, trucks, athletic field equipment and many other pieces of equipment. For the park department to do there own maintenance also helps on keeping the machines out of the shop for long periods of time. Extends the life of the equipment and enables the mechanic to work on other departments equipment i.e. police squads and heavy equipment. 11. Trimming of the parks requires one or two seasonals. Trimming branches of trees around playground areas and pathways is important to the safety and the use of the park. Leaf removal is needed to be done by (2) seasonal. One of the seasonal is picking up the leaves and the other to maneuver the piece of equipment. The need of leaf removal is so that our parks keep looking up to the quality that is required. Surface Water (1) Full time employee 1. Due to the laws that have been put into effect, staff has been taken from other departments to assist in this area leaving other programs fall behind until the seasonal would start for the summer months. Since this program has started the cities sanitary sewer-cleaning program has fallen behind. The sanitary sewer dept. has been assisting to meet the cities requirements until seasonal staff is hired on. Other departments assist in accomplishing these tasks, which means no progress in other department. Surface water dept. is assigned (1) seasonal employee to help complete these requirements. 2. Storm basin cleaning is one of the requirements that are accomplished by (2) seasonal employees. This is a time consuming task that requires minimal supervision, which lets staff work on other requirements of greater importance in this area. 3. Ditch cleaning, a common area for debris and sticks to collect and create obstructions. This is another example of a task that can be performed by seasonal employees with minimal supervision at a pay rate far less than a fulltime employee who is out in the field performing another task. 4. Catch basin repairs, (2) personnel are a must for this project. One is actually in the structure doing the mortar repairs while the other is on the ground mixing and supplying the needed supplies. This is (1) fulltime employee and (1) seasonal. • This report clearly points out that there is a substantial need and savings to the City of Mounds View by not reducing the number of seasonal employee’s. The examples as stated above have been accomplished due to the number of seasonal employee’s supplementing the full time staff. Respectfully Submitted, Tim Pittman, P.W. Supervisor Steve Dazenski, Parks Supervisor Item No: 9C Meeting Date: March 14, 2005 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View City Council From: Kristin Prososki, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance to Allow for a Reduced Number of Covered Parking Spaces at Greenfield Estates Located at 2370 County Road I and 7521-7661 Greenfield Avenue; Planning Case VR2005- 002 Introduction: The applicant, Alan Menning, representing Greenfield Properties Limited Partnership LLP, is proposing to demolish the existing garages and construct new garages at Greenfield Estates located at 2370 County Road I and 7521 – 7661 Greenfield Avenue. The proposal includes demolishing the existing 126 individually divided garage stalls and constructing 100 new garage stalls in a drive through style. The Zoning Code requires one covered parking space per unit. Greenfield Estates has 125 units and would be required to have 125 covered parking spaces. The applicant is requesting a variance from this requirement that would allow them to have 100 covered parking spaces, which is 25 less than the required amount. This request was heard before the Planning Commission during a public hearing on February 16, 2005. The Planning Commission voted to deny the appeal based on lack of hardship. Mr. Menning is exercising his right to appeal the Planning Commission’s denial of his variance request. The applicant was originally requesting to reduce the number of covered parking stall (garages) to 78, which is 47 stalls less than the required 125. The applicant has decided to amend his variance request to reduce the covered parking stalls to 100. During the public hearing, the Planning Commission also considered allowing the applicant to reduce the number to 100, as opposed to the initially requested 78, however, the Planning Commission ultimately voted 3-3 on the resolution approving the reduction to 100 garage stalls. The resolution failed for lack of majority. Discussion: Parking requirements are addressed in Section 1121.13 of the Zoning Code. The Code requires that multiple-family dwellings provide one and one half uncovered parking spaces and one covered space per unit. Greenfield Estates has a total of 125 units. The applicant is requesting to be allowed to reduce the number of covered parking spaces to 100 and provide 225 uncovered parking spaces. The table below shows the existing and proposed number of parking stalls, as well as the code requirements. Code Requirement Existing Parking Proposed Parking Covered Parking 125 126 100 Uncovered Parking 188 160 225 Total 313 286 325 Greenfield Estates Variance Report March 14, 2005 Page 2 The existing parking is currently non-conforming, as it provides a total of 286 parking spaces, which is 27 spaces short of the 313 required spaces. The proposed parking would provide 12 more spaces than the total number of required spaces, however it would provide 25 spaces less than the requirement for covered parking. In a letter addressed to the City (see attached), the applicant, Mr. Menning, explains what he feels the hardship is that Greenfield Estates is experiencing. The existing garages have had three fires in the past few years due to juveniles breaking into the garages. The garages attract this type of activity because half of them are vacant and not visible to the rest of the property. Staff agrees that the current garages are somewhat unsafe, as the back side of the garages are not well lit and hidden from the view of the apartment buildings. As Mr. Menning explains in the letter, because of the configuration of the existing garages, the resident using the garage must step out of their vehicle, open the door, drive into the garage, then close the garage door once they exit. The proposed garages would be fully enclosed, each with a single point of entry and exit. Each resident with a garage stall would have an electronic device to open and close the doors. When a resident drives up to the garage, they can open the door without leaving their car and the door will close behind them. The resident can then exit the garage through a side door (facing the apartment buildings). The applicant is also proposing to add other safety features, such as additional lighting for the proposed garages and a non-climbable fence that will deter juveniles from using the adjacent natural area as a hangout. The other point the applicant makes is that the garages have a very high vacancy rate. The applicant provided information regarding the percentage of garages rented over the last seven years. (See attached information sheet.) On average over the last seven years, only 58% of the garages have been rented. As communicated to the applicant, the decision made by the City Council for this request would only be approving or denying this variance and would not constitute an approval or denial of other site plan modifications (such as rearranging parking, adding a fence, etc.) Any other modifications done to the property would need to meet code requirements and would require a permit. Variance Considerations: For a variance to be approved, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. Minnesota statutes require that the governing body (the City Council, in this case) review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The criteria are as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. Greenfield Estates Variance Report March 14, 2005 Page 3 The property has enough space for all 125 required garage stalls to be constructed and to meet the required setbacks. Staff is not aware of any extraordinary circumstances that apply to this property. There is no physical reason why the garages couldn’t be constructed to meet the Code. The applicant has indicated that based on the past garage rental history, a large percentage of the garages would not be used. The applicant does not wish to spend money on garages that he predicts will not be used. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would not deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. It has not been determined that special conditions or circumstances exist for this property. d. That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Granting the variance would confer upon the property owner a special privilege denied to others in the same district. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The City Council would first need to determine whether a hardship exists. