HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2005/06/06
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA
Monday, June 6, 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. Mounds View School District Presentation – Presentation by School Board
Members Bob Sundberg, Marre Jo Sager, and John Maas (Director of
Administrative Support) to update school transitions and general
communications. (verbal report)
_______ 2. Code Enforcement:
A. Review Police Enforcement of Speeding/Traffic/Noise Violations
_______ 3. Public Works:
A. Easement Use and Restoration Policy
B. Removal of Nonconforming Street Access Policy
_______ 4. Finance:
A. Discuss Budget Priorities
_______ 5. Community Development:
A. Update on Red Oak Estates Development
B. Review Department Staffing
C. Laport Meadows Land Acquisition
D. Dinner Theater Proposal for MVCC
_______ 6. Administration:
A. Discuss Need for Council Packet Summary Report
B. Review Process and Policy for Correcting Minutes
C. Review Council Meeting/Hearing Procedures
D. Review Council Policy: Council/Staff Interaction
E. Announce Special Meeting with the Charter Commission on Thursday,
June 9, 2005 @6pm
Next Council Work Session: Tuesday, July 5, 2005 @7pm
Next City Council Meeting: Monday, June 9, 2005 @6pm
(Special Meeting with the Charter Commission)
Item No: 2A
Meeting Date: June 6, 2005
Type of Business: Work Session
City Administrator Review_____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Police Chief Mike Sommer
Item Title/Subject: Discussion of Traffic Enforcement
Date of Report: June 6, 2005
Background:
Staff from the Police Department was directed to prepare a general report and discuss
the issue of policing as it pertains to traffic enforcement, parking enforcement, and
vehicle noise enforcement in the City. Staff understands traffic issues are of great
importance to citizens and to the Council. Concerns surrounding traffic issues comprise
approximately 80 percent of the complaints citizens have in their city. This is evident
within the City of Mounds View, but is certainly not unique to Mounds View. The level of
concern over traffic issues is equally important in large cities such as St. Paul, cities
across the state of Minnesota, and across the country. The problem is complex,
unremitting and continuous.
City Councils and police departments understand that traffic related complaints are to be
expected, and should have an effective system in place to manage the complaints as
they occur. The dilemma of complaints over the driving habits of citizens requires
constant attention. The issue in Mounds View is exacerbated by our existing road
design. Many of the roadways in Mounds View are wide, straight, and long. These roads
by virtue of their design, give drivers the feeling they can travel at higher speeds. This
road design was prevalent in the 1960s. Today, residential road construction uses
"geometric traffic calming” designs that incorporate curves, narrow road widths, and uses
road striping that create a situation that causes traffic to slow to appropriate speeds.
Traffic calming road designs should be considered as residential roads are being
reconstructed in Mounds View. Overall solutions to traffic concerns also should involve a
combination of early driver education, community awareness, street planning and design,
road markings and striping, signage, enforcement of traffic laws, and drivers having a
respect for their neighbors as they drive through their neighborhoods. The notion that
traffic violations can be solved solely by extra enforcement is disingenuous and naive.
A permanent solution to stop traffic violations from occurring has yet to be developed
anywhere in the United States. So what can be done? We must continually manage
traffic issues and complaints. The policing efforts dedicated to this cause, as in all
policing must be done fairly and impartially. The most common public safety concern in
any city is traffic complaints. If questioned, most citizens would ask for increased
enforcement on the street they live on. The majority of citizens may not have the time to
formally request this desire to city officials, but rest assured, they have the need, and
there concerns cannot go unnoticed because they have not made an official request.
Political requests to conduct specific enforcement must be scrutinized closely by police
executives to avoid any ethical dilemmas associated with doing law enforcement for
political reasons. Complaints that come in to local politicians should be forwarded to the
Police Department so a written incident report can be generated and the complainant can
speak to an officer about the nature of the complaint. If at all possible, the complainant
should be referred directly to the police to make a report. This will expedite the process
of getting the complaint information to the officers who are responsible for responding to
such complaints and demonstrates the city has an organized responsive reaction to
complaints. This shows cohesiveness between the Police Department the Council, and
the community. Citizens should not be promised permanent solutions to ongoing traffic
concerns as this will only lead to frustration and dissatisfaction if one cannot be found,
and can create an attitude of distrust towards city officials.
