HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2005/05/02
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA
Monday, May 2, 2005
7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, Thomas
PUBLIC COMMENT
Citizens may speak to issues not on tonight’s agenda. Before speaking, please give your full
name and address for the minutes. Also, please limit your comments to three minutes.
Agenda Items Discussed by Consensus
_______ 1. Public Safety
a. Fire/Police/Emergency Command Vehicle Demonstration
b. Review Draft Plans and Specifications of the Joint Fire Department
Command Van and Engines (Nyle Zikmund)
c. Review Code Enforcement Policies and Procedures
_______ 2. Public Works
a. Sanitary Sewer Illicit Connection Inspection Program Update
b. Report on Sufficiency of Petition Regarding 2005 Street Improvement
Project
_______ 3. Finance
a. Long Range Financial Plan
b. Budget Calendar
_______ 4. Administration
a. Discuss Legal Agreement with Kennedy and Graven. Legal Agreement
with City expires on July 14, 2005.
b. Review Claim from Innovative Images
c. Non-Union Salary Survey
d. Employee Appreciation Lunch
e. Review Recruitment Process for Finance Director (verbal report)
_______ 5. Community Development
a. Review Snyders redevelopment request
Next Council Work Session: (Special) Tuesday, May 3, 2005 @7pm
Next City Council Meeting: Monday, May 9, 2005 @7pm
Item No. 3B
Meeting Date: May 2, 2005
Type of Business: Work Session
Administrator Review: _____ City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Charles Hansen, Finance Director
Item Title/Subject: Calendar for the Preparation of the 2006 Budget
The City Charter calls for the adoption of a calendar for preparation of the budget. There
are several requirements in the City Charter and State Statutes that need to be met. The
calendar listed many staff work start and due dates. Items in bold type are City Council
meetings or actions.
A resolution will be presented at a City Council meeting in May to adopt the calendar. The
resolution will only list City Council meeting dates or other dates of significance to the City
Council. Many of these dates must be considered tentative since the State of Minnesota
won’t notify us of their requirements until this summer.
One of the priorities identified at the City Council/Staff Retreats in 2004 and 2005 was to
increase community involvement. The City Council may want to discuss additional steps
beyond the ones in the budget calendar are needed to achieve this.
Respectfully Submitted,
Charles Hansen
City of Mounds View
2006 Budget Calendar
May 16, 2005 Finance Department begins preparing budget work papers.
May 23, 2005 Departments begin preparing operating budget requests.
June 6, 2005 City Council discusses budget priorities and strategies.
June 20, 2005 Operating budget requests due from departments.
June 30, 2005 Summary of operating budget requests due to City Administrator.
July 1, 2005 Long-term capital projects needs list due.
July 1-18, 2005 Administrator reviews operating budget requests and capital projects.
July 28, 2005 Summary of operating budget requests due to City Council.
August 1, 2005 City Council reviews General Fund budget at work session.
City Council reviews Long-term capital projects at work session.
Aug 15, 2005 Work on utility rate study begins.
September 12, 2005 City Council adopts preliminary 2006 property tax levy and sets date
for the Truth in Taxation Public Hearing.
September 19, 2005 City Council reviews other funds budgets at work session.
Sept. 29, 2005 Utility rate study due to City Council.
October 3, 2005 City Council reviews utility rate study at work session.
October 3, 2005 Articles due for Nov-Dec Mounds View Matters newsletter.
Oct 17 - Nov 21 Additional City Council work sessions as needed.
Oct. 28, 2005 City distributes newsletter with proposed budget.
November 11, 2005 City Council adopts utility rates for 2006.
December 5, 2005 Truth in Taxation Public Hearing
December 12, 2005 Continuation hearing and adoption of 2006 Budget and tax levy.
Item No: 04A
Meeting Date: May 2, 2005
Type of Business: Work Session
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Kennedy & Graven Legal Services Agreement
Background
Our current agreement with Kennedy and Graven for legal services will expire on
July 14, 2005. Attached is the current agreement along with Resolution 6059
authorizing execution of the agreement.
