HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2004/05/03
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA
Monday, May 3, 2004
7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Linke, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Gunn
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. Priority Planning Activities (7:00pm to 8:50pm)*
A. Review Implementation Plan of County Road 10 Corridor Improvements
B. (1) Review Golf Course Operations, Long Term Operating Plan
(2) Golf Course Lawsuit Costs
C. Review TIF Plan Modification Review Timeline
2. Current Projects and Issues (8:50pm to 9:40pm)
A. Garbage Hauling Restrictions – Limiting the Number of Days
B. Groveland Park Shelter Building Replacement Project
C. Mounds View Manufactured Home Park – Second Access Proposal
D. Discuss Passenger Bus
3. Administrative Items (9:40pm to 10:00pm)
A. Review Policy for Council Staff Interaction
B. Discuss Changing the Council Meeting Start Times
C. Discuss and Review Park Rental Fees
D. Review RFP for Banquet Center Management
* Times are estimated and approximate. Items not addressed at this meeting may be
rescheduled to a future meeting.
Next Council Work Session: Monday, May 17, 2004 at 5pm
Next City Council Meeting: Monday, May 10, 2004 at 7pm
Item No: 1B(1)
Meeting Date: 05/03/04
Type of Business: WS
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Mary Burg, Golf Course Manager
Item Title/Subject: Review Golf Course Study Options
Introduction:
At the March 22, 2004 regular meeting, the City council directed the City
Administrator to prepare a business plan review of the Golf Course operation.
The plan was presented to the City Council at the April 5, 2004 work session.
The City Council requested staff to provide additional information on some of
the alternatives and asked to discuss this item further at this work session.
This report is to outline possible alternatives for further study. As noted
previously, due to the fact that some of the alternatives may be expensive and
will require the work of outside consultants, it is recommended that the City
Council review the possible alternatives and eliminate any in which there is no
interest in pursuing.
Background:
The City has recognized as a priority the need to explore solutions to the
problem of Golf Course financing. The most promising near-term revenue
enhancement appears to be the authorization of billboard leases along the
Golf Course freeway frontage. It is anticipated that this will bring in $250,000
in revenue each year, starting in 2005. To date positive action on the billboard
issue has yet to come forth.
Analysis (from 04/05/04 WS 07) :
The City Finance Director has prepared several financial scenarios to give the
City Council a picture of current and possible situations, which are attached.
The first scenario assumes that the operations continue with no major
changes. Under this scenario, overall debt continues to climb for the
foreseeable future. Over time, internal loan debt (Due to Other Funds) simply
supplants bonded debt.
The second scenario assumes billboard revenue of $250,000 per year starting
in 2005. Under this scenario, bonded debt is fully paid in 2012 and internal
loan debt is fully paid by 2018.
The third scenario depicts what would happen if the City decided to forgive all
of the current internal loan debt. While this scenario is unlikely and not
recommended at this time, it does demonstrate the additional impact of the
internal loan debt on top of the bonded debt. Under this scenario, bonded
debt is fully paid in 2012 and the Golf Course starts to generate a positive cash
flow of approximately $400,000 per year in 2013.
Review of Golf Course Alternatives:
Staff has done some initial consulting with different golf course professionals
and are encouraged that the City appears to have a variety of potentially viable
options from which to choose. Listed below are alternatives for the study of
the Golf Course and some initial staff comments about each.
Level 1 – Seek additional revenue and/or changes to operation
1.) Status quo with refinancing of debt:
If the billboards go through the City will need to refinance the bonds as
taxable which will save the City $7,261 per year. Refinancing of the
current tax-exempt bonds would net an additional $27,655. Not enough
to offset the heavy debt.
2.) Billboard revenue:
The City is currently pursuing this option. However, even with this
additional revenue, internal loan debt continues to grow $40-50,000 per
year until 2013.
3.) Cell phone towers:
This a possible option to explore in order to increase revenue.
Each lease could generate approximately $10,000-15,000 per year.