Traffic Citation Statistics in Mounds View
In response to the level of concern voiced by citizens and Council Members, traffic
enforcement in Mounds View is a high priority. Question any Mounds View Police Officer
about the top priorities for the department and you will hear a resounding reply of: “Traffic
enforcement!” This is demonstrated by the dramatic increase in traffic enforcement
observed since 2001. During the year of 2001 a total of 1380 traffic citations were
issued. In 2002 a total of 1191 traffic citations were issued. In 2003 a total of 1375 traffic
citations were issued. Last year, thanks to great efforts by excellent officers, the Mounds
View Police Department issued a total of 2582 tickets for traffic related issues. This was
more than double the level of traffic enforcement observed in 2001. This year, the
Mounds View Police Department is on track to meet or exceed this amount. The majority
of these tickets were issued to residents of Mounds View. It is important that residents
appreciate and understand their responsibility to their fellow citizens to drive with
consideration threw Mounds View neighborhoods. All Mounds View staff members and
councilpersons should communicate this message to citizens when the opportunity
arises.
Certain traffic violations are more serious than others. Driving while under the influence,
careless or wreckless driving, or driving after suspension or without insurance are more
serious than petty misdemeanor offenses such as speeding. The Mounds View Police
Department focuses considerable attention these serious traffic offenses. We participate
in the Safe and Sober program, which either supplies us with grant dollars to pay officers
overtime to work on traffic enforcement details, or enables us to receive grant dollars to
use towards traffic enforcement equipment. All of our officers regularly receive extensive
training on traffic enforcement tactics.
Noise Complaints
Numerous potentially bothersome sources of sound are located in and around the City of
Mounds View. These sound sources include:
1. Aircraft noise linked to the Anoka County / Blaine Airport.
2. Bar / nightclub noise at closing times.
3. Loud party/music complaints from individual residences.
4. Noise associated with high volume traffic roadways being positioned close to
residential areas.
5. Noise linked to individual vehicles with inadequate mufflers or loud stereos.
6. Construction noise.
7. Animals- i.e. barking dogs.
8. Power tools.
The city has shown great sensitivity to citizen complaints about these aggravating
sources of sound. The city has taken affirmative steps towards helping to abate traffic
noise by pursuing sound walls and sound berms, and adopting a noise control ordinance;
amending it most recently on March 11, 2002.
So far this year, the Mounds View Police Department received 81 complaints relating to
loud parties or other noise complaints. Most of these complaints were loud party/loud
music complaints from individual residences. Most of these complaints were successfully
resolved by a response from the Police Department. The vast majority of these types of
complaints are resolved with a verbal warning, and require no further action. Typically, a
failure to comply with a directive from the Police Department to turn the noise down
results in a citation or arrest for a city ordinance or state statute violation. The year to
date sound complaints received by the Police Department are as follows:
2005 Year to Date Noise Related Complaints received by the Police Department
Loud Noise relating to a party or working on a vehicle at a residence.
52
Barking Dogs
15
Engine Braking (semi trucks)
*Complaint made to City Council directly
1
Loud Stereo from a vehicle
10
Construction Noise
0
Aircraft noise
0
Traffic Noise
4
.
One resident has come before the City Council on numerous occasions with various
noise complaints near his residence. Unfortunately, the resident in question’s home is
located near one of the busiest intersections within the city, and is positioned very closely
to the busy intersection. His residence is near one of the highest volume roadways in
United States -the 35 W. interstate freeway. Both an exit and entrance to the freeway
are located only a block from his home. The street his home is located on serves as a
thoroughfare to a city industrial park and consequently many large semis and other trucks
routinely travel this street. To make matters worse, this resident apparently works nights
and sleeps during the day. This resident has made several complaints to the Police
Department concerning individual noise complaints of vehicles with loud mufflers.
Officers of the Mounds view Police Department have followed up on these complaints.
This resident has also complained about “Engine braking,” semi tractor-trailers and
requested the city install “No engine braking,” signs. He has also complained of loud
motorcycle mufflers, loud music from vehicles, and loud after market dual exhaust
systems. Officers of the Mounds View Police Department have been made aware of
these complaints and have been advised to pursue violators in this area. While it would
not be appropriate for the city to place signs for every resident requesting specialty signs,
in this particular case, in response to the complaints from this resident, the Chief of
Police has ordered that signs be placed on each end of County Road I, which state
“Noise Ordinance Enforced.”
