HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2004/06/07
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA
June 7, 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 Items
_______ A. Long Range Financial Plan
_______ B. Discussion of priorities for the 2005 budget
2. Current Projects and Issues
_______ A. Trunk Highway 10 Noise Wall / Berm Project Update
_______ B. Sanitary Sewer Illicit Connection Inspection Program
_______ C. Golf Course Study Update
3. Administrative Items
_______ A. Review Section 1104.01, Subdivision 4c(1)(a) Pertaining to Driveway Setback
in residential Districts
_______ B. Review Proposed Changes to Chapter 1204 Pertaining to Park Dedication
Requirements Associated with Subdivisions of Land
_______ C. Review Attorney’s Opinion Regarding Resolution 5555
_______ D. Develop Parcel Database – Hire Seasonal
_______ E. Report on Passenger Bus
Next Council Work Session: Tuesday, July 6, 2004
Next City Council Meeting: Monday, June 14, 2004
Item No. 1B
Meeting Date: June 7, 2004
Type of Business: Work Session
City Administrator Review: ______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Charles Hansen, Finance Director
Item Title/Subject: Discussion of Priorities for the 2005 Budget
In the coming weeks, the staff will begin working on the details of the 2005 budget.
Many of the key issues were discussed in the Five Year General Fund Operating
Budget Projection, the preceding item on this agenda.
This item is placed on the agenda to give the City Council the opportunity to provide
input early in the process. Department Heads can then use this guidance as they work
on the details of their proposed budgets.
Key 2005 Budget Issues:
Loss of state aid
The State of Minnesota enacted cut in local government aid (LGA) that impacted the
City of Mounds View in 2004 and again in 2005. The 2005 loss is $360,238.
Operating expenses
LGA cuts for 2004 amounted to $450,000. The state allowed the City to make up 60%
of this as an increase in the property tax levy. The other 40% ($180,000) plus all
allowances for inflation had to be absorbed by budget cuts. Departments cut these
amounts from their draft budgets before they were ever presented to the City Council
last August. This was done almost entirely in areas that were not visible to the public.
Making cuts this year without impact on public services will be far more difficult. If the
City Council wants cuts in the budget, they should be prepared to identify service areas
that can be reduced.
Property tax levy
At this time, it appears that there will not be levy limits in place for 2005. This gives the
City Council the option of raising property taxes to cover the $360,238 loss of LGA and
inflation.
Before proceeding on this course of action, it must be remembered that Mounds View
property tax rates are already set to increase by about $190,000 for debt service on the
street improvement bonds. Similar increases will occur each succeeding year as new
street improvement bonds are sold.
Conclusion
There will be no easy budget answers for 2005. Carefully considered input from the
City Council can help guide us to a budget solution that will be most acceptable to the
City Council and the residents of Mounds View.
Respectfully Submitted,
Charles Hansen
Item No. 2A
Meeting Date: June 7, 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: TH 10 Noise Wall / Berm Project Update
Background:
On April 5, 2004, Ulteig Engineers gave a presentation, which conveyed the
status of the Trunk Highway 10 Noise Wall / Berm Project, to the City Council. At
that time, they lacked data pertaining to the costs associated with the
construction of the wall proposed to be erected in the LaPort Neighborhood area.
Discussion:
Ulteig Engineers have completed draft designs and cost estimates for Phase
One. Phase One starts in Arden Park where the existing wall terminates and runs
easterly past the LaPort Neighborhood to Jackson Drive. The report breaks the
project into three segments: Segment "A", the area adjacent to Arden Park,
Segment "B", the wetland area east of Arden Park and west of the LaPort
Neighborhood, and finally Segment "C", the LaPort Neighborhood.
For segment "A", the report calls for extendig the existing wall approximately 432
feet to the east and then tying it into a berm - at an estimated cost of
$213,758.05
For segment "B", the report calls for a berm - at an estimated cost of $89,177.00
For segment "C", the report calls for a 20 foot high wall - at an estimated cost of
$347,690.20
Mn/DOT’s INPUT
Staff, along with the City Consultant, has been working with Mn/DOT for the last
few years on this issue. In an effort to get the latest information from Mn/DOT,
Staff posed several questions to Frank Pafko, Mn/DOT Regional Manager. The
following are the questions posed along with Mr/. Pafko’s responses:
1.) What is an estimated time frame to add a third eastbound lane to this
segment of highway - either north or south of the existing lanes?