Typically, the lessee would seek out the location needed for a tower.
4.) Restructure Course financing (e.g., write-down or write-off internal debt
plus refinancing):
This relieves the Golf Course of debt and hastens its return to positive
cash flow, but short-changes other City Funds that could be paid back
over time.
5.) Privatize Golf Course operation:
This may marginally increase the City’s operational profit, but would not
significantly address the large debt obligation. This scenario requires
thorough feasibility and market analysis, which may require an
investment of additional city funds.
6.) Partnership with another course(s):
This may marginally increase the City’s operational profit, but would not
significantly address the large debt obligation.
Level 2 – Redevelop property and/or expand operations
1.) Sell and/or develop unrestricted land assets:
Land that is unencumbered by deed restrictions (e.g., the current
driving range land) could be sold for private development. This would
be a one time cash infusion that could be used to buy-down debt. The
driving range could be relocated to the west. A feasibility study would
need to be conducted.
2.) Develop wetland credits for western (Sysco) property or other Course
areas:
The City could benefit by selling wetland credits on this property to
willing developers. A Hydrology study of the western (Sysco) area was
performed City by 2000 by Peterson Environmental Consulting and is
available for RCWD review. The City may need to perform additional
engineering study and then find developers willing to purchase such
wetland credits. There is a bank established by the state for such an
exchange. This would be a one time cash infusion that could be used
to buy-down debt. The Rice Creek Watershed District has interest in
further review of this option.
3.) Move all wetland area to the west and develop/consolidate course to east
side of property:
This could open up more land for private development. This would be a
one time cash infusion that could be used to buy-down debt. A
feasibility study would need to be conducted.
4.) Move Holes #2, 3, 4, 5 to wetland area to the west and develop consolidate
course to east side of property:
This could open up more land for private development. This would be a
one time cash infusion that could be used to buy-down debt. A
feasibility study would need to be conducted.
5.) Consolidate course to east side of property. Move two holes to the wetland
area between #2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 and develop:
This would eliminate the present location of holes#8 and 9. This could
open up more land for private development on the west side of
property. This would be a one time cash infusion that could be used to
buy-down debt. A feasibility study would need to be conducted. In
addition, deed restrictions on land would need to be cleared via State
legislative action.
5.) Negotiate with Sysco to develop portions of donated land:
This could open up more land for private development. This would be a
one time cash infusion that could be used to buy-down debt. A
feasibility study would need to be conducted.
6.) Expand Golf Course to 18 holes:
This may marginally increase the City’s operational profit, and would
likely increase debt obligation. Research would need to be done
regarding construction cost and payback period.
7.) Upgrade driving range to increase capacity and expand season
(Heated double-deck, golf dome, virtual golf):
This may marginally increase the City’s operational profit, and would
increase the debt obligation in the short-term. Research would need to
be done regarding construction cost and payback period.
Level 3 – Cease Operations
1.) Close Golf Course and mothball land (retain billboard revenue:
Debt service on the bonds exceeds $300,000 per year. Revenues from
the billboards and driving range (if it remained open) may not even
reach this amount. A continued small subsidy from other funds might
be needed to avoid defaulting on the bonds. The internal loans would
have to be written-off.
2.) Sell Golf Course (retain billboard revenue):
The sale of the course would need to at least equal level of current debt
($4,045,000) in order to break even. In addition, deed restrictions on
land would need to be cleared via State legislative action and/or
negotiation with SYSCO.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council consider the above information and
direct staff to develop detailed implementation plans and prepare cost
estimates for the alternatives the Council chooses to pursue.