It appears the complaints of this resident are associated with the sound levels entering
his residence from the surrounding area. In 2004 Mayor Linke has suggested to this
resident that he consider upgrading his insulation/windows to help abate the sound
inherent to his location. This may be one of the most effective solutions available for the
situation. Staff is not aware of any grant funding sources at this time that would be
available, such as the airport noise abatement grant program near the International
airport, to help this particular resident.
Placing Vehicle Noise Laws Enforced Signs
Regarding the placing of vehicle noise signs the Minnesota Department of transportation
issued the following report:
“Over the past several years there has been increasing efforts by communities to
reduce traffic noise levels, particularly at night. One such effort is focused on
reducing the "rumbling and popping" noise created by many trucks when
decelerating for steep downgrades or when approaching traffic lights and stop
signs. Various signs such as "NO JAKE BRAKING” and "NOISE LAWS
ENFORCED: have been used in an attempt to control this noise.
This has created several problems:
• The sign legends and installations are not uniform and are not understood
by many motorists.
• Some signs have been installed without proper approval from MN/DOT.
• Many of these signs target truck noise. Noise laws must be uniformly
applied and cannot specifically target one type of vehicle.
• Jacobs Brake Company is unhappy with the "No Jake Braking" signs that
they feel unfairly targets their equipment and has threatened legal action
against agencies public use of this phrase and road signs.
• The State Highway Patrol enforces noise violations that are due to faulty
or illegal equipment that they find as a result of the normal vehicle
inspections. They do not feel that they have either the personnel or
equipment to directly monitor and forced noise laws on moving vehicles.
The following criteria are adopted for placement of any new "VEHICLE NOISE LAWS
ENFORCED” signs on highways In the Metro Division. This will provide a uniform policy
for design and installation of future signs regarding enforcement of vehicle noise laws.
• The city must request, in writing permission for installation of these signs. All
requests from neighborhood groups, etc. Must be channeled through the city.
• Only standard sign legends, materials and supports will be allowed.
• No signs will be allowed on any freeways.
• There must be adequate space for the sign as determined By the Metro Traffic
Engineer, Traffic Control.
• One sign per direction, per roadway, per city. (e.g. only one sign on eastbound TH
7 through Hopkins)
• The city must fabricate and install the signs with their own forces or through
contract. A permit from MN/ DOT will be needed for placement of these signs on
state right-of-way.
• All future maintenance of these signs (knockdowns, replacements, etc.) is the
responsibility of the city."
The Police Department will respond to noise complaints from citizens and attempt to
resolve the complaint through the mechanisms available including:
• Mediation
• Counseling (verbal warning)
• Environmental design change recommendation to city, county, or state officials.
• Citation or arrest for a city ordinance or state statute violation
The following is a list of applicable City ordinances and state statues that would apply to
noise regulation:
Mounds View Sound Regulation Ordinances
607.08: NOISE CONTROL REGULATIONS: (Ord. 694, 3-11-02)
Subd. 1. Loud Or Unnecessary Noises Prohibited: It shall be unlawful for any person to make or
cause to be made any loud, unnecessary or unusual noise which either annoys, disturbs or
affects the comfort, repose, health or peace of others.
Subd. 2. Loud Or Disturbing Noises Enumerated; Restrictions: The following acts set forth in the
following paragraphs are declared to be loud, disturbing and unnecessary noises in violation of
this Section, but said enumeration shall not be deemed to be exclusive:
607.08 607.09 (Rev. 3/02)
a. Construction Or Repairing Of Buildings: The erection, including excavating, demolition,
alteration or repair of any building between the hours of ten o'clock (10:00) P.M. and six
o'clock (6:00) A.M. on weekdays and all day Sunday, except where single individuals or
families work on single-family residences for their own occupancy owned by them; except, that
the Clerk-Administrator may, or a designee, in case of emergency, grant permission to repair at
any time when the Clerk-Administrator finds such repair work will not affect the health and
safety of persons in the vicinity.
b. Nighttime Noise In Residential Areas; Parties:
(1) No person shall, between the hours of ten o'clock (10:00) P.M. and seven o’clock
(7:00) A.M., participate in any loud party or gathering of people from which noise emanates of
a sufficient volume as to disturb the peace, quiet or repose of persons residing in any residential
area.