Major construction on TH 10 is probably 20+ years out. Need to expand I-
35W before adding more capacity to TH 10. Extending just the lane to
northbound I-35W on TH 10 would be categorized as an auxiliary lane and
wouldn't count as an additional lane. Even if we could argue this point, that
project is not currently programmed and should be considered around 15+ years
out.
2.) Mn/ DOT has made a verbal commitment to contribute $300,000 to this
project. This was based on 1000 feet of 20' wall at $15/sq. ft.Our current
estimates are using $17/sq.ft. Would Mn/DOT be willing to increase their
financial commitment to this project?
No, Mn/DOT can't commit any more program dollars, but we are going to do
the construction inspection on this project. So, that, in essence, is contributing at
least $24,000 (based on $300,000 project and 8% for inspection).
3.) Assuming that Mn/DOT approves the plans by mid July and bids are
received in early September, when would these fund be available?
The $300,000 is programmed for FY 2006. Therefore the funds would be
available at the time of letting anytime after July 1, 2005. However, if the project
is ready earlier, I will ask if this funding can be advanced to FY 2005. No
guarantees, but I will try.
4.) Would Mn/DOT ever consider a contract whereby the City, using its
funds, constructs noise walls and berms in areas where Mn/DOT will have
a future obligation and have Mn/DOT reimburse the City, at a future date,
when Mn/DOT would have constructed these noise abatement items?
Probably not. Hard to track on projects that are 25+ years out. The Legislature
passed authority to allow loans to local units of government to advance
construction of projects on IRC's (TH 10 qualifies). However, the condition is
that the project has to be in Mn/DOT's 10 -year program. (Additional noisewalls
on TH 10 do not qualify).
Also, when lanes are added in the future, they will qualify as an expansion
project, which is eligible for Federal funds. The noise wall would then be paid for
with 80% Federal Funds and 20% State funds, so we would only be able to give
back 20% to the City (Feds won't pay for something already built). If we waited
and went the normal route (noise wall construction only), this project is 57 out of
70 on list, so it would be 28 years out using all State funds and 100%
reimbursement to the City. Mn/DOT does not commit to reimbursement for
projects this far out. Sorry.
Staff has invited Mr. Pafkop to the Work Session. Mr. Pafko has accepted and
may be bring along one or two other experts.
Recommendation:
Staff is looking for direction from the City Council pertaining to this matter.
Specifically, Staff is looking for Council input as to how they would like to proceed
with the TH 10 Noise Wall / Berm Project.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item No. 2B
Meeting Date: June 7, 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: Sanitary Sewer Illicit Connection Inspection
Program
Background:
In 2003, the City of Mounds View budgeted $740,000 for sanitary sewer service
from the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES). In 2004 this
amount was increased to $760,000. With ever-increasing sanitary sewer
charges, the City is looking for ways to reduce these costs.
Since the sanitary sewer charge is assigned to the City based on the flow rate, it
is in the community’s best interest to eliminate any unnecessary sources of flow
into the sanitary sewer stream.
Discussion:
Staff is proposing to initiate a program hereby properties are inspected by the
City to ensure there is no illicit connections to the sanitary sewer system.
There are several stages in developing this program:
Change Ordinance Stage
• Define program
• Set disconnection date (November 1, 2004)
• Set up inspection process
• Allow possible future inspections
• Provide an incentive
• Set penalty
• Review / Approval by Legal Counsel
Public Contact Stage
• Mounds View Matters – publish article in July / August Issue
• Post information on the City’s WEB site
• Submit newspaper articles
• Develop a brochure
• Develop door hangers
Inspection Stage
• Segment the City into “inspection zones”
• Generate address list / develop database
• Develop inspection sheets
• Send notification to a zone
• Inspect zone during non-business hours – evenings
• Arrange properties into three categories: Acceptable, Non-compliant, Non-
inspected
• Non-compliant properties – go to next step
• Non- inspected properties – contact and schedule specific inspection time
• Other non-sewer related items – identify blighted properties, code
violations
Follow up / Compliant Stage
• Develop acceptable solutions
• Develop detail sheets (recharge well, storm sewer connection)
• Define physical options to correct issue
• Define financial options – reimbursement plan, assessment option
• Use their own plumbing contractor
• Follow-up inspection / Revise database
• Collect copies of invoices and receipts
• Reimburse property owners / assess property owners
Long Term Street Projects Stage
• Look at addressing areas with problem ground water / sump pump
discharge as part of a Street Major Maintenance Project – provide storm
sewer services to these areas
What’s Next – The adopted 2004 budget (Account No. 730-4823-3030) has
$46,500 under Wastewater Infrastructure Fund for professional services
associated with this Sanitary Sewer Illicit Connection Inspection Program. It was
planned that this amount would be used to cover any and all overtime paid to
City employees associated with this inspection program.