Mary Burg, Golf Course Manager
Item No: 1C
Meeting Date: May 3, 2004
Type of Business: Worksession
Administrator Review : ____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Review TIF Plan Modification and Proposed Timeline
Background:
Currently the City’s TIF Plans are a loose collection of documents in a three ring binder
separated by district and by the development plan. Mounds View has three active TIF
Districts. District 1 includes the Mounds View Business Park area, the Mermaid, and a few
parcels along County Highway 10. This district was established in 1985. TIF District 2 is that
area north of County Road I, east of Groveland Road and south of County Highway 10. This
district was created in 1986. TIF District 3 was established in 1988 and includes the area
north of new Highway 10 and west of Coral Sea Street. The golf course open space land
and the driving range are included in this district with Sysco, Zep and the Bridges
Technology Park. In 1994, the EDA effectively consolidated the three development
programs and plans into one master plan. The consolidation resulted in one large
development district (the City) with one development project known as the Project Plan. In
1997, the EDA established TIF District #4 which was then the BelRae Ballroom soon to be
the Mounds View Community Center. At the time of acquisition and plan adoption, a
commercial entity was planned for the building which in the end, did not materialize. Given
no taxes were generated by the district, it was decertified in 1999.
Discussion:
It has become apparent that the City (EDA) will need to process an amendment of its TIF
plans to incorporate the possibility of larger scale development and redevelopment in the
City, specifically and most likely to occur within the County Road 10 corridor. In addition, the
Office of the State Auditor (OSA) has ruled that the EDA may not purchase any land utilizing
tax increment funds without first having amended the plan to explicitly identify those
properties it intends to acquire. Related to that, staff is working to create a map which
identifies those parcels which could potentially be acquired by the EDA. Parcels in targeted
redevelopment areas will be highlighted along with properties where redevelopment could
occur. Also included will be blighted residential properties and underutilized residential
properties that could be resubdivided for more intense development. Finally, the budgets
associated with the districts will need to be amended to reflect the proposed changes to the
project plan.
While the City Council has not yet completed its visioning with regard to corridor
redevelopment and redevelopment in general, putting into motion a timeline to amend the
plan is the first step toward achieving that goal. Accordingly, Staff has asked Ehlers &
Associates (the City’s TIF advisor) to prepare a timeline and assist in the modification. The
letter of confirmation is attached along with a proposed timeline to accomplish the
modification. A map of the City’s TIF districts is also attached for your review. A map of
identified parcels will be available for review Monday.
TIF Plan Report
May 3, 2004
Page 2
Recommendation:
At this point, staff is presenting the proposed timeline and map of identified parcels to the
Council for your information. The timeline can be modified if needed, and with regard to the
map of parcels, we would expect it to be refined and modified as additional parcels are
identified. Once a parcel is “identified” does not however obligate the EDA to acquire it, it
simply provides the Authority with that ability. Because of this, any property that could be
acquired for any type of redevelopment will be identified.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Jim Ericson
Community Development Director
Item No: 2A
Meeting Date: May 3, 2004
Type of Business: Work Session
Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Tracy Juell, Administrative Assistant, Public Works
Department
Item Title/Subject: Limited Garbage/Recycling Pickup Days within the City
&
Update on SCORE Grant Compliance regarding
Recycling availability for Multi-Family Dwellings
Introduction:
During the May 12, July 7 and November 3, 2003 Council meetings discussion was made
regarding the possibility of limiting residential and multi-family garbage/recycling pickups
to 1 or 2 days per week within the City.
Also
Ramsey County informed Staff that the City was not in compliance with the SCORE
Grant because Multi-Family dwellings are not required to provide recycling services for
their residents.
Discussion:
Limited Garbage/Recycling Pickup Days
In May of 2003, Staff surveyed the residential and multi-family garbage haulers asking
them what day(s) of the week would be preferred for their business and customers
should the City decide to limit pickup days:
Hauler 1 Day Preferred 2Days Preferred Comments
Ace Thursday Thursday Just Fine
BFI Thursday Thursday/Friday Would prefer to
keep open hauling
for routing issues.
Larry’s Quality
Sanitation
Wednesday Wednesday Has picked up
garbage in MV for
35 yrs and it has
always been a
Wednesday, he
does not want to
change the day of
the week..
Walters Can’t do Monday/Thursday Picks up
apartment
buildings and
businesses and
they require at
least 3 days. But
he will work with
the City on
anything!