(2) Loud noises between the hours of ten o'clock (10:00) P.M. and seven o'clock (7:00)
A.M. of such volume as to be plainly audible at a distance of one hundred feet (100') from the
residential premises wherein such loud party or gathering is located shall be prima facie
evidence of a violation of this Section.
(3) No persons shall visit or remain within any residential dwelling unit wherein such
loud party gathering is taking place, except the owner, persons residing in that unit or persons
who are there for the sole purpose of abating the disturbance. (Ord. 556, 3-20-95)
c. Stereos, Radios, Tape Players, Disc Players, Etc.: Operation of a stereo, radio, tape player,
disc player, or any such device at anytime in a motor vehicle in such a manner as to be
plainly audible at a distance of fifty feet (50’) from the vehicle shall be prima facie evidence
of a violation of this Section. (Ord. 612-, 4-13-98)
701.04: DOGS:
Subd. 1. Dog at large prohibited. A dog owner violates this section if their dog is at large. (Ord.
696, 4-22-02)
Subd. 2. Howling and barking. A dog owner violates this section if the dog which, by
frequent and habitual howling, yelping, barking or otherwise, causes annoyance or disturbance to
two (2) or more persons; provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to duly
authorized hospitals or clinics conducted for the treatment of small animals. (Ord. 696, 4-22-02)
801.02: UNREASONABLE ACCELERATION:
Subd. 1. Definitions: When used in this Section, the following words and phrases shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in this subdivision:
a. MOTOR VEHICLE: Any vehicle propelled by an engine and authorized to be driven on a
public highway.
b. UNREASONABLE ACCELERATION: To cause squealing or screeching sounds by the
tires, and/or fishtailing of the motor vehicle or the throwing of sand or gravel by the tires of said
vehicle or both.
Subd. 2. Unreasonable Acceleration Prohibited: "Unreasonable acceleration" of any motor vehicle
on any public highway or private property within Mounds View, as defined herein, is hereby
declared to be a public nuisance and is prohibited.
Subd. 3. Evidence Of Violation: It shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this Section if a
motor vehicle shall be observed accelerating in such a manner as to cause squealing or
screeching sounds by the vehicle's tires, fishtailing of the vehicle or the throwing of sand and
gravel or other material by the tires of said vehicle, or any combination of the herein described
actions. (1988 Code §§80.02)
Statue Statues
Minnesota Statutes 2004, Table of Chapters <..>
Table of contents for Chapter 169 <../169>
169.69 Muffler.
Every motor vehicle shall at all times be equipped with a
muffler in good working order which blends the exhaust noise
into the overall vehicle noise and is in constant operation to
prevent excessive or unusual noise, and no person shall use a
muffler cutout, bypass, or similar device upon a motor vehicle
on a street or highway. The exhaust system shall not emit or
produce a sharp popping or crackling sound. Every motor vehicle
shall at all times be equipped with such parts and equipment so
arranged and kept in such state of repair as to prevent carbon
monoxide gas from entering the interior of the vehicle.
No person shall have for sale, sell or offer for sale or
use on any motor vehicle any muffler that fails to comply with
the specifications as required by the commissioner of public
safety.
HIST: (2720-258) 1937 c 464 s 108; 1939 c 430 s 20; 1953 c
306
s 1; 1971 c 491 s 25
Copyright 2004 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of
Minnesota.
Minnesota Statutes 2004, Table of Chapters <..>
Table of contents for Chapter 169 <../169>
169.693 Motor vehicle noise limits.
It is unlawful to operate a motor vehicle in violation of
motor vehicle noise rules adopted by the Pollution Control
Agency.
HIST: 1974 c 500 s 1; 1985 c 248 s 70
Copyright 2004 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of
Minnesota.
Staff of the Police Department have reviewed the ordinances and state statutes available
and finds them to be adequate to manage the noise complaints in the City.
Conclusions
The Mounds View Police Department uses a balanced approach to public safety issues.