Discussion
In 2003, the City Council directed Staff to examine available RFPs for legal
services and drafted an RFP specific to Mounds View. Staff interviewed
approximately 13 law firms in 2003, and the City Council decided to continue with
Kennedy and Graven for the City’s legal services. This was a two year
agreement, which expires on July 14, 2005.
Staff could start the process of drafting another RFP for legal representation and
start interviewing other law firms. However, with some major issues before the
City (e.g., Clear Channel/Medtronic), it would be difficult to change legal
representation. Clearly, Kennedy & Graven has the advantage of knowing the
history of many of the City’s past actions on contracts, ordinances, and cases
worked on in the past. The size of the firm is also an advantage because
specialists are readily available for consultation. With some exceptions over the
years, staff has been satisfied with work performed, but is open to the option of
switching at some point in the future.
Recommendation
Staff would like Council direction on how to proceed with the legal agreement
between the City and Kennedy & Graven. Staff recommends that we extend the
agreement with Kennedy & Graven for one year, and revisit this issue after the
agreement extension has expired. An alternative would be to extend the
agreement six months, and begin the RFP process this summer.
Respectfully submitted,
Kurt Ulrich
City Administrator
Item No: 04C
Meeting Date: May 2, 2005
Type of Business: Work Session
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Non-Union Salary Survey
Background:
On the April 4, 2005, Work Session, Staff was directed to present the 1998 Compensation Study that was
done by Labor Relations. Staff contacted Labor Relations and they did have a copy of that Compensation
Study. Attached is that Study.
Discussion:
Labor Relations indicated to Staff that this 1998 Compensation Study was never approved by the City Council,
nor was it ever presented at a City Council Meeting. According to Labor Relations, the City Council in 1998 did
not want to pursue this study, but could not remember why. Staff was not able to find any minutes or past staff
reports regarding this 1998 Compensation Study.
Staff has taken a look at this 1998 study and many of the City Staff positions no longer exist. Many of the cities
listed in this 1998 study do not have the same job classifications as Mounds View, so averages may be
misleading.
Staff asked Labor Relations how much a study like this would cost, and it was stated that it would depend on
how extensive the Council would want this study to be. Labor Relations would need more information from the
City Council in order to give an accurate cost.
Recommendation:
It is still recommended that non-union positions be adjusted in order to remain consistent with each position’s
professional compensation comparison per Mounds View Personnel Manual, Section 3.01, which utilizes the
Stanton Group Six comparisons.
Most of the current non-union employees were hired under the current policy referencing Stanton Group 6 as the
benchmark for compensation. Consequently, continuing that policy is the approach recommended for
recruitment and retention of employees.
As indicated in the March 1, 2005, Work Session Staff Report, it is recommended that the adjustments for non-
union positions are made in a maximum of 5% “steps” (in addition to the scheduled salary adjustments) every
six months starting January 1, 2005, and continuing until the dollar adjustment is achieved as indicated in the
chart for each position (please refer to attached March 1, 2005 Work Session report for the chart).
Staff would like City Council direction if Council would like to pursue a Compensation Study as the one in 1998.
In order to implement a different type of compensation study, the Personnel Manual would also need to be
revised.
Respectfully submitted,
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item No: 04D
Meeting Date: May 2, 2005
Type of Business: Work Session
Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree M. Crane, Administrative Assistant
Item Title/Subject: Employee Appreciation Lunch, Wednesday June 8,
2005 - Five-Year Employment Milestone as of 2005.
Introduction:
Staff has scheduled an Employee Appreciation BBQ Lunch for Wednesday, June 8, 2005,
located at the Big Pavilion behind City Hall, from 11am to 100pm. Resolution 5617
(attached) indicates that the City will provide employee gift certificates.
Discussion:
One of the clauses in Resolution 5617 (attached) indicates that the City will provide to
employees “gift certificates in the amount of $5 per year of service at five-year increments.”
Currently there are 5 city employees that fall under this criteria. Both the Employee
Lunch and Gift Certificates are currently budgeted for 2005 (Budget # 100-4100-1600).