Waste Mgmt Monday Monday/Wednesday Keep with the 1
day a week pickup
if possible.
It should be noted that 4 out of the 5 haulers commented they would work with the City
and if need be, change their schedules to accommodate a decision by Council.
Council will need to determine what day(s) of the week will be less of an impact with the
residents and the hauler and should the City be split in two halves for the purpose of
picking up garbage and recycling in 2 days. If so, the City Code Chapter 603.06 subd. 2,
“Requirements and Restrictions” will need to be amended to reflect this change.
SCORE Grant Compliance regarding Multi-Family Dwellings and Recycling
Availability
Ramsey County had informed Staff that the City was not in compliance with the
conditions of the SCORE Grant due to the fact that Multi-Family Dwellings were not
required to provide recycling services for their residents. In the November 3, 2003 staff
report, Staff gave options as to how the City could get into compliance with the SCORE
Grant, one of which was to change the licensing for Multi-Family Dwelling units to include
a requirement that recycling services must be provided to their residents. A notice was
sent out along with their 2003-04 license explaining the new requirement. (See attached)
Staff will be working with RW Beck, consultant hired by Ramsey County, for assistance in
developing an informational brochure for the residents and property owners/managers of
Multi-Dwelling properties.
It should be noted that Ramsey County stated that the City’s new requirement for Multi-
Dwelling licensing is a step towards compliance. Should the reported tonnages not
significantly increase within the next 1-2 years, they may decide that further action will
need to be taken by the City to become compliant in order to continue receiving the
funding of the SCORE Grant.
Respectfully submitted,
______________ __________
Tracy Juell, Administrative Assistant
Item No. 2B
Meeting Date: May 3, 2004
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: Groveland Park Shelter Building Replacement
Project
Background:
Approximately twenty years ago, the City purchased four (4) temporary
schoolroom buildings to be relocated within City Parks. These were located at
Woodcrest, Random, Hillview, and Groveland Parks.
The Woodcrest building was removed several years ago and the Hillview building
was recently replaced with a permanent concrete block structure at an
approximate cost for $180,000.
Discussion:
In the summer and fall of 2003 the Parks and Recreation Commissioners
performed a “Parks Needs Analysis”. As part of this analysis, the park buildings
at Random and Groveland parks were analyzed. The analysis included a
thorough examination of the physical structure and review of the aesthetics. It
was determined that the Random building was in fair shape and safe to use for
several more years. The Groveland building, however, was found to be in much
worse condition, suffering from decay and mold problems. Although deemed
structurally safe for the next year or so, the Parks and Recreation Commission
classified the Groveland building as a possible park replacement project.
Using the cost estimate from the Hillview project, the replacement of the
Groveland building was compared to other needs within the City park system.
Based on this analysis, the Parks and Recreation Commissioners recommended
that the process for replacing the Groveland building begin in 2004 with an
estimated cost of $20,000 to perform the site plan, constructions plans, and
specifications. The adopted 2004 budget has this item listed under account 285-
4470-3030. The construction was recommended to occur in 2005 at an estimated
cost of $180,000. Parks and Recreation Commissioners also recommended that
funds for both the planning and construction phases be derived for the Park
Dedication Fund. The replacement of the Groveland Building is shown in the
City’s draft Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
The Commissioners have indicated a preference and made a motion to model
the Groveland building after the Hillview building. Given this, the estimated cost
for preparing a site plan, construction plans, and specifications could be reduced
if the consultant that was hired for the Hillview Project is also selected for the
Groveland Park Shelter Building Replacement Project.
There are several small revisions from the Hillview design that are recommended
by the Commissioners. These include creating a serving area and adding a sink.
This will accommodate gatherings and socials held at the park. In addition, to
diversify the use of the building, a small revision was suggested to add a small
storage for tables and chairs.
Long- Range Park Shelter Plan
On February 26, 2004, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the three
remaining temporary structures; Groveland, Random, and Lambert. The
recommended long-range plan for these buildings is as follows:
Groveland Building – Replace with a nearly similar building as Hillview in 2005.