We are careful to distribute our resources appropriately to the various public safety
issues in the city. In the recent citywide survey residents had a perception that juvenile
crime was a significant issue. We have an obligation to try to prevent juvenile crime. We
currently are taking affirmative action to do this by having an officer assigned to crime
prevention / Drug Abuse Resistance Education D.A.R.E., and have another officer
assigned as a School Recourse Officer at Edgewood Middle school. The D.A.R.E.
program is designed as an outreach program to elementary students to give them solid
coping skills to stay away from drugs, violence and alcohol abuse. This prevention
program has been very popular in Mounds View and receives high support from the
parents of students attending D.A.R.E. classes. The crime prevention/DARE officer also
works with businesses and residents with various programs to help them prevent crime,
increased their security and advises them on current crime trends. This SRO at
Edgewood Middle school position has been shown to be a critical position for dealing with
juvenile crime. One or both of these positions could be eliminated and the officer(s)
reassigned to do traffic enforcement instead. This, however, would not be
recommended. Placing more resources in one area by taking them away from another
area is liable to tip the balance scale with increased concerns resulting from the area
where the officers were removed.
The Mounds View Police Department recognizes that traffic issues and noise complaints
are one of the greatest concerns to residents, and we have made addressing these
concerns one of the top priorities in the Police Department. This as evidenced by a
doubling of the number of traffic citations issued from 2001 to 2004. We plan to continue
with this emphasis and also work with all entities in the city to help with finding other ways
to manage the traffic issues.
Respectfully submitted,
Mike Sommer, Chief of Police
Item No. 3A
Meeting Date: June 6, 2005
Type of Business: WK
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City Administrator Review _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Easement Use and Restoration Policy
Background:
The City owns and maintains numerous infrastructure items throughout the City,
including: water, sanitary, and storm sewer pipes, manholes, catch basins, data
and electrical transmission lines, signage, lighting, ponds, and drainage ways.
Most of these items are located within City-owned property. However, some are
located on private property over which the City has an easement.
An easement allows for various rights to be granted to entities other than the
property owner. Examples would be perimeter drainage and utility easement
around most recently platted properties, a utility easement for a pipe located
along a common property line, a drainage easement for a drainage swale
(drainage ditch) located along a rear property line, and a pond or wetland
easement for a storm water pond (there are numerous more examples of the City
having easement rights).
Discussion:
With regard to the utilization of these easements in order to maintain the City
facilities, it is important that that the City is consistent in how it uses and restores
the easement areas once maintenance activities have been completed.
Staff has developed a draft Easement Use and Restoration Policy. Attached is a
copy of this draft policy for Council’s review and consideration. The goal of this
policy is to define consistent restoration action in cases where the City must
utilize its easement rights to maintain its infrastructure; and to do so in a manner
that respects the best interests of the City as a whole and does not create an
additional tax burden to other property owners in Mounds View.
Recommendation:
Staff is looking for direction on this matter. Specifically, Staff is looking for
Council input on whether the Council is interested in developing an Easement
Use and Restoration Policy.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Public Works
EASEMENT USE AND RESTORATION POLICY
Purpose
In order to maintain the City facilities, it is important that that the City is consistent
in how it uses and restores the easement areas once maintenance activities
have been completed The purpose of this policy is to define consistent
restoration action in cases where the City must utilize its easement rights to
maintain its infrastructure.
Policy
The City and its authorized agents, will use City-owned easements to maintain
City-owned infrastructure and facilities.
The City and its authorized agents, will remove any and all obstacles to allow
proper access and maintenance activities. These items will be removed with
reasonable care and NOT REPLACED. Examples include, but are not limited to:
trees, shrubs, landscaping, sheds, fences, playground equipment, and gardens.
If the property owner wishes to retain possession of these items, they will be
removed from the easement area and placed at the easement boundary.
The City and its authorized agents, will re-vegetate disturbed areas. In areas
where there does exist maintained, cultured sod, the City will re-sod those areas.
In areas that lack maintained cultured sod, the City will seed those areas with an
appropriate seed mixture. The City will be responsible for the viability of the
sodded areas for a period of thirty (30) days from installation; after that it will be
the property owner’s responsibility. For seeded areas, the City will be responsible
until which time the area has been re-vegetated.
As this is a policy, the City Council reserves the right to deviate from this policy if
it is in the best interest of the City.