The cost for an incentive program would need to be determined should the City
Council wish to provide an incentive. Possible sources would be the Wastewater
Contingency Account (account 730-4823-9100), which has $15,000 available.
There was also a cost savings of $41,000 from the budget for the sewer
televising unit.
The City of Fridley had a similar program in 1995, whereby they inspected about
8,000 properties and had discovered about 380+ non-conforming properties.
Only small fraction applied for the City incentive, which was to pay for ½ of the
cost, up to $450.00. Representatives of the City of Fridley stated that many, if not
most, peopled corrected the illicit connection themselves.
GENERAL PROJECT OUTLINE
Sanitary Sewer Illicit Connection Inspection Program
Developed June 2, 2004
Revised / Update: XXXXXX, 2004
=============================================================
June 2, 2004 Create and Submit the Mounds View Matters Article.
See Attachment B.
June 7, 2004 Present the program to City Council at a Work Session
Meeting.
June 14, 2004 Introduction and first reading of the ordinance change.
See Attachment A
June 28, 2004 Second reading and adoption of the ordinance change.
See Attachment A
July 1, 2004 Mounds View Matters Article is published.
July 16, 2004 All necessary documents and databases are created.
July 19, 2004 First round of notices are sent out.
August 1, 2004 Revised Ordinance is in effect.
August 2, 2004 Inspections begin.
November 1, 2004 Compliance deadline.
Nov - Dec 31, 2004 Work with property owners who are not in compliance.
January 1, 2004 Start assigning a penalty to non-compliance properties.
Recommendation:
Staff is looking for direction from the City Council pertaining to this matter.
Specifically, Staff is looking for Council input as to any changes to the draft
ordinance revision. Staff is also looking for general input to the proposed
program.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 907.06 ENTITLED
“STORM WATER” IN THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CODE.
907.06 STORM WATER: It shall be unlawful to discharge or cause to be
discharged into the Municipal sewer system, either directly or indirectly,
any roof, storms, surface, or ground, sump pump, footing tile, or other
natural precipitation, water of any type or kind or water discharged from
any air conditioning unit or system. (1988 Code § 71.07)
Subd. 1. Definition and Method: Dwellings and other buildings and structures
which require, because of the infiltration of water into basements, crawl spaces and the
like, a sump pump system to discharge excess water, shall have a permanently installed
discharge line which shall not at any time discharge water into the sanitary sewerage
system. A permanent installation shall be one which provides for year-round discharge
capability to either the outside of the dwelling, building or structure, or is connected to
the City storm sewer or discharges to the within the property or drainage easement. It
shall consist of a rigid discharge line, without valving or quick connections for altering
the path of discharge. Discharge directly into the street or street guttering system is
prohibited.
Subd. 2. Disconnection: Before November 1, 2004, any person, firm or
corporation having a roof, surface, ground, sump pump, footing, or air conditioning unit
or system now connected and/or discharging into the sanitary sewer system shall
disconnect and/or remove same. Any disconnects or openings in the sanitary sewer shall
be closed or repaired in an effective, workmanlike manner, as approved by the City
Building Inspector.
Subd. 3. Inspection: Every person owning improved real estate that discharges into
the City’s sanitary sewer system shall allow an employee of the City of Mounds View or
their designated representative(s) to inspect the building(s) to confirm that there is no
sump pump or other prohibited discharge into the sanitary sewer system. Any person
refusing to allow their property to be inspected within (14) days of the date City
employee(s) or their designated representative(s) are denied admittance to the property,
shall become subject to the surcharge hereinafter provided for. Any property found to
violate this Ordinance shall make the necessary changes to comply with the Ordinance
and furnish proof of the changes to the City by November 1, 2004.