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. The variance may be detrimental to the purpose of this Title unless it is determined that a hardship is present. g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The requested variance would not result in any of the above-cited adverse effects. Greenfield Estates Variance Report March 14, 2005 Page 4 Public Comment: Staff has not received any comments or feedback from residents. Recommendation: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and affected neighbors, the Council can take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Deny the requested variance. Resolution 6475 is attached for the Council’s approval if that is the chosen course of action. 2. Approve the variance as requested. To move forward with this option, the Council should direct staff to draft a resolution of approval with findings of fact appropriate to support the approval. 3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Council can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of 60-day requirements, the Council would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully submitted, Kristin Prososki Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Application 2. Letter from Applicant 3. Zoning Map 4. Location Map 5. Garage Rental Statistics 6. Photographic Documentation 7. Resolution 6475 8. Existing Site Plan (Separate Attachment) 9. Proposed Site Plan (Separate Attachment) Greenfield Estates Variance Report March 14, 2005 Page 5 Greenfield Estates Variance Report March 14, 2005 Page 6 Greenfield Estates Variance Report March 14, 2005 Page 7 Greenfield Estates Variance Report March 14, 2005 Page 8 Greenfield Estates Variance Report March 14, 2005 Page 9 Greenfield Estates Variance Report March 14, 2005 Page 10 Greenfield Estates Variance Report March 14, 2005 Page 11 Photographic Documentation Photograph of Existing Garages Back Side of Existing Garages Greenfield Estates Variance Report March 14, 2005 Page 12 RESOLUTION NO. 6475 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF A VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW FOR A REDUCED NUMBER OF COVERED PARKING SPACES AT GREENFIELD ESTATES LOCATED AT 2370 COUNTY ROAD I AND 7521-7661 GREENFIELD AVENUE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2005-002 WHEREAS, the applicant, Greenfield Properties Limited Partnership LLP, has applied for a variance for a reduced number of covered parking spaces at Greenfield Estates located at 2370 County Road I and 7521-7661 Greenfield Avenue; and, WHEREAS, 2370 County Road I and 7521-7661 Greenfield Avenue are zoned R-4, High Density Residential, and are legally described as: Except the East 99.41 feet; Lot 2, All of Lot 1, Block 1 Nordling Terrace, Ramsey County, Minnesota Lots 14 and 15, Block 1 Nordling Terrace, Ramsey County, Minnesota Lots 16 and 17, Block 1 Nordling Terrace, Ramsey County, Minnesota Lots 18 and 19, Block 1 Nordling Terrace, Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, Section 1121.13 of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that multiple family properties must provide one covered parking space per unit; and, WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting a variance to provide 100 covered parking stalls for an apartment complex with 125 units; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Site Plan 5. Photographic Documentation 6. Staff Report WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to Greenfield Estates Variance Report March 14, 2005 Page 13 property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner’s control; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 16, 2005 and based on their review of the facts and their assessment of the hardship criteria, the Planning Commission denied the requested variance due to lack of hardship; and, WHEREAS, the applicant exercised his right to appeal to the City Council the Planning Commission’s variance denial; and, WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing regarding this request on March 14, 2005; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, the City Council is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code requires that the City Council consider the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and shall consider the relationship between the proposed variance and the Comprehensive plan and consider the impacts of the use supported by findings of relevant fact. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact related to this request: 1. The property is zoned R-4, High Density Residential. 2. The Zoning Code requires that multiple family properties provide one covered parking space per unit. 3. The applicant is requesting a variance to provide 100 covered parking stalls for an apartment complex with 125 units. 4. The property is regularly shaped and is neither exceptional nor extraordinary. There is no physical reason that all the required garages cannot be constructed. 5. The literal interpretation of the Code would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district. 6. Granting a variance in this case would confer a special privilege not enjoyed by other property owners in that there does not appear to be a sufficient hardship to warrant approval of the variance. 7. Granting the variance would be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title in that there does not appear to be a sufficient hardship to warrant approval of the variance. 8. The proposed variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or Greenfield Estates Variance Report March 14, 2005 Page 14 increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 9. The hardship criteria as identified in Section 1125.02 have not been satisfied. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View City Council, based upon its review of the facts and the information presented at the public hearing, does hereby affirm the Planning Commission’s denial of the variance requested by Greenfield Properties Limited Partnership LLP for a reduced number of covered parking spaces (garages) at Greenfield Estates located at 2370 County Road I and 7521-7661 Greenfield Avenue. Adopted this 14th day of March, 2005. __________________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk/Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 9C Meeting Date: March 14, 2005 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View City Council From: Kristin Prososki, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance to Allow for a Reduced Number of Covered Parking Spaces at Greenfield Estates Located at 2370 County Road I and 7521-7661 Greenfield Avenue; Planning Case VR2005- 002 Introduction: The applicant, Alan Menning, representing Greenfield Properties Limited Partnership LLP, is proposing to demolish the existing garages and construct new garages at Greenfield Estates located at 2370 County Road I and 7521 – 7661 Greenfield Avenue. The proposal includes demolishing the existing 126 individually divided garage stalls and constructing 100 new garage stalls in a drive through style. The Zoning Code requires one covered parking space per unit. Greenfield Estates has 125 units and would be required to have 125 covered parking spaces. The applicant is requesting a variance from this requirement that would allow them to have 100 covered parking spaces, which is 25 less than the required amount. This request was heard before the Planning Commission during a public hearing on February 16, 2005. The Planning Commission voted to deny the appeal based on lack of hardship. Mr. Menning is exercising his right to appeal the Planning Commission’s denial of his variance request. The applicant was originally requesting to reduce the number of covered parking stall (garages) to 78, which is 47 stalls less than the required 125. The applicant has decided to amend his variance request to reduce the covered parking stalls to 100. During the public hearing, the Planning Commission also considered allowing the applicant to reduce the number to 100, as opposed to the initially requested 78, however, the Planning Commission ultimately voted 3-3 on the resolution approving the reduction to 100 garage stalls. The resolution failed for lack of majority. Discussion: Parking requirements are addressed in Section 1121.13 of the Zoning Code. The Code requires that multiple-family dwellings provide one and one half uncovered parking spaces and one covered space per unit. Greenfield Estates has a total of 125 units. The applicant is requesting to be allowed to reduce the number of covered parking spaces to 100 and provide 225 uncovered parking spaces. The table below shows the existing and proposed number of parking stalls, as well as the code requirements. Code Requirement Existing Parking Proposed Parking Covered Parking 125 126 100 Uncovered Parking 188 160 225 Total 313 286 325 Greenfield Estates Variance Report March 14, 2005 Page 2 The existing parking is currently non-conforming, as it provides a total of 286 parking spaces, which is 27 spaces short of the 313 required spaces. The proposed parking would provide 12 more spaces than the total number of required spaces, however it would provide 25 spaces less than the requirement for covered parking. In a letter addressed to the City (see attached), the applicant, Mr. Menning, explains what he feels the hardship is that Greenfield Estates is experiencing. The existing garages have had three fires in the past few years due to juveniles breaking into the garages. The garages attract this type of activity because half of them are vacant and not visible to the