With the rapid deterioration of the Groveland building, Staff recommends that the
City replace the Groveland building with a shelter building similar to the one at
Hillview. With some small changes in the existing plans we can incorporate a
food preparation area and lockable storage in the new building. Staff feels that
there would be a very high demand for a shelter at Groveland that would enable
patrons to prepare and serve food. Another benefit would include heat and air
conditioning to accommodate park patrons. This park has a ball fields, tennis
courts, a basketball hoop, a large playground that accommodates a variety of
age groups, a picnic area, and a volleyball court.
Random Building – This was originally in the City’s Capital Improvement Program
and scheduled to be replaced with a nearly similar building as Hillview in 2007.
However, the Park and Recreation Commissioner’s have made a motion to
continue to get the full use of this building and move it’s replacement beyond the
scope of the cities Capital Improvement Program. At a future date it could be
reconsidered replacement, however at this time it is not included in the city’s
long-range plan.
The Random building is in decent shape and could last for years with some
upkeep. Staff feels that the park is not really suitable for a Hillview-type building
because of its relatively small size. Also, the playground is only suitable for very
young children. Any of the activities for which the building is being used could
also be done at the M.V.C.C.
Lambert Building – As with the Random Building, this too is not included in the
city’s long-range plan. However, at a future date, it could be reconsidered
replacement. If it were to be replaced, the Commissioners current
recommendation would be to replace it with a block building and sized smaller
than the Hillview Building. This building could do without the pavilion type front,
but would include indoor restrooms.
Current Annual Cost of the Hillview Park Shelter
Hillview Park Shelter electricity $868.32 and gas $1,203.43 Total $2,071.75.
Staff only checks the actual park shelter and not the grounds around it. It takes
two and half hours (2 ½ hr./ wk.) per week for maintenance on average. 2.5 X
$30 = $75 per week or $300 per month
Discussion Points
The Groveland building is in dire need of removal due to its deterioration. The
building was designed to be used as an add-on or expansion classroom and it
has long ago outlived its original intended lifespan of 5-7 years. The following are
points of consideration for replacement of the Groveland Park Shelter Building:
The building does not have any overhang at the eves; this allows water
run off to flow down on siding and constantly promotes dampness.
There has been a building budgeted for Groveland for the past 2 years
and Staff has been performing minimum maintenance on it because of its
condition.
The Groveland building is utilized as a warming house and a summer
program area. It is used by numerous scout groups, and for family picnics
and get-togethers. (The majority of the users are Mounds View residents.)
There have been groups that could not get into the Silver View
Park.shelter because it was booked so they opted for Groveland over
Hillview because of the trees and other amenities.
The plans that were designed for Hillview could be used at Groveland with
some small revisions to enable a food serving area and a lockable
storage. These additions could be paid for with what the City would save
on architect and engineer fees.
Groveland Park is a good choice for a building of this type because of the
makeup of the park. (Playground covering various ages, a ball field,
volleyball court, basketball tennis courts, lots of green space and a picnic
area.)
Staff recommends that if a park building is eliminated, that it be
replace the Random building. (Staff feels that we should be able to get
another 5 to 7 years with some maintenance.)
Anything that the Random building is being used for at this time could be
done at the MVCC.
The Groveland site is preferred to the Random site. Random Park is not
big enough for a building of this caliber, all that it has is a playground that
is designed for younger children and if the building was removed the City
could enhance the playground area with picnic tables and benches.
Park building reservations for 2003:
SILVER VIEW 45
GROVELAND 51
HILLVIEW 79
As a note: Silverview Park has a shelter that has running water, bathrooms, and
a food preparation area. It also has ball fields, volleyball courts, a basketball
court, horseshoe pits, a soccer field, walking trails, and a disc golf course along
with a very nice playground. Even with these amenities, more reservations were
made for the Groveland building.