The employees below qualify under the criteria set in Resolution 5617:
Employee Name Date of Hire Department Years of
Service
May Tatarek 5/29/1980 Finance 25 years
Larry Siluk 8/9/1976 Police
Department
30 years
Robert Nelson 5/1/1985 Police
Department
20 years
David Anderson 5/15/1985 Police
Department
20 years
Tom Kinney 10/15/1985 Police
Department
20 years
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of purchasing these gift certificates to recognize the
achievements, and will be presenting a Resolution at the May 9, 2005, City Council
Meeting to authorize the purchase. These five (5) employees will be asked where they
want their gift certificates purchased, and Staff will pick them up. As it was done last
year, all gift certificates must be chosen in the Twin Cities area.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree M. Crane
Item No: 5A
Meeting Date: May 2, 2005
Type of Business: Review
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Discuss Stormwater Ponding Issues Associated with
the Snyders Redevelopment Project
Introduction:
Synders Drug Store, a fixture at Moundsview Square since it opened in 1975, has entered
into an agreement to purchase the Gas For Less site at 2525 County Road 10 and replace it
with a freestanding building for their own use. Dave Leonard, the Vice President of Real
Estate and Store Development for Snyders, indicates that the drug store is at a competitive
disadvantage in the city due to its location hidden within Moundsview Square after other drug
stores in the community constructed new stores at prominent intersections. At only 5,975
square feet, the proposed building would be much smaller than the other drug stores yet a
smaller building is more in line with the Snyders stand-alone prototype.
After observing what was approved for CVS, Walgreens and other corridor developments,
Snyders requested and received Planning Commission approval of a five-foot parking lot
setback along County Road 10, Long Lake Road and Bronson Drive. On the east property
line shared with the City, Snyders requested and received approval for a zero-foot parking lot
setback along which they propose parallel parking for their employees. The Planning
Commission also recommended approval of the Snyders redevelopment plan.
Background:
Chapter 1006 of the Mounds View City Code requires that any new commercial development
project must obtain approval of a development review. The purpose of a development
review is to allow the City to evaluate proposed development in terms of its consistency with
City Codes and other requirements and to ascertain and mitigate any potential impacts to the
adjoining properties and the community as a whole. As illustrated below, the development
meets all zoning regulations and requirements.
Building Setbacks Required Proposed: OK ?
Front (Co. Rd. 10): 30 feet 60 feet Yes
(Long Lake Rd): 30 feet 125 feet Yes
(Bronson Dr): 30 feet 31 feet Yes
Side (east) 10 feet 33 feet Yes
Parking Lot Setbacks
Front (Co. Rd. 10): 30 feet 5 feet Yes 1
(Long Lake Rd): 30 feet 5 feet Yes 1
(Bronson Dr): 30 feet 5 feet Yes 1
Side (east) 5 feet 0 feet Yes 1
1 The applicant received approval of a variance to allow for the setbacks as indicated.
Snyders Report
May 2, 2005
Page 2
Parking: The area of the proposed building is 5,975 square feet. Of that amount,
4,045 square feet would be devoted to general retail usage. The parking
requirements for a general retail use is one space per every one hundred square feet
of retail space plus one space per employee. Assuming there would be no more than
six employees on any given shift, 41 spaces plus 6 spaces would be required, totaling
47 spaces. The site plan indicates that 48 stalls would be provided, one more than
the minimum. The dimensions of the individual stalls, including the parallel stalls
along the east property line, satisfy City Code requirements. The number of
“accessible” stalls shown on the plan complies with ADA requirements.
Discussion:
The Snyders redevelopment plan would divert all stormwater to proposed infiltration and
retention ponds on City land to the east as shown on the second attached exhibit. Staff had
envisioned such an arrangement when the City was considering acquisition of the property.
(Refer to the third attached exhibit.) There has been some discussion with Snyders to over-
size the pond in order to accommodate potential run-off from the adjacent public works area
(which currently has no stormwater management controls) as well as run off associated with
the County Road 10 corridor improvement program. The City Council would ultimately need
to determine if this would be the best use of the land which is presently green space behind
the baseball diamond.