rest of the property. Staff agrees that the current garages are somewhat unsafe, as the back side of the garages are not well lit and hidden from the view of the apartment buildings. As Mr. Menning explains in the letter, because of the configuration of the existing garages, the resident using the garage must step out of their vehicle, open the door, drive into the garage, then close the garage door once they exit. The proposed garages would be fully enclosed, each with a single point of entry and exit. Each resident with a garage stall would have an electronic device to open and close the doors. When a resident drives up to the garage, they can open the door without leaving their car and the door will close behind them. The resident can then exit the garage through a side door (facing the apartment buildings). The applicant is also proposing to add other safety features, such as additional lighting for the proposed garages and a non-climbable fence that will deter juveniles from using the adjacent natural area as a hangout. The other point the applicant makes is that the garages have a very high vacancy rate. The applicant provided information regarding the percentage of garages rented over the last seven years. (See attached information sheet.) On average over the last seven years, only 58% of the garages have been rented. As communicated to the applicant, the decision made by the City Council for this request would only be approving or denying this variance and would not constitute an approval or denial of other site plan modifications (such as rearranging parking, adding a fence, etc.) Any other modifications done to the property would need to meet code requirements and would require a permit. Variance Considerations: For a variance to be approved, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. Minnesota statutes require that the governing body (the City Council, in this case) review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The criteria are as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. Greenfield Estates Variance Report March 14, 2005 Page 3 The property has enough space for all 125 required garage stalls to be constructed and to meet the required setbacks. Staff is not aware of any extraordinary circumstances that apply to this property. There is no physical reason why the garages couldn’t be constructed to meet the Code. The applicant has indicated that based on the past garage rental history, a large percentage of the garages would not be used. The applicant does not wish to spend money on garages that he predicts will not be used. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would not deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. It has not been determined that special conditions or circumstances exist for this property. d. That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Granting the variance would confer upon the property owner a special privilege denied to others in the same district. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The City Council would first need to determine whether a hardship exists. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. The variance may be detrimental to the purpose of this Title unless it is determined that a hardship is present. g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The requested variance would not result in any of the above-cited adverse effects. Greenfield Estates Variance Report March 14, 2005 Page 4 Public Comment: Staff has not received any comments or feedback from residents. Recommendation: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and affected neighbors, the Council can take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Deny the requested variance. Resolution 6475 is attached for the Council’s approval if that is the chosen course of action. 2. Approve the variance as requested. To move forward with this option, the Council should direct staff to draft a resolution of approval with findings of fact appropriate to support the approval. 3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Council can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of 60-day requirements, the Council would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully submitted, Kristin Prososki Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Application 2. Letter from Applicant 3. Zoning Map 4. Location Map 5. Garage Rental Statistics 6. Photographic Documentation 7. Resolution 6475 8. Existing Site Plan (Separate Attachment) 9. Proposed Site Plan (Separate Attachment) Greenfield Estates Variance Report March 14, 2005 Page 5 Greenfield Estates Variance Report March 14, 2005 Page 6 Greenfield Estates Variance Report March 14, 2005 Page 7 Greenfield Estates Variance Report March 14, 2005 Page 8 Greenfield Estates Variance Report March 14, 2005 Page 9 Greenfield Estates Variance Report March 14, 2005 Page 10 Greenfield Estates Variance Report March 14, 2005 Page 11 Photographic Documentation Photograph of Existing Garages Back Side of Existing Garages Greenfield Estates Variance Report March 14, 2005 Page 12 RESOLUTION NO. 6475 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF A VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW FOR A REDUCED NUMBER OF COVERED PARKING SPACES AT GREENFIELD ESTATES LOCATED AT 2370 COUNTY ROAD I AND 7521-7661 GREENFIELD AVENUE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2005-002 WHEREAS, the applicant, Greenfield Properties Limited Partnership LLP, has applied for a variance for a reduced number of covered parking spaces at Greenfield Estates located at 2370 County Road I and 7521-7661 Greenfield Avenue; and, WHEREAS, 2370 County Road I and 7521-7661 Greenfield Avenue are zoned R-4, High Density Residential, and are legally described as: Except the East 99.41 feet; Lot 2, All of Lot 1, Block 1 Nordling Terrace, Ramsey County, Minnesota Lots 14 and 15, Block 1 Nordling Terrace, Ramsey County, Minnesota Lots 16 and 17, Block 1 Nordling Terrace, Ramsey County, Minnesota Lots 18 and 19, Block 1 Nordling Terrace, Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, Section 1121.13 of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that multiple family properties must provide one covered parking space per unit; and, WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting a variance to provide 100 covered parking stalls for an apartment complex with 125 units; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Site Plan 5. Photographic Documentation 6. Staff Report Greenfield Estates Variance Report March 14, 2005 Page 13 WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner’s control; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 16, 2005 and based on their review of the facts and their assessment of the hardship criteria, the Planning Commission denied the requested variance due to lack of hardship; and, WHEREAS, the applicant exercised his right to appeal to the City Council the Planning Commission’s variance denial; and, WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing regarding this request on March 14, 2005; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, the City Council is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code requires that the City Council consider the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and shall consider the relationship between the proposed variance and the Comprehensive plan and consider the impacts of the use supported by findings of relevant fact. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact related to this request: 1. The property is zoned R-4, High Density Residential. 2. The Zoning Code requires that multiple family properties provide one covered parking space per unit. 3. The applicant is requesting a variance to provide 100 covered parking stalls for an apartment complex with 125 units. 4. The property is regularly shaped and is neither exceptional nor extraordinary. There is no physical reason that all the required garages cannot be constructed. 5. The literal interpretation of the Code would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district. 6. Granting a variance in this case would confer a special privilege not enjoyed by other property owners in that there does not appear to be a sufficient hardship to warrant approval of the variance. 7. Granting the variance would be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title in that there does not appear to be a sufficient hardship to warrant approval of the variance. Greenfield Estates Variance Report March 14, 2005 Page 14 8. The proposed variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 9. The hardship criteria as identified in Section 1125.02 have not been satisfied. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View City Council, based upon its review of the facts and the information presented at the public hearing, does hereby affirm the Planning Commission’s denial of the variance requested by Greenfield Properties Limited Partnership LLP for a reduced number of covered parking spaces (garages) at Greenfield Estates located at 2370 County Road I and 7521-7661 Greenfield Avenue. Adopted this 14th day of March, 2005. __________________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk/Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 09E Meeting Date: March 14, 2005 Type of Business: CB City Administrator Review: _____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Desaree Crane, Administrative Assistant Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6473 Approving a Step/Longevity Increases for Deputy Chief Tom Kinney, Officer Ben Zender, Officer Kasey Keckeisen, Officer Steve Geringer, and Jodi Salmonson Background: Deputy Chief Tom Kinney, Officer Ben Zender, Officer Kasey Keckeisen, Officer Steve Geringer and Jodi Salmonson are current employees with the City of Mounds View. Their supervisors have reviewed their performances as it relates to their responsibilities outlined in the job descriptions. Discussion: It was determined that Deputy Chief Tom Kinney, Officer Ben Zender, Officer Kasey Keckeisen, Officer Steve Geringer and Jodi Salmonson have more than satisfactorily performed in the capacity of their positions, and therefore, a step/longevity increase wage adjustments are consistent with the Personnel Manual and Labor Agreements. Respectfully Submitted, Desaree Crane RESOLUTION 6473 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA APPROVING STEP/LONGEVITY ADJUSTMENTS WHEREAS, the following below are regular full-time employees who are currently working for the City of Mounds View; and WHEREAS, their supervisors reviewed their performances as it relates to the responsibilities outlined in the job description; and WHEREAS, their supervisors determined that the following employees below have more than satisfactorily performed in the capacity of their positions documented in their performance reviews on file. WHEREAS, a step increase wage adjustment is consistent with the Mounds View Personnel Manual and Labor Agreements. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does hereby approve a wage adjustment to the following indicated in the chart below. NAME CURRENT POSITION DATE OF EMPLOYMENT/CURRENT POSITION CURRENT STEP & WAGE STEP & WAGE AD JUSTMENT EFFECTIVE DATE OF ADJUSTMENT Tom Kinney Deputy Chief September 14, 2004 Step 3/$31.25 hr Step 4/$32.98 hr March 14, 2005 Officer Ben Zender Police Officer March 15, 2004 Step 2/$17.87 hr Step 3/$20.42 hr March 15, 2005 Officer Kasey Keckeisen Police Officer March 17, 2001 Step 5/$25.52 Longevity: None Longevity (3%) $26.29 hr March 17, 2005 Officer Steve Geringer Police Officer March 1, 1989 Longevity (7%) $27.31 hr Longevity (9%) $27.82 hr March 1, 2005 Jodi Salmonson Receptionist March 8, 2004 Step 2/$12.89 hr Step 3/$13.65 hr March 8, 2005 Adopted this 14th day of March, 2005. __________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (seal) Item No. 09F Type of Business: CB WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City Administrator Review City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Tracy Juell, Administrative Assistant Item Title/Subject: First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 758, an Ordinance to Change Chapter 603, Garbage and Rubbish, Section 603.06, Sub 2, Requirements and Restrictions Meeting Date: March 14, 2005 At the May 24, 2004 Council Meeting, Council directed Staff to make a revision to Ordinance 603, Garbage and Rubbish, to reflect the restriction of residential garbage collections to Wednesday’s and Thursday’s only. Staff was informed in late January of this year, that Larry’s Quality Sanitation was sold to Waste Management, effective January 1, 2005. (It should be noted that the reason 2 days were chosen for garbage collections was because Larry’s Quality Sanitation could not change their schedule due to the commitments they had in other cities on Thursdays and so therefore the Council decided on Wednesday’s also.) All of the other residential garbage haulers, Waste Management, Ace Solid Waste and BFI, collect garbage on Thursdays and it is the recommendation to change Chapter 603, to reflect Thursday’s as residential garbage collection. Chapter 603 of the City of Mounds View Municipal Code is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and the proposed deletions struck through to read as follows: Additional verbiage to Ordinance 603, sub 2, Requirements and Restrictions is: (5) Collection of garbage and rubbish materials for single family residence shall be restricted to Wednesday’s and Thursday’s only, except when Wednesday or Thursday is a legal holiday. In the case of a holiday, the collection will occur the following business day. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of introduction and first reading of Ordinance 758 pertaining to Thursday’s only for residential garbage pickup. Respectfully Submitted: Tracy Juell, Administrative Assistant ORDINANCE NO. 758 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF MOUNDS VIEW BY AMENDING CHAPTER 603, GARBAGE AND RUBBISH The City of Council of the City of Mounds view hereby ordains: SECTION 1. Subd 2b of Section 603.06 is hereby amended with additions underlined and deletions struck through to read as follows: Subd b. Additional Restrictions for Residential Haulers: In addition to the other requirements of this Chapter, haulers servicing residences, mobile home parks and multiple dwellings shall comply with the following: (1) Curbside recycling collection will be made available to all residential and multiple dwelling customers no later than July 1, 1990. Such service shall include an at least bi-weekly collection of all recyclable materials on the same day as garbage and rubbish collection for residences. (2) Collection of garbage and rubbish materials will be provided on a weekly basis and recyclable materials will be provided on an at least bi-weekly basis, but not necessarily on the same day, for multiple dwellings and mobile home parks. (3) Collection service priced on the basis of volume shall be provided. All billings shall be itemized so as to show what individual charges are being levied. (4) Each licensee shall separately collect and dispose of yard waste on a regular basis for a minimum of eight (8) weeks in the spring, commencing on April 1, and eight (8) weeks in the fall, commencing on September 15. (5) Collection of garbage and rubbish materials for single family residence shall be restricted to Wednesday’s and Thursday’s only, except when Wednesday or Thursday is a legal holiday. In the case of a holiday, the collection will occur the following business day. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after the date of its publication. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 14 day of March, 2005 Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 28th day of March, 2005. Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (SEAL) Approved as to form: Mounds View City Attorney Item No:9G Meeting Date: 3-14-05 Type of Business: Council Administrator Review: _____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Chief of Police, Mike Sommer Item Title/Subject: Police Department Supervisory Structure Date of Report: March 1, 2005 Background: (The following information was presented at the March 1, 2005 Mounds View City Council Work Session. At that time staff was directed to proceed with the plan and submit a resolution to the Council for approval.) The purpose of this staff report is to discuss the need for additional first line supervision in the Police Department. This can be accomplished without hiring any additional staff by converting one existing patrol officer position to that of a sergeant. In this staff report I will explain the need for this change and cover the implementation and financing plan to accomplish it. The administration and supervision of the Police Department is currently done through one Chief, one Deputy Chief and two sergeants. The two sergeants are the supervisors responsible for direct first line supervision of patrol officers. First line supervision provided by a sergeant is a critical component to effective policing. In comparison to same or similar sized departments we have a much broader span of supervisory control than is found in most Police Departments in Minnesota. Consequently, there are many periods of time where we have no first line supervision available to supervise our patrol officers. As a comparison I have listed the administrative/ supervision make up of similar sized departments in Minnesota for you review: Mounds View Police Department 19 total sworn officers • 1-Chief, 1-Deputy Chief, 2 Sergeants Centennial Lakes Police Department (Circle Pines /Lexington) 17 total sworn officers • 1-Chief, 1- Deputy Chief, 3- Sergeants Fergus Falls Police Department- 20 total sworn officers • 1-Chief, 1-Captain, 5- Sergeants Robbinsdale Police Department- 19 total sworn officers • 1-Chief, 4 Sergeants Rosemount Police Department- 19 total sworn officers • 1-Chief, 1-Lieutenant, 3-Sergeants St. Anthony Police Department 20 total sworn officers • 1-Chief, 1- Captain, 2 Lieutenants, 2- Sergeants Ramsey Police Department 18 total sworn officers • 1-Chief, 1-Captain, 3-Sergeants New Ulm Police Department 17 total sworn officers • 1-Chief, 4 Sergeants Fairmont Police Department 18 total sworn officers • 1-Chief, 1-Lieutenant, 4-Sergeants Orono Police Department 18 total sworn officers • 1-Chief, 4-Sergeants Virgina Police Department 20 total sworn officers • 1-Chief, 