An alternate to replacing the Groveland Park Shelter Building would be to
continue operations for perhaps one more year. At that time the building would
need to be torn down.
Recommendation:
Staff is looking for direction from the City Council pertaining to this matter.
Specifically, Staff is looking for Council input as to whether the City Council
wishes to proceed with the replacement of the Groveland Park Shelter Building.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item No. 2C
Meeting Date: May 3, 2004
Type of Business: WK
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
Administrator Review: _____ City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Mounds View Manufactured Home Park
Second Access Proposal
Background:
At the February 2, 2004 Work Session, Staff presented three funding options for
installation of the second access for the Mounds View Manufactured Home Park.
These options are listed below. The complete staff report from February is
attached.
Option No. 1 The City to pay the full estimated cost of $46,000
Staff does not recommend this option. There a clearly a
benefit for the Mounds View Manufactured Home
Community; they should, therefore, participate in the
financing.
Option No. 2 City to pay for the work within the City right-of-way and
the Park to pay for the work associated with upgrading
their driveway
City $28,650 / Park $17,350
Staff recommends this option should the City Council wish to
help facilitate a second access. This option best assigns cost
fairly to the responsible parties.
Option No. 3 The Park to pay the full estimated cost of $46,000
Staff does not recommend this option. It is Staff’s opinion
that if this amount is to be assessed, the City could not
demonstrate full benefit. Much of the proposed work would
be performed on a City owned street, for which the City has
jurisdiction.
At the February 2, 2004 Work Session, City Council indicated that they would be
agreeable to splitting the cost based on where the work was occurring (city right-
of-way versus private property). As a result, Council selected Option No. 2 as the
preferred option. The City would pay improvements on Belle Lane and Raymond
Avenue; the Park would pay for those items associated with the second driveway
access.
Discussion:
The February 2004 Staff report indicated that grant funding might be a possible
funding source; specifically the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG
Grant). This particular grant is available through Ramsey County to assist lower
income housing and manufactured home facilities to make improvements to
make them or keep them desired elements of the community.
In recent weeks, the City has secured a CDBG Grant for the purpose of installing
a second access. The grant amount is $30,000.00.
The issue now is how the grant should be applied as a funding source. Staff is
recommending that it be applied proportionately based on the previously agreed
City / Park split. Given this, the revised funding is as follows:
$28,650.00 Public Street Work
$17,350.00 Private Driveway Work
$46,000.00 Total estimated cost
City’s cost $28,650 – ((28,650/$46,000)*$30,000)
$28,650 - $18,685 = $9,965.00
Park’s cost $28,650 – ((17,350/$46,000)*$30,000)
$17,350 - $11,315 = $6,035.00
CDBG Grant = $30,000.00
Total Funding $46,000.00
There is an infinite number of ways the grant monies could be applied to this
project.
• One other option would be to apply the grant 100% to the City’s cost. This
would completely eliminate the City’s cost and reduce the Park’s cost by
$1,350; reducing the total to $16,000.00
• Another option would be to not have the Park pay any portion of the
project; the City’s cost would then be $16,000.00.
Recommendation:
Staff is looking for direction from the City Council pertaining to this matter.
Specifically, Staff is looking for Council input as to how the grant should be
applied to funding and what proposal the City Council would like to make to the
owner of the Mounds View Manufactured Home Park to help facilitate the
creation of a second access.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item No. 6
Meeting Date: February 2, 2004
Type of Business: WK
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
Administrator Review: _____ City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Mounds View Manufactured Home Park
Second Access Proposal
Background:
At the November 4, 2002 Work Session, Staff presented the issue of creating a
second access to two of the three manufactured home sites in Mounds View,
Mounds View Mobile Home Park and Towns Edge Terrace. Neither site currently
complies with the City Ordinance 1110.05 subdivision 2a, “Park Site shall have at
least two (2) points of ingress and egress for vehicles.”
On January 13, 2003, the City Council approved Resolution No. 5931 authorizing
the engineering firm of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik, and Associates (BRAA) to
provide engineering services, including municipal and traffic engineering, at
these two manufactured home parks.