_____________________
City Administrator Date
Effective Date: June 13, 2005
Revision Date:
Item No. 3B
Meeting Date: June 6, 2005
Type of Business: WK
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City Administrator Review _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Removal of Nonconforming Street Access Policy
Background:
The Messiah Lutheran Church, located at the southwest and southeast corners
of Knollwood Drive and County Road H2 currently has a parking area located
along the west side of Knollwood Drive just south of County Road H2. This area
is essentially an area where the boulevard has been paved to allow for “head-in”
parking.
As part of the proposed 2005 Street Improvement Project, a neighborhood
meeting was conducted on February 17, 2005. At this meeting, the “head-in”
parking lot along the west side of Knollwood Drive was discussed as an area that
should be addressed with the street project. Area residents and church
representatives had safety concerns pertaining to vehicles backing out onto
Knollwood Drive.
The plans for the proposed 2005 Street Improvement Project called for the
removal of this parking lot, as it is located entirely within City right–of-way. The
Messiah Lutheran Church concurred and supported these plans.
Discussion:
With the petition against the proposed 2005 Street Improvement Project. This
issue will not be addressed with this project. The Messiah Lutheran Church still
believes that there is a safety issue here and has requested that the City assist
them in addressing it.
Public Works has looked at what it would take to remove the parking areas. This
entails saw cutting along the existing roadway edge, removing and disposing of
the existing bituminous parking area, creating a minimal bituminous curb, adding
topsoil, and sodding the area. The estimated cost for the City to perform this
work is $1,600 to $1,800.
Public Works is looking for direction from the City Council on this issue. If the City
Council wishes proceed with the City removing the parking area, Staff
recommends that a policy be created to allow for the City to remove
nonconforming street access before performing any work at Messiah Lutheran
Church. This policy would apply only to nonconforming street accesses that were
installed before current ordinances that do not allow such access were adopted
(properties that are “grandfathered in”).
Staff has developed a draft Nonconforming Street Access Policy. Attached is a
copy of this draft policy for Council’s review and consideration. The goal of this
policy is to be consistent with all properties that are requesting the City to remove
a nonconforming street access that is grandfathered in; and do so in a manner
that increases safety on the pubic roadway, respects the best interests of the City
as a whole, and does not create an additional tax burden to other property
owners in Mounds View.
Council also has the option not to take action on this issue.
Recommendation:
Staff is looking for direction on this matter. Specifically, Staff is looking for
Council input on whether the Council is interested in developing a Removal of
Nonconforming Street Access Policy, and then applying this policy to the
Messiah Lutheran Church / Knollwood Drive parking issue.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Public Works
REMOVAL OF NON-CONFORMING STREET ACCESS POLICY
Purpose
In an effort to increase public safety and to regulate access on to public streets, it
is important that that the City assist properties that currently have non-
conforming street accesses (which were grandfathered in) to become compliant
with current ordinances.
The purpose of this policy is to be consistent with all properties that are
requesting the City to remove nonconforming street accesses that were
grandfathered in, and do so in a manner that increases safety on the pubic
roadways.
Policy
The City and its authorized agents, upon request of the property owner, will
remove all nonconforming street accesses that are within the City right-of-way, -
provided that they were installed before the ordinance that regulates them (made
them nonconforming) was adopted.
This will be done under the following requirements:
• The City and/or its authorized agents, upon request of the property owner,
will remove only that portion of the nonconforming street access that is
within the City right-of-way.
• The nonconforming street access must have been installed prior to the
ordinance that currently regulates it was adopted.
• The City and/or its authorized agents will remove the nonconforming street
access and replace it with cultured sod.
• The City and/or its authorized agents will be responsible for the viability of
the sodded area for a period of thirty (30) days from installation, after that
it will be the property owner’s responsibility.
• It is the responsibility of the property owner to remove all items within the
right-of-way for such work to occur. The City and/or its authorized agents
will not be responsible for damage to private property located within the
City’s right-of-way.
As this is a policy, the City Council reserves the right to deviate from this policy if
it is in the best interest of the City.