4- Lieutenants, 2-Sergeants Cloquet Police Department 18 total sworn officers • 1-Chief, 4-Sergeants As you can see by this data the Mounds View Police Department has fewer administrative/ supervisory personnel than similar sized police departments. This means that we are not able to provide supervision to officers at many times. This has been problematic for the Mounds View Police Department. There are many implications associated with unsupervised employees including liability issues to the City. While it will be more expensive to pay an employee at the rate of pay of a supervisor vs. a line officer, this additional cost could easily be offset by reducing the risk associated with failing to provide adequate supervision to employees working in the high-risk business of policing. The Police Department operates a 24 hour per day, 365 days per year schedule. In this scheduling arrangement five employees are required to have one employee on duty 24 hours a day every day of the year. With two sergeants we are able to provide first line supervision 40% of the time. This means 60% of the time our patrol officers are working without direct first line supervision. Currently, nearly ½ of our patrol officers have less than one year of police experience on the department. This is why similar sized departments usually have three or more sergeants available to supervise their patrol officers. In addition to providing supervision, our Police Sergeants also perform the duties of a patrol officer by responding to calls, patrolling, and carry out traffic enforcement. I recommend the council authorize increasing the supervision level of the department up to current policing standards. This would be accomplished without adding additional staff; by converting one patrol officer position into a sergeant position (subject to civil service rules). This change would effectively increase the first line supervision of police staff to an appropriate level. The administrative /supervisory structure would then be: 1-Chief, 1- Deputy Chief, and three Sergeants. Funding This conversion can be accomplished within our current budget without a net budget increase by reducing the funding allocated to the New Brighton Police Department and increasing the funding of the personal services of the Mounds View Police Department by the corresponding amount. This funding for the New Brighton Police Department has been listed at $12,200 for the 2005 budget. I suggest reducing this amount this year, and in subsequent years by the amount necessary to fund the Mounds View Police Sergeant position. Funding necessary for the conversion position from May 1- Dec. 31, 2005 is: $1,173, for the year 2006: $5,114, and for 2007: $9,055. The amount of the payment to the City of New Brighton would be reduced by the listed amounts. Officials from the New Brighton Police Department, and New Brighton City Council have been advised of this funding change. Staff request council approval to proceed with converting one patrol officer position to a sergeant position using the funding formula stated, and in accordance with Police Civil Service rules for the promotion which is to be effective May 1, 2005. Respectfully submitted, Mike Sommer, Chief of Police RESOLUTION NO. 6478 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CONVERSION OF ONE PATROL OFFICER POSITION TO A SERGEANT POSITION WHEREAS, the Police Department has a need to convert one Patrol Officer position to a Sergeant position to bring our supervisory level up to industry standards, and; WHEREAS, this conversion will be accomplished without adding additional staff, and will be done through an internal promotion effective May, 1, 2005, using existing Police Civil Service rules, and; WHEREAS, this conversion will be funded by reducing the funding to the New Brighton Police Department, and increasing the Mounds View personnel services budget by the amount necessary to cover the difference in salary between a patrol officer and Sergeant position. The City will continue to help fund the New Brighton Police Department School Resource officer at Irondale High School by the reduced amount in the future. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does hereby approve conversion of one Patrol Officer position to a Sergeant position in accordance with the funding plan stated. This conversion will be an internal promotion in accordance with Police Civil Service Rules, and subject to final Council approval. The promotion is to be effective May 1, 2005. Adopted this 14th day of March 2005. ________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No. 9H Meeting Date: March 14, 2005 Type of Business: Council Business Administrator Review: _______ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Charles Hansen, Finance Director Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6477 Approving Transfers Between Funds for the Year 2004 The City Council approved a variety of transfers between funds as part of the 2004 budget. These are listed on the attached resolution in the Budgeted Amount column. The City Council also approved two other transfers between funds in separate resolutions. First was the transfer of $33,430 from the Special Projects Fund to the General Fund to support the acquisition of a police records system. Second was the transfer of $265,747 from the Community Fund to the Golf Course to reimburse the Golf Course for legal and soil correction costs associated with defects that occurred during construction. These two transfers have already been made. Resolution 6477 approves transfers the remaining between funds for the year 2004. Many of the transfers are in the amount originally approved in the 2004 budget. In several cases, operating results during 2004 dictate that a different amount be transferred. The Office of the State Auditor recommends that the General Fund’s fund balance should be in the range of 30% to 50% of the next year’s budgeted expenditures. In order to stay at the high end of this range, I am recommending that some reductions be made in budgeted 2004 transfers from other funds into the General Fund. Specific General Fund reductions are that the transfer of $90,000 from the Special Projects Fund and the transfer of $15,000 from the Golf Course be cancelled and that the transfer of $201,000 from the Vehicle and Equipment Fund be reduced to $80,000. This will help the other funds that also have budgetary stresses of their own. Transfers from the TIF Districts to the EDA can be reduced in 2004 because large sums were spent for the Edgewood Regional Pond in 2001, but the grants intended to cover that spending didn’t come in. The grants were received in 2002, which then covers other normal EDA spending in 2002, 2003, and part of 2004. Only a small transfer of $17,979 is needed from the TIF Funds to the EDA Fund in 2004. The transfer from the TIF District #1 to the Bonds of 2001A is greater than budget because it is calculated based upon a percentage of taxes collected on the Mermaid and these were greater than expected. Transfers from the TIF Districts to the debt service funds are slightly higher than budget because paying agent and continuing disclosure expenses were higher than budget. The resolution also amends the 2004 budget in order to have TIF District #3 make a transfer to support debt service on the TIF bonds of 1996, Series B, instead of having TIF District #1 make the transfer. This will avoid a buildup of cash in TIF District #3 which might be considered to be excessive and would have to be rebated to Ramsey County. The Bonds of 1996, Series A and B, are considered pooled debt of the TIF districts and may be supported by transfers from any of the districts. Resolution 6477 also amends the 2004 budget of TIF District #3 to provide for the extra transfer. Respectfully Submitted, ____________________ Charles Hansen RESOLUTION NO. 6477 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW County of Ramsey State of Minnesota APPROVING TRANSFERS BETWEEN FUNDS FOR THE YEAR 2004 WHEREAS, the City adopted budgets for various funds for 2004 that included inter-fund transfers for various purposes; and WHEREAS, the it is possible to reduce transfers from several other funds to the General Fund due to positive 2004 financial results in the General Fund; and WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority received state grants during 2002 in reimbursement of moneys spent in 2001 on the Edgewood Regional Pond and so only a reduced transfer is needed from the Tax Increment Financing Districts in 2004; and WHEREAS, the T.I.F. debt service funds experienced higher than expected costs for contractual services and so need higher than budgeted transfers from the T.I.F. Districts; and WHEREAS, the T.I.F. District #1 received higher tax payments than anticipated from the Mounds View Business Center and is obligated to transfer them to the Bonds of 2001A debt service fund; and WHEREAS, the T.I.F. Bonds 96B are considered to be pooled debt of the T.I.F. Districts and may be supported by any of the districts; and WHEREAS, T.I.F. District #3 has adequate funds on hand whereas T.I.F. District #1 is in a deficit condition, making it preferable to support the debt service from T.I.F. District #3. Resolution 6477 Page 2 