Subd. 4 Future Inspections: At any future time, if the City has reason to suspect
that an illegal connection may exist in a premises, the owner, by written notice shall
comply with the provisions of Chapter 907.6, Subd. 3.
Subd. 5. Incentive: There are a number of methods to dispose of sump effluent.
These include pumping the water into a cistern or discharging it within the property. Any
property which has an existing illegal connection may apply for City financial assistance
by requesting a City inspector to verify the illegal connect, have the repair completion
verified and submit a receipt(s) for labor and/or materials (self-help labor rate valued at
$20.00 for the complete job). Upon verification of the corrective action and costs, the
City will remit to the property owner one-half of the cost to correct the illegal connection
to a maximum of $300.00 per installation. The property owner may petition the City to
abate the problem and assess the property owners cost for the corrective work over a 3-
year period. This incentive program is in effect until November 1, 2004.
Subd. 6 Surcharge: A surcharge of $75.00 per quarter is hereby imposed and
added to every sewer billing mailed on and after January 1, 2005 to property owners that
are not in compliance with this ordinance. The surcharge shall be added for the entire
quarter until the property is compliance.
Subd. 7 Penalties: Any violation of this Chapter is a misdemeanor and is subject
to penalties provided for such violations under provision of Chapter 702 of this code.
ATTACHMENT B
IS YOUR SUMP PUMP COSTING YOU MONEY?
For Minnesota property owners, sump pumps can be a basement’s best friend during March through
October rains, but where the water goes after the pump collects it can be a costly problem. If your
sump pump is misdirected to discharge into Mounds View’s sanitary sewer system, this is called a
“cross connection”, and it results in higher charges for disposal and treatment of sewage.
WASTEWATER AND CLEAR WATER
From early spring and throughout the summer, the sanitary sewer system handles one to two times its
normal volume of water. The problem is that the additional volume, mostly from sump pumps, is not the
wastewater intended for the system - it’s clear water. Wastewater is any water goes down any drain
inside a residence or structure from showers, sinks, tubs, toilets, washing machines, etc. Wastewater
needs to go through the wastewater facility for treatment before it is released into the environment.
Wastewater from Mounds View travels through the City’s sanitary sewer system and goes to the
Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant in St. Paul. Wastewater treatment is provided through the
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Division (MCES). Utility customers pay a rate each billing
period to cover costs for disposal and treatment of sewage.
Clear water does NOT have to be treated before it’s returned to area lakes, ponds, streams, and
rivers. To get clear water back into the natural water system, it should be directed into the storm
sewer system or onto the ground where it can be absorbed. Clear water is rainwater, ground water, or
snow melt which is exactly the type of water a sump pump handles. When this water is directed into
the sanitary sewer system, utility customers pay for the increased flow and treatment of what is
essentially already clean water.
HOW TO AVOID THE PROBLEM
Sump pump systems are designed to capture surface or ground water that enters basements or crawl
spaces and pump it away from the house. If the hose from your sump pump leads to a laundry tub or a
floor drain, it is emptying into the sanitary sewer system and costing Mounds View residents more in
sewer treatment costs. An overloaded sanitary sewer system can also potentially cause back-ups,
which can flood basements and defeat the purpose of the sump pump.
Sump pump discharges need to be directed to the storm water system via one of two methods:
A direct connection (a pipe from the house to the main storm sewer line), if available
Directly onto the ground (preferably 20 feet from the house and not into a neighbor’s yard)
City Solution
To ensure every property is discharging clear water from sump pumps, rainspouts, etc. correctly, the
City of Mounds View is considering enacting a citywide inspection program later this year. If enacted,
City employees will be going door to door to inspect the plumbing and rain gutters of all properties in
Mounds View.
For more information regarding sump pump discharge in Mounds View, contact Tim Pittman, Public
Works Supervisor at 763-717-4053 or at www.tim.pittman@ci.mounds-view.mn.us.
Sewer Costs are Rising and You can help Slow them down!
Problem: Large amounts of ground and storm water are infiltrating into the Mounds
View sanitary system causing disposal costs to skyrocket.
Solution: Discharge ALL sump pump water and roof drains properly – not in to the
sanitary sewer.