In early discussions with Snyders representatives, staff had suggested that there could be an
arrangement that would allow for the ponds to be located on City land at no cost to Snyders
if they would oversize the pond construction for City run-off. In return for the ability to site the
ponds on City property without having to acquire the land, staff had suggested that Snyders
construct a trailway along their County Road 10 frontage and continue the installation
southeast to Edgewood Drive, a distance of approximately 1,290 feet. The estimated cost to
install a ten-foot wide bituminous trailway is about $20 per lineal foot. Thus, the probable
cost to Snyders to install the trail to Edgewood would be approximately $26,000--$6,000 for
the Snyders segment and $20,000 to cover the segment adjacent to the City’s property.
Snyders representatives agree to a trail adjacent to their property but are opposed to paying
for a trail alongside the City’s property.
That being the case, staff would thus recommend that the City—if it would even consider
such a siting arrangement—enter into a long-term lease agreement with Snyders that would
compensate the City based on a fair market value assessment. The City Hall site has a per-
square foot value of $6.09. In comparison, the land value of the Snyders site is $8.76 per
square foot. (It could be argued that the “value” of the land to be used for ponding should be
based on the value of the land for which the ponds serve.) Assuming the ponding area is
15,000 square feet, an appropriate compensation due the City might amount to $91,350 on
the low side and $131,400 on the higher side.
The City Council should provide some guidance to staff as to what it might consider
appropriate and under what conditions (if any) the proposed development would be
supported.
Snyders Report
May 2, 2005
Page 3
Economic Development: It has been frequently noted in the past that the City has too many
gas stations and drug stores. Unfortunately, the City is unable to prohibit certain types of
business if the zoning is proper. Thus, communities are susceptible to an over-abundance
of a specific land use with few controls in place to moderate or minimize certain uses. It
should be pointed out that this redevelopment would not ADD a drug store to the
community—it would simply serve to level the playing field a bit for Snyders, the City’s first
drug store, which feels it is at a competitive disadvantage by being tucked back within
Moundsview Square. It would not be unreasonable to expect that there would be an
increase in market value and tax base resulting from the development.
County Road 10 (CR 10) Corridor Improvement Program (CIP): As the Council is well
aware, the City is in the midst of a corridor redevelopment and improvement project to
improve the function, safety and appearance of County Road 10. The proposed
redevelopment would bring a brand new building to an otherwise unnoteworthy corner of the
City and eliminate a gas station in the process. The proposed redevelopment would be
consistent with the identified goals and vision for the corridor in terms of the following:
• Improve the physical appearance of the corner with a new building and landscaping.
• Removal of a gas station and associated underground storage tanks in very close
proximity to the City’s water supply.
• Provide stormwater management, rate control and filtration in an area not currently
served by such a hydrological amenity.
• Installation of another link of the corridor trailways system, providing pedestrians
and people on bikes with a location separate and apart from the traveled roadways
of County Road 10.
• Promote economic redevelopment within the corridor.
Development Review Summary:
The proposed redevelopment of the Gas for Less site at 2525 County Road 10 to a Snyders
Drugstore would be consistent with the City’s Zoning Code, Comprehensive Plan and
Corridor Improvement Program. All requirements are satisfied with the sole exception of
stormwater management, which would need to be provided by agreement on City Land. To
help staff prepare the report for the next meeting, Council feedback on the following two
questions would be helpful:
• Is the Council agreeable to the use of the land for Snyders ponding?
• If so, at what rate of compensation?
Staff will also communicate to the developer the Council’s position on these issues.
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
EXHIBIT 1 -- Site Plan
EXHIBIT 2 -- Proposed Ponds
SNYDERS
PUBLIC
WORKS
Fence
Zoning Map
COUNTY ROAD I
Public
Works
Facility
Moundsview
Square
COUNTY ROAD H2
Site Photographs
Looking south from Bronson Drive
Looking east from Long Lake Road