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds View that the following transfers for the calendar year 2004 are hereby approved in the amounts listed in the Actual column: Budgeted Actual From T o Amount Amount Water Fund General Fund $ 48,850 48,850 Sewer Fund General Fund 38,690 38,690 Vehicle & Equip General Fund 201,000 80,000 Special Projects General Fund 90,000 -0- Golf Course General Fund 15,000 -0- General Fund Community Center 150,000 150,000 General Fund Vehicle & Equipment 125,000 125,000 Water Fund Vehicle & Equipment 21,000 21,000 Sewer Fund Vehicle & Equipment 36,000 36,000 T.I.F. Dist. #1 Economic Dev. Auth. 210,167 -0- T.I.F. Dist. #3 Economic Dev. Auth. 210,167 17,979 T.I.F. Dist. #1 T.I.F. Bonds 01A 127,256 163,115 T.I.F. Dist. #2 T.I.F. Bonds 96A 189,684 190,268 T.I.F. Dist. #3 T.I.F. Bonds 96A 228,123 228,825 T.I.F. Dist. #1 T.I.F. Bonds 96B 109,848 -0- T.I.F. Dist. #3 T.I.F. Bonds 96B -0- 110,588 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the 2004 budget for the T.I.F. District #3 Fund be amended to increase Transfers to Debt Service Funds by $111,290. Passed and adopted this 14th day of March, 2005. _____________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (seal) PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2 RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3 4 Regular Meeting 5 February 28, 2005 6 Mounds View City Hall 7 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 8 7:00 P.M. 9 10 11 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 12 13 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 14 15 The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Cub Scout Pack 367, Den 6, 2nd Year Webelos, who are 16 crossing over to Boy Scouts this evening, and all members have earned their Arrow of Light, 17 which is the highest award for Cub Scouts. 18 19 3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, and Thomas. 20 21 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 22 23 A. Monday, February 28, 2005 City Council Agenda. 24 25 MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Flaherty. To Approve the Monday, February 28, 2005 Agenda as 26 presented. 27 28 Ayes –5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 29 30 5. PUBLIC INPUT 31 32 Barb Hachey, 3024 County Road I, stated she did not have an opinion on the Bridges Golf course 33 sale to Medtronics but is interested in gathering information. She passed out some calculations 34 she had done to the Council members. She commented that the property is going to be even 35 more valuable in 25 years, and she wanted to be sure that this was going to be a win-win 36 situation for Mounds View. 37 38 Mayor Marty stated that all the figures have not arrived yet, so the Council cannot make an 39 informed decision until all the number are in. 40 41 Mayor Marty announced that the golf course will still be open this summer, and that the earliest 42 any sale of the property would take place is in September. 43 44 Mounds View City Council February 28, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 2 David Jahnke, 4820 Eastwood Road, stated that one cannot predict how well the golf course is 1 going to do in years to come, and that he had previously informed the Council how many other 2 golf courses have closed recently. 3 4 Bill Syricks, 2210 Pinewood Drive, stated that this morning the City was out spreading 5 chemicals when there was only a trace of snow, and he has a problem with his tax dollars being 6 wasted. He commented that he would also like the City to enforce all ordinances. 7 8 Mayor Marty informed Mr. Syricks that the Community Development Director would be giving a 9 report at the end of the meeting, and that the report included ordinance issues. 10 11 Public Works Director Lee stated that only certain intersections had been done this morning, but 12 others reported that their whole streets had been done. Public Works Director Lee stated that he 13 would check into it. 14 15 Bill Werner, 2765 Sherwood Road, stated he would like information regarding how much 16 revenue would be brought in by the billboards at the Bridges Golf Course. He asked when the 17 public was going to be provided with some numbers regarding the possible sale to Medtronic. 18 19 Mayor Marty stated that eventually all the information becomes public for anything done within 20 city government. 21 22 6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 23 24 None. 25 26 7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 27 28 Council Member Gunn asked what the item at page 11, second from the bottom, was for the City 29 of White Bear Lake. 30 31 Director Ericson advised it is the fee paid for participation in the Ramsey County JS user’s group 32 that provides access to all the Ramsey County data. 33 34 Council Member Flaherty asked what the $2,500 was for to Hard Drives, Inc. on page 1, fourth 35 item down. 36 37 Public Works Director Lee advised it was for work associated with providing the second access 38 to the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community. It was for acceptance of final payment 39 that was approved by the City Council at the last meeting. 40 41 MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Thomas. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as presented. 42 43 Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 44 45 Mounds View City Council February 28, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 3 8. CONSENT AGENDA 1 2 Council Member Stigney requested Item A to be pulled. 3 4 Council Member Flaherty requested Item B to be pulled. 5 6 A. Resolution 6468 Approving Change Orders to the Mounds View Community 7 Center Carpet Project. 8 B. Resolution 6466 Approving a Contract to Replace the Media Filters at Water 9 Treatment Plant No. 1. 10 C. Resolution 6471 Setting an Assessment Hearing for Monday, March 28, 2005 11 at 7:20pm for the Hidden Hollow Street and Utility Project and the Mounds 12 View Manufactured Home Community Second Access Project. 13 D. Resolution 6467 Acceptance and Final Payment Approval for the County 14 Road H Sidewalk Improvement Project. 15 E. Licenses for Approval. 16 F. Set a Public Hearing for 7:25pm on Monday, March 14, 2005, to Consider a 17 Variance Request for a Reduced Number of Covered Parking Spaces at 18 Greenfield Estates located at 7635 Greenfield Avenue. 19 20 MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Gunn. To approve Consent Agenda Items C, D, E, and F as 21 presented. 22 23 Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 24 25 A. Resolution 6468 Approving Change Orders to the Mounds View Community 26 Center Carpet Project. 27 28 Council Member Stigney stated he does not support the change order because it’s an unnecessary 29 expense, and he also didn’t support the $74,500 for the carpet either. 30 31 Council Member Gunn reminded that the City is proposing to provide labor to the project in the 32 amount of $975. 33 34 Council Member Stigney stated that the City workers wouldn’t be able to work someplace else if 35 they were providing labor for the carpet installation, and he felt this was an unneeded expense. 36 37 Mayor Marty stated the Public Works Department isn’t real busy this time of year. 38 39 Council Member Flaherty stated that this recommendation should have been given at the time of 40 the original bid, so this was selling up the contract, which he doesn’t agree with. He said he 41 would like to have the items looked at that might offset the cost. 42 43 Mayor Marty stated that the City Attorney had said they already awarded the bid, so it would be 44 going back and making a change to it. 45 Mounds View City Council February 28, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 4 Mr. Jahnke stated that carpet companies have a reputation of changing orders after the bid. He 1 stated that this whole thing was handled wrong, and the City should have gone out for other bids. 2 3 City Attorney Riggs stated that the contractor could modify it downward to benefit the City. 4 5 Mayor Marty asked about the date of installation, and City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated that 6 it was set to be installed this week. 7 8 City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich advised that there has been discussions with Public Works about 9 them doing part of the work, and the specific hours still had to be worked out with the contractor. 10 11 MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Flaherty. To deny Resolution 6468, Approving Change Order No. 12 1 to the Mounds View Community Center Carpet Project. 13 14 Ayes-3 Nays-2 Motion carried. 15 16 (Nay-Marty/Gunn) 17 18 B. Resolution 6466 Approving a Contract to Replace the Media Filters at Water 19 Treatment Plant No. 1. 20 21 Council Member Flaherty asked if there was a chart they were working off of that determined the 22 necessity of changing the media filters, and he was concerned about a monopoly. 23 24 Public Works Director Lee advised it was checked by staff on a quarterly basis, and that nothing 25 had been added to it in 13 years. He stated that it hadn’t been graphed or charted, but it had 26 steadily been going down over the last 13 years. 