Benefit: Control sewage disposal costs. Reduce the chance of sewer system overload
and the chance of sewer backups in to basements.
Item No: 3A
Meeting Date: June 7, 2004
Type of Business: Worksession
Administrator Review : ____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Review of City Code Section 1104.01, Subd 4c(1)(a)
Pertaining to Driveway Setbacks in residential
Districts
Introduction:
Driveways in single-family and two-family residential zoning districts are permitted at five-foot
setbacks to the side lot lines. Section 1104.01, Subd 4c(1)(a) provides for an exception for
a one foot setback as long as the adjoining property owner or owners consent by signing a
statement to that effect. If the reduced setback would cause the driveway to be located in an
easement, the property owner would need to first obtain an encroachment permit from the
responsible authority, if such a permit is required.
Discussion:
The intent of this provision is to allow for driveways closer to the property line in the R-1 and
R-2 zoning districts than what is ordinarily allowed if the neighbor agrees. While this allows
some flexibility for the property owner, the question that should be addressed is whether the
neighbor should have that authority. Staff does not support the current language allowing
the neighbor to control the outcome of a driveway location for a variety of reasons:
• The neighbor may be pressured or coerced into signing the consent form
• The neighbor may fear retaliation if they fail to consent
• The neighbor may consent, then move the next month, and the new neighbor
opposes the location so close to the property line
• Granting the neighbor “veto rights” may infringe on the subject property owner’s
rights to due process.
If the Council were to take the position that the neighbor consent requirement is
unacceptable, the Code should be amended to allow by right either a five-foot setback or
the one-foot setback. Staff would support elimination of the one-foot setback for the
following reasons:
• Researching easement locations is time consuming for staff
• Keeping the five foot setback allows for channeled drainage between homes
• Neighbors no longer put in the uncomfortable and inappropriate position of having
to say yes or no to a driveway
• Maintaining a five foot setback would ensure easement areas remain unimproved
• Reduced setbacks should be granted by variance
Driveway Report
June 7, 2004
Page 2
Recommendation:
Discuss this section of the City Code and direct staff to gather additional information or to
prepare an ordinance to amend the Code as you determine.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
Attachments:
1. City Code Section 1104.01, Subd 4b
2. City Code Section 1104.01, Subd 4c(1)(a)
Mounds View City Code
Section 1104.01 Subd 4:
b. Driveways:
(1) Driveways shall have a minimum setback of five feet (5')( from any lot line,
except as permitted in Section 1104.01, subdivision 4c(1)(a) and Section
1121.15, subdivision 2 of this Title. Driveways shall be permitted to cross a
required setback area in order to establish access between the lot and a public
street. Where a driveway would encroach into an easement, the property
owner shall obtain an encroachment permit if required by the City prior to
construction of the driveway. Drive aisles and driveways which are within the
boundaries of a parking area shall conform to the setbacks required for parking
areas. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96; Ord. 620, 7-27-98; Ord. 642, 1-10-00)
(2) Driveways in existence as of the date of enactment of ordinance 620 and
which do not conform to the provisions of this subsection, may continue
subject to the provisions of Section 902.02, subdivision 2. (Ord. 620, 7-27-98;
Ord. 642, 1-10-00)
c. Parking Areas:
(1) R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-O:
(a) residential uses:
Parking lots and driveways shall be set back five feet (5'), except in the
R-1 and R-2 districts, parking areas and driveways shall be permitted
with a setback of one foot (1') provided the owner(s) of the abutting
lot(s) indicates their permission on a form acceptable to the City.
Where a parking area would encroach into an easement, the property
owner shall obtain approval for an encroachment permit if required by
the appropriate authority prior to construction of the driveway. (Ord.
524, 2-22-93; Ord. 590, 11-25-96; Ord. 620, 7-27-98; Ord. 642, 1-10-
00)
Item No. 3D
Meeting Date: June 7, 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: Parcel Database
Storm Water Utility
Background:
On August 23, 1993, The City Council passed Ordinance No. 529. This
ordinance established the City’s Surface Water Management Utility Charge.
Discussion:
At the time the Surface Water Management Utility Charge was developed a
database was needed to be developed to properly charge properties the Storm
Water Utility as prescribed by ordinance. As of this date, as best as can be
determined by Staff, no such database exists.