_____________________
City Administrator Date
Effective Date: June 13, 2005
Revision Date:
Item No. 06B
Meeting Date: June 6, 2005
Type of Business: WK
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City Administrator Review _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree Crane, Administrative Assistant
Item Title/Subject: Discuss Need for City Council Packet Summary
Report
Staff processes a City Council Packet Agenda Summary (attached), which in the
past, has been used as a tool for the City Council during City Council meetings. It
takes Staff an additional one to one-half hours to type this report, and requires Staff
to look at each individual staff report and write a summary on what each staff
report. This is a time consuming process. If the City Council is not using the
Agenda Summary, then Staff would like to use that time to process the City Council
Agenda items for City Council pick-up.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree Crane
Item No. 06B
Meeting Date: June 6, 2005
Type of Business: WK
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City Administrator Review _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree Crane, Administrative Assistant
Item Title/Subject: Review Process and Policy for Correcting Minutes
Council was directed by Staff to discuss procedures in correcting EDA and City Council
Minutes.
The current procedure is below:
1. TimeSaver (company contracted to do EDA, City Council and Planning Commission
Minutes), types the Minutes and then sends them to Staff. Staff normally gets
Minutes 4 to 5 days prior to the next Council Meeting, however, there are times we
do not receive the Minutes until the day before Council agenda items are due.
2. If Staff receives the Minutes in a timely manner, then Staff reviews the Minutes for
name misspellings, etc., but does not change any content to the Minutes.
3. Staff puts them on the next City Council Agenda for approval.
4. At the Council Meeting, the City Council indicates the changes that need to be
made. TimeSaver makes notes of these corrections. As soon as we receive these
changes from TimeSaver, Staff makes the changes to the Minutes. These Minutes
are then filed and posted on the Mounds View website.
Please let Staff know of any changes Council wants made to this procedure.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree M. Crane
.
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
Monday, June x, 2005
7:00 p.m.
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
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS
8. CONSENT AGENDA
9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
11. REPORTS
A. Reports of Mayor and Council
B. Reports of Staff
C. Reports of City Attorney
12. Next Council Work Session:
Next Council Meeting:
Item No. 06C
Meeting Date: June 6, 2005
Type of Business: WK
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City Administrator Review _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree Crane, Administrative Assistant
Item Title/Subject: Review Council Meeting/Hearing Procedures
Some Council and Staff have suggested a discussion regarding procedures of City Council
Meetings. It seems that many of the meetings are adjourning past 10pm, and Staff wanted to
present suggestions/considerations to the City Council.
Consideration No. 1
Many cities have a policy whereas at 10pm, if the Council Meeting has not adjourned, a Motion
is made by the City Council to extend the meeting for one hour. This ensures that meetings
adjourn at a reasonable time.
Consideration No. 2
Another consideration is to change the Agenda format. Attached is an example of an
alternative Agenda format. This change in format would put “Council Business” items before
the “Consent Agenda” items. Staff feels that by changing this format residents could be heard
first, and the more administrative items could wait until later in the meeting.
Consideration No. 3
Resident comments in Public Hearings by past practice have been limited to three- minute
comments. It may be a good idea to remind residents prior to the Public Hearing that their
comments should be limited to three minutes. A time-keeper could be appointed by the chair.
Please direct staff if these considerations are appealing to the City Council. Staff would also
like feedback from the City Council on any ideas in making our City Council Meetings flow
better.
Also, with a joint meeting of the EDA and Council scheduled for June 20th, the set-up and
format for that meeting should be discussed. Both bodies would convene and adjourn
simultaneously. The meeting room would be set-up in the style of the town meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree M. Crane
Item No. 06E
Meeting Date: June 6, 2005
Type of Business: WK
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City Administrator Review _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree Crane, Administrative Assistant
Item Title/Subject: Special Meeting with the Charter Commission to
discuss Charter Commission Requirements
The Charter Commission requested a Special Meeting with the City Council to
discuss Charter Commission Requirements. It was decided on the May 23, 2005,
City Council meeting to schedule this for Thursday, June 9 at 6pm with the regularly
scheduled Charter Commission Meeting immediately following at 7pm. Please
make your calendars that there will be a Special City Council Meeting on Thursday,
June 6, 2005, at 6pm to discuss Charter Commission Requirements. If this date
does not work, then please let staff know so that we can reschedule with the
Charter Commission. Jonathan Thomas, Charter Commission Chair, has already
been notified of this Special Meeting with the City Council.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree Crane