A draft of the feasibility report for the Mounds View Manufactured Home
Community was completed and presented to the City Council for their review and
comment at the June 2, 2003 Work Session. The report for Towns Edge Terrace
Manufactured Home Community was presented to the City Council on July 7,
2003.
Prior to conducting a Public Improvement Hearing and seeking the City Council’s
approval of the preliminary feasibility reports for the two Manufactured Home
Communities, Staff met with the respective park owners and managers to
discuss the findings of the report. Staff also organized and conducted two
separate Neighborhood Meetings to present and discuss the proposed second
access.
The Neighborhood Meeting for the Mounds View Manufactured Home
Community was held on June 24, 2003. The Neighborhood Meeting for the
Towns Edge Terrace Manufactured Home Community was held on August 26,
2003.
On October 6, 2003, all data collected pertaining to the manufactured home
access study was presented to the City Council. On October 13, 2003 the City
Council approved the feasibility reports for the manufactured Home Park second
access.
On November 3, 2003 Staff presented opinions from the City’s legal counsel
pertaining this matter. These opinions stated that the City’s legal authority to
require a second access is somewhat limited. Based on these opinions, the City
will not be requiring a second access at the two parks that currently have only
one access. However, City Council recognizing the merit of having a second
access from a public safety and somewhat from a traffic circulation standpoint,
directed staff to work with the property owners to facilitate the construction of a
second access if they so desired.
Discussion:
The owner of the Towns Edge Terrace Manufactured Home Community, Gerold
Toberman, has on several occasions made it clear that he was not in support of
a second access at Towns Edge Terrace Manufactured Home Community.
Therefore, a proposal to Mr. Toberman to facilitate the provision of a second
access is not sought at this time.
Mounds View Manufactured Home Community, however, is a different case. In
December of 2003, Staff contacted Perry Hanson of Durand & Associates
Property Management Inc.. At that time, Mr. Hansen requested Staff to develop
a proposal that he could take back to the property owner for consideration.
The report for this project did not identify a funding source. Should the Council
choose to offer the utilization of City funds to finance a second access to the
Mounds View Manufactured Home Community, a funding source(s) will need to
be identified. Since the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community will
benefit from the second access, it may be possible to assign all, or a portion, of
the cost to that site. It would be very unlikely to show any benefit to adjacent or
nearby properties; therefore assessments for these properties is not likely.
Staff has requested BRAA to split the cost based on the work that is associated
with public roadways (Belle Lane and Raymond Avenue) and private driveways
(proposed driveway into the Manufactured Home Community).
The split is:
$28,650.00 Public Street Work
$17,350.00 Private Driveway Work
$46,000.00 Total estimated cost
Given this data, Staff is providing three possible proposals to present to the
owner of the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community. These are:
Option No. 1 The City to pay the full estimated cost of $46,000
Staff does not recommend this option. There a clearly a
benefit for the Mounds View Manufactured Home
Community, they should, therefore, participate in the
financing.
Option No. 2 City to pay for the work within the City right-of-way and
the Park to pay for the work associated with upgrading
their driveway
City $28,650 / Park $17,350
Staff recommends this option should the City Council wish to
help facilitate a second access. This option best assigns cost
fairly to the responsible parties.
Option No. 3 The Park to pay the full estimated cost of $46,000
Staff does not recommend this option. It is Staff’s opinion
that if this amount is to be assessed, the City could not
demonstrate full benefit. Much of the proposed work would
be performed on a City owned street, for which the City has
jurisdiction.
For all three Options, should the City Council wish to proceed, the project could
be added as a Change Order to the 2003 Street Improvement Project and
constructed in 2004. The Mounds View Manufactured Home Community could
then be assessed for this project with an assessment period of ten (10) years.
Should the City Council wish to facilitate a second access to the Mounds View
Manufactured Home Community, Staff recommends that Option No. 2 be
proposed to the owner of the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community.