27 28 Council Member Flaherty asked how they knew when to add to it. 29 30 Public Works Director Lee stated that a consultant comes to the site to look at it, and they also 31 rely on the water quality data. 32 33 There was a discussion regarding concerns over a monopoly on this issue, and the Public Works 34 Director indicated that it would cost over $5 million to change it. He stated that this $33,000 35 represents approximately $2,000 per year, and they sell 500,000,000 gallons of water, so it’s 36 fairly inexpensive. 37 38 MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Marty. To approve Resolution 6466 Approving a Contract to 39 Replace the Media Filters at Water Treatment Plant No. 1. 40 41 Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 42 43 Mounds View City Council February 28, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 5 9. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1 2 A. Consideration of Resolution 6464 Approving a Minor Subdivision for 3008 3 County Road J. 4 5 Associate Planner Prososki advised the applicant has applied for a lot line adjustment at 3008 6 and 3016 County Road J. She stated that the owner of 3008 would like to sell the property and 7 wants to add property so that the driveway is located on 3008 County Road J. She stated that 8 both lots would still meet the minimum code standard for interior lots for frontage and square 9 footage. She advised that as presented, the existing driveway would still be noncompliant 10 because it wouldn’t meet the setback and would be just partially located on 3016, so Staff and the 11 Planning Commission were recommending that it be made compliant by May 15th and that 12 money be placed in escrow in case the new owner of 3008 County Road J doesn’t follow 13 through. She stated that Staff is recommended that the amount of $650 be held in escrow, which 14 would adequately cover the cost if the City needed to replace that. She stated it is currently a dirt 15 driveway, so basically what it would entail is planting grass or laying sod in the setback area. 16 17 Mayor Marty stated he thought driveways were supposed to be improved surfaces. 18 19 Associate Planner Prososki stated that new homes require a permanent improved surface, but 20 existing driveways don’t require it until they become improved. She stated that the Planning 21 Commission said they would prefer it, but chose not to require it. 22 23 Mayor Marty asked whether the driveway was going to be moved. 24 25 Associate Planner Prososki stated it was basically just planting grass in the setback area to insure 26 that eventually that area doesn’t get tarred or concrete placed over it. 27 28 Linda Wallin, the listing agent for the property, gave a history of the driveway, and stated that in 29 order to sell the property, this needs to be cleared up in this fashion; otherwise, a driveway would 30 need to be put on the other side of the house, which would ruin the lot. 31 32 MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Gunn. To waive the reading and approve Resolution 6464, 33 Approving a Minor Subdivision for 3008 County Road J. 34 35 Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 36 37 B. Consideration of Resolution 6465 Reapproving a Minor Subdivision (Lot 38 Line Adjustment) between 7630 Woodlawn Drive and 7618 Edgewood Drive. 39 40 Director Ericson advised that this is a reapproval of a minor subdivision that had been presented 41 to the Council a few years back. He stated that there had been some issues with the easement and 42 the title work, and the minor subdivision had expired. He stated that the Planning Commission 43 had approved this unanimously. 44 45 Mounds View City Council February 28, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 6 There was a short discussion regarding the property having two zoning designations, and 1 Director Ericson stated that this was not critical, and it could get changed when it was gotten 2 around to in the future. 3 4 MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Flaherty. To waive the reading and approve Resolution 6465, 5 Reapproving a Minor Subdivision (Lot Line Adjustment) between 7630 Woodlawn Drive and 6 7618 Edgewood Drive. 7 8 Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 9 10 C. Resolution 6470 Setting a Public Hearing for Monday, March 14, 2005 at 7:20 11 p.m. for the 2005 Street Improvement Project. 12 13 Public Works Director Lee announced there would be a public hearing on the 2005 Street 14 Improvement Project, which included upgrading the streets and utilities in the southwest corner 15 of the city, south of County Road H2 and west of Silver Lake Road, on Monday, March 14, 2005 16 at 7:20pm. He stated that if this resolution is approved, Public Works would be sending out 17 information packets to residents tomorrow, which were also handed out at a neighborhood 18 meeting held on February 17th. He stated a deadline of March 9th has been placed on the 19 residents mailing back a feedback form to the City. 20 21 Council Member Thomas informed the Council that the issue of switching everything to curbs 22 and gutter would be discussed at the public hearing. 23 24 Mayor Marty stated a concern over the lateness of going out for bids. 25 26 Public Works Director Lee stated they wouldn’t be going out for bids until probably early 27 summer, and the City’ s Charter calls for a 60 -day period to allow for petitions to appeal this 28 project. He st ated that they would probably start initiating the 2006 Street Improvement Project 29 in June or July. 30 31 MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Marty. To waive the reading and approve Resolution 6470, Setting 32 a Public Hearing for Monday, March 14, 2005 at 7:20pm for the 2005 Street Improvement 33 Project. 34 35 Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 36 37 D. Resolution 6422 Approving the Purchase of a Replacement Pick Up Truck. 38 39 Public Works Director Lee explained that the vehicle that was used by the golf course was seven 40 years old and in poor mechanical condition and would not be a vehicle that Public Works would 41 typically use in their fleet. He stated that Staff is recommending that the Council take advantage 42 of the state bid and go for the three-quarter ton four -wheel drive pickup. He stated that the 43 vehicle would still be in their fleet in 2020 based on their current practice of keeping vehicles for 44 15 years. He stated that the truck could be used for plowing. 45 46 Mounds View City Council February 28, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 7 Mayor Marty stated it was interesting that the three-quarter ton pickup cost less than a half -ton 1 pickup. He asked why the golf course couldn’t use Public Works for maintenance on their 2 vehicles. 3 4 Public Works Director Lee stated that they have their own maintenance person. 5 6 Mayor Marty suggested that all city vehicles should be maintained by the Public Works 7 Department, given their track record. 8 9 Council Member Thomas stated her concern that the body and tailgate damage hadn’t been 10 reported to the city’s insurance for repair. 11 12 Council Member Flaherty asked if the truck would be used every day. 13 14 Public Works Director Lee advised that the truck would be used every day, and it would be 15 assigned to the Parks Division. 16 17 There was a discussion surrounding the necessity of a light bar for $1800 to be on the truck, and 18 Public Works Di rector Lee advised it was necessary for emergency situations. There was 19 further discussion regarding the radio being necessary, and perhaps radios from the police 20 department could be used. 21 22 Public Works Director Lee stated that the truck offer would be honored until tomorrow 23 morning. 24 25 Mayor Marty asked if the truck would be used to plow trails. 26 27 Public Works Director Lee advised the six and a half foot sidewalks would be plowed with 28 bobcats, and the eight -foot and ten-foot wide bituminous trails would be plowed by the truck, as 29 well as parking lots. 30 31 Council Member Stigney asked whether the new truck would be used by employees for personal 32 use. 33 34 Public Works Director Lee stated that the Public Works policy had changed, and that was no 35 longer allowed, but it was a case-by -case basis. 36 37 Mayor Marty asked why they couldn’t use the old police radios rather than installing radios in 38 the trucks. 39 40 Mr. Tuzinski from the Public Works Department stated that those don’t work as well as a radio 41 in the truck. 42 43 MOTION/SECOND. Flaherty/Stigney. To approve Resolution 6422 Approving the Purchase 44 of a Replacement Pick Up Truck, and to research the idea of using the police radios from the 45 police department that were just changed out. 46 Mounds View City Council February 28, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 8 1 Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 2 3 E. Review and Approve Community Survey Questionnaire. 4 5 City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich advised that it’s recommended that the questions be dropped 6 down to the budgeted amount since each question costs $135. He stated that the results of the 7 survey would be presented to the Council on April 11th and distributed to the public at about that 8 same time. 9 10 There was a consensus to remove Question No. 51. 