A database is critical in adjusting the rates for not only the Storm Water Utility
Rate but other rates as well. A database will also insure that the rate adjustments
are being done in such a manner so as to be in compliance with the City
ordinance that established such charges.
Example: On January 24, 2004 the City Council approved a rate adjustment to
the Storm Water Utility Fee. This was done via ordinance revision No. 728. Since
a database was not available, the rate adjustment was based on a percent
increase of existing charges and not based on the requirements of Ordinance
No. 529 which established the City’s Surface Water Management Utility Charge.
There was also great difficultly in making the adjustment to every non-residential
property in the City. What should have taken less than a minute to change a
base rate in a database took many Staff hours to change each properties rate.
Proposal
Staff is proposing to hire a seasonal / temporary data entry student to assist the
City in entering the necessary data to complete the Financial database. This
person would use existing data from the County, and then add in the necessary
data fields. This person would work approximately three months this summer at a
rate around $10.50 per hour. This represents a total expenditure of $5,000.
The City also has the issue of the Storm Water Utility Charge being based simply
on land use and the size of that property. The fairest and most defensible way to
assign the Storm Water Utility Charge is to base it on the actual runoff that each
property is generating. To do so, a formula is applied to all non-residential
properties that calculates run off and converts it to a “Residential Equivalent”
amount. Factors such as wetland areas and impervious areas (such as parking
lots and building pads) are used in the calculation. Staff has developed the
structure of this database. It is now a simple matter if adding the data.
So in addition to updating the Finance Billing Database, there is the possibility
that this person could be used to add a few more data fields which would give the
City the option to explore the possibility of changing structure of the Storm Water
Utility charge from one based simply on land use and the size of that property to
one that is based on the actual run off created by a particular property.
Part of the duties of this proposed seasonal / temporary data entry student would
be to retrieve and re-file older commercial construction and site plans. As a side
benefit, these plans could be re-organized and categorized.
Budget
Since the main benefit for this work will be realized in Strom Water Management,
it is proposed that the majority of the wages should be derived from the City’s
Storm Water Utility Fund. There may be other funds that may be used base on
the benefit derived. These include the Street Light Utility Fund, along with the
Water and Sewer fund.
Recommendation:
Staff is looking for direction from the City Council pertaining to this matter.
Specifically, Staff is looking for Council input on Staff’s proposal to hire a
seasonal / temporary data entry student to assist the City in entering the
necessary data to complete the Financial database.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item No: 03E
Meeting Date: 06/07/04
Type of Business: WS
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Report on 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.
This Item was reviewed at the May Work Session by the City Council. It was the
consensus to have staff check with Spring Lake Park to see if there was an interest in
sharing the service and it was indicated that the Lions would discuss the bus at their next
meeting.
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 raised the question …”is operating the passenger bus cost effective for
the City? “
The bus gets used on the average of between 34 to 39 times a year and of those times
used approximately one fourth are for A.D.A. (Handicap) Transit. The YMCA uses the
bus about 12 times in the summer to shuttle kids to various park activities. The Lions
Club uses the bus about 4-5 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.
Alternatives:
The City of Spring Lake Park is not interested in sharing the cost and use of the vehicle.
The City of New Brighton was also asked if they had an interest in sharing the cost and
use of the vehicle and they have not expressed an interest.
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. Based on current usage, the cost to
rent (see attachment) appears to offer only marginal savings and is offset by the
inconvenience and administrative cost of utilizing a rental vehicle on daily basis.
Two additional points to make:
1) Renting a van without a driver, there would be an additional expenditure to have
someone pick up and return the van to the rental company.
2) Having the convenience of the bus being located at Public Works may foster greater
usage than if users are required to go through the process of renting a van.
The bus is converted to propane fuel use, this would limit its market / salvage value. If gas
prices continue to climb, an alternative fuel vehicle such as this may offer more operational
savings. There is also an issue on ownership, as the Lions Club is still shown as the owner
of the bus.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City retain the passenger bus for the current year. The
operating cost compared to renting (excluding depreciation) is about equal based upon the
number of times it gets used. Also, the vehicle has a relatively low resale value due to its
propane engine, even though the bus has low mileage of 12,473. It is recommended the
City reconsider this item at the time of vehicle replacement.
Respectfully submitted,
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
SURVEY OF RENTAL COSTS: PASSENGER VAN
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