Possible Grant Assisted Funding
Another factor to consider regarding this issue is possible grants that may be
available to assist in the financing of this project. One grant in particular may be a
possible candidate: the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG Grant).
This particular grant is available through Ramsey County to assist lower income
housing and manufactured home facilities to make improvements to make them
or keep them desired elements of the community.
Opposition to the Project
On June 24, 2003, at the Neighborhood Meeting, and at several subsequent
meetings, the residents along Belle Lane have voiced concerns regarding the
establishment of a second access. Should this project go forward, the City would
need to conduct a Public Hearing with all nearby property owners being notified.
Recommendation:
Staff is looking for direction from the City Council pertaining to this matter.
Specifically, Staff is looking for Council input as to what proposal City Council
would like to make to the owner of the Mounds View Manufactured Home Park to
help facilitate the creation of a second access.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item No. 2D
Meeting Date: May 3, 2004
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: Lions Passenger Bus
Background:
The City is currently in possession of a 16-person passenger bus with a
wheelchair lift to make it compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act
(ADA). The bus was purchased by the Lions Club and donated to the city in May
of 1991. The intent for the bus was it was to be a amenity used by groups such
as Church groups, Various Clubs, Lions Scouts, Senior Field Trips, Volunteer
Food delivery during the Holidays, Outings for our Park Programs and some City
business.
Discussion:
The current insurance rate on this bus is $2,700 per year. This amount is due
July 1st. In addition to insurance, there are other cost such as upkeep, licensing,
storage, maintenance, and fuel that all contribute to the City’s overall cost to
operate this particular vehicle.
Given this, Staff has raised the question …”is operating the passenger bus cost
effective for the City? “
The bus gets used on the average of between 16 and 20 times a year and of
those times used approximately one fourth are for A.D.A. (Handicap) Transit.
In addition, the YMCA uses the bus numerous times in the summer to shuttle
kids to various park activities.
The Lions Club uses the bus at least four (4) times a year.
The bus needs to be inspected on a yearly basis because it is equipped with a
wheel chair lift.
The bus has been maintained by the city and has not needed a great deal of
upkeep although it did require an engine change that the Lions club paid for.
Alternative
An alternative to using the existing bus would be to rent a similar vehicle. There
are several places that the City can rent a van from. They vary in price
substantially based on if a driver and / or the van is ADA compliant.
Laidlaw Transit Inc.
25 passenger bus w/driver $225 for the first 4 hours
NOT ADA accessible $39 each additional hour
Lorenz Bus Service spoke with Doug
16 passenger bus w/driver between 9:00-2:30 discount rate of $247.50
ADA accessible normal rate for 9:00-2:30 is $410.00
Jefferson Lines spoke with Wendy
smallest bus in 47 passenger
Courtesy Car & Van Rental
15 passenger van
NOT ADA accessible
Avis Rent A Car
Only carry 7 passenger vans
Budget
12 passenger van
NOT ADA accessible
Entreprise Rent-A-Car spoke with Erica
Set the City up on their corporate rate
15 passenger - ADA accessible $99.00/day plus 15.7% tax
7 passenger minivan is ADA accessible $125/day plus 15.7% tax
National Car Rental
Minivans the largest
Roseville Midway Ford
15 passenger van $69.95/day plus tax $0.25/mile over 150 miles
NOT ADA accessible Can take their insurance at $20.00/day
Two additional points to make:
1) Renting a van without a driver, there would be an additional expenditure to
have someone go to a rental agent to pick up and return the van.
2) Having the convenience of the bus being located at Public Works may
foster greater usage than driving several miles and going through the
checkout procedure for renting a van.
The bus was converted to propane fuel use and so remains, this would limit its
market / salvage value. There may be an issue on ownership – the Lions may
still own the bus.
Recommendation:
Staff is looking for direction from the City Council pertaining to this matter.
Specifically, Staff is looking for Council direction to either retain the Lions
Passenger Bus or relinquish stewardship and return the bus to the lions.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works