11 12 There was a discussion regarding whether they would be billed for Questions 52 and 52, and City 13 Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated he would check with Decision Resources about that. 14 15 Council Member Thomas stated she would like to limit Ramsey County’s questions to three. 16 17 Mayor Marty concurred. 18 19 Council Member Gunn brought up the fact that the Park and Recreation D epartment had 20 $10,000 set aside for a survey such as this. 21 22 Public Works Director Lee stated that the money is there, but it hasn’t been allocated. 23 24 There was a consensus to have the Parks and Recreation Department pay for their proportionate 25 share of the questions. 26 27 There was a consensus to ask Questions 21 and 23, following by a combination question of 22 28 and 24, since they were redundant. 29 30 Council Member Flaherty stated that Question No. 52 regarding gender is strictly a subjective 31 opinion by the person doing the calling, and Council Member Gunn agreed. 32 33 Council Member Thomas suggested using Question 40, and eliminating Question 39, but adding 34 an additional answer to Question 40 that they don’t have Internet access. 35 36 There was a discussion regarding Quest ion 17, and it was the consensus to change the wording to 37 reflect, ‘‘were about the same’’. 38 39 Council Member Stigney suggested changing Question 25 to say, ‘‘The proposal was recently 40 made to require a referendum whenever Mounds View intended to raise the ci ty portion of the 41 yearly property tax by five percent or more.’’ He suggested changing the second part of the 42 question also, and it was decided to change it to, ‘‘A special election, if necessary, in a 43 nonelection year costs the City of Mounds View about $6,000 to conduct.’’ 44 45 Mounds View City Council February 28, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 9 MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Thomas. To approve the Community Survey Questionnaire as 1 amended. 2 3 Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. 4 5 (Council Member Stigney abstained because he didn’t support the questionnaire.) 6 7 F. Resolution 6469 Approving a Contract with RecNet to Provide Recreation 8 Softwear. 9 10 City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich announced that this program would be used for the Park and 11 Recreation Program administered by the YMCA, and it allowed Internet access for customers to 12 view recreational programs and availability on line. He stated it will cut down transaction time, 13 allow people to register on line, and allows cash, credit card, or check payments. He stated there 14 will be a $2,400 initial two-day training fee. 15 16 Council Member Thomas voi ced a concern regarding Mounds View being liable for a security 17 break on credit card numbers on line. 18 19 City Attorney Riggs advised that the reality was that they would be liable anyway under the Data 20 Practices Act; however, if they are negligent and do something erroneously, they are required to 21 indemnify the City, so it puts the City in the best position possible. 22 23 Mayor Marty asked if the original sticking points had been worked out. 24 25 City Attorney Riggs explained how the problems had been worked within t he contract, and that 26 everything had been taken care of. 27 28 Council Member Flaherty asked how big of a need there was for this program. 29 30 Jeanette Stevens, who will be running the softwear, stated that everything is currently being 31 done by hand, and this woul d be really huge for them marketing-wise. 32 33 Council Member Flaherty asked if this is in the 2005 budget. 34 35 Finance Director Hanson informed that what happens is at the end of each year there is a 36 transfer from the General Fund to the Community Center Fund, and it may be more or less than 37 what was budgeted. 38 39 Council Member Stigney asked whether receipts would be generated by the program. 40 41 Ms. Stevens stated that it would generate a receipt. 42 43 Council Member Stigney asked whether it would make refunds on credit card payments, and Ms. 44 Stevens stated that it would. 45 Mounds View City Council February 28, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 10 MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Marty. To waive the reading and approve Resolution 6469 1 Approving a Contract with RecNet to Provide Recreation Softwear. 2 3 Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 4 5 10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6 7 A. February 14, 2005, City Council Meeting Minutes. 8 9 Council Member Gunn made a correction to page 1, line 16. It should be ‘‘Webelos’’. 10 11 Council Member Gunn made a correction to page 2, line 20. It should be, ‘‘He stated that 12 Merrick, Inc. provides serv ices…’’ 13 14 Council Member Gunn made a correction to page 10, line 11. It should be, ‘‘Mayor Marty asked 15 City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich…’’ 16 17 Council Member Gunn made a correction to page 16, line 4. It should be, ‘‘Burg.’’ 18 19 Council Member Thomas asked for more clarification of what Mr. Jahnke had stated in his 20 comments during Public Input. The Recording Secretary checked the records and suggests that 21 the following sentence replace the first sentence of what he stated as follows: ‘‘Mr. Jahnke 22 stated that he felt a costly mistake had been made by not accepting more bids for the carpet.’’ 23 24 Mayor Marty made a correction to page 8, line 32. It should be ‘‘City Clerk/Administrator 25 Ulrich’’, and change ‘‘county ’’ to ‘‘Ramsey County ’’. 26 27 Mayor Marty made a correction to page 17 , line 13. It should be, ‘‘Mayor Marty adjourned the 28 City Council meeting at 10:03 p.m.’’ 29 30 MOTION/SECOND. Flaherty/Thomas. To approve the Minutes of February 14, 2005 as 31 amended. 32 33 Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 34 35 B. January 31, 2005 Special City Council Meeting Minutes. 36 37 Council Member Gunn made a correction to page 2, line 38, to change the spelling of “Geoff 38 Holliman”. 39 40 MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Flaherty. To approve the January 31, 2005 Minutes as amended. 41 42 Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 43 44 Mounds View City Council February 28, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 11 11. REPORTS 1 2 A. Reports of Mayor and Council. 3 4 Council Member Stigney suggested that plowing and sanding be discussed at a Work Session 5 and notify the residents in Mounds View Matters. 6 7 Council Member Thomas advised the public that her comments in the St. Paul Pioneer Press a 8 week ago Thursday were not reported accurately and that the reporter had never spoke to her. 9 10 Mayor Marty advised they were going to go talk to the House at 2:30 tomorrow regarding the 11 reverter clause legislation. 12 13 B. Reports of Staff 14 1. Community Development Quarterly Report 15 16 Director Ericson reported that the permit value was not what it had been expected to be in 2003, 17 and they were short about $3 million. He stated that they had been just as busy, but the projects 18 had a lesser value. He stated they had closely watched expenditures to make up the difference. 19 He reported that they had lost Greg Johnson on the Planning Commission, who had been a very 20 valued member. He stated that the Planning Commission had done a lot of projects, including 21 Code Amendments. He advised that they try to respond to complaints regarding housing code 22 violations in a timely manner, although they do not go out looking for them. He reported that in 23 2004 the Medtronics projects has kept three or four of the staff busy. He stated that there had 24 been a comprehensive review of the properties within the city, and a list of 200 properties had 25 been made that could be purchased by the city in the future. He added that it is not the City’s 26 intention to purchase the 200 properties, but it is simply an available alternative to a property 27 owner if they wish to sell. He stated that if the Medtronic project moves forward, they will need 28 to hire a full-time building inspector to handle the additional work load. 29 30 Mayor Marty commented that the two employees who work on nuisance and housing code 31 violations are very busy and simply don’t have time to address all the issues present in the 32 community. He thanked Director Ericson for the good report. 33 34 Finance Director Hanson reported a check had been received last week from Bethlehem Baptist 35 Church for $12,750, which was their annual contribution to the service fund. 36 37 Mayor Marty directed him to notify the Parks and Recreation Commission that it had been 38 received. 39 40 Council Member Stigney suggested they discuss where to appropriate the funds at a Work 41 Session also. 42 43 Mounds View City Council February 28, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 12 C. Reports of City Attorney 1 2 None. 3 4 12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, March 1, 2005 5 Council/Staff Retreat: March 7 and 8, 2005 6 Next Council Meeting: Monday, March 14, 2005, 7pm 7 8 13. ADJOURNMENT 9 10 Mayor Marty adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m. 11 12 Transcribed and recorded by: 13 14 15 Sheree Theobald 16 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 17