HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2002/07/01M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2002\City Council\Work Session Packets\07-01-02\Agenda.doc
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
WORKSESSION AGENDA
MONDAY, July 1, 2002
6:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL: Sonterre, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomas
Items Discussed Per Consensus
_______ 1. Discussion of Budget Items – Hansen
Golf Course Bond Issue
Status of Audit
Budget Calendar/ TNT Requirements/Levy Limitations/ LGA
Clear Channel Billboard Lease Payments
_______ 2. Trunk Highway (TH) 10 Noise Abatement Issue – Lee
_______ 3. Bus Safety Committee - Requested Items - Lee
_______ 4. Discussion Regarding Part-time Cable TV Technician
(oral report)- Miller
_______ 5. Discussion Concerning Theater PUD (Ericson)
a. Trees at Intersection of 10 & Long Lake Road
b. Removal of Parcel from Theater Development Agreement
and Planned Unit Development
_______ 6. Discussion of Request from Everest Group, LTD for a
Revised Development Agreement for C.G. Hill Project –
Backman
(This report will be emailed to you and placed in your
City Hall mailboxes on Sunday.)
_______ 7. Discussion Regarding Commission Updates and Position
Descriptions-Reed
_______ 8. Discussion Regarding Consent Agenda Items – Miller
_______ 9. Discussion Regarding Charter Amendment – Miller
_______ 10. Discussion Regarding Reduction in Citations -- Brennan
M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2002\City Council\Work Session Packets\07-01-02\Agenda.doc
Work Session Agenda
July 1, 2002
Page 2
_______ 11. Discussion Regarding Scheduling Retreats—no attachments
(PLEASE BRING YOUR CALENDARS)-- Miller
_______ 12. Schedule 6-month Performance Evaluation for the City
Administrator (PLEASE BRING YOUR CALENDARS)—
Reed
________________________________________________________________
Next Council Work Session: July 1, 2002
Next Council Meeting: July 8, 2002
Item No. 1D Supplement
Type of Business: WK
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Charles Hansen, Finance Director
Item Title/Subject: Budget Calendar, Truth in Taxation Requirements, Levy
Limitations, and LGA
Date of Report: July 1, 2002
This is additional information to supplement the report that was distributed with the agenda
packet.
Since last Thursday, we have been in contact with the Minnesota Department of Revenue and
learned a little more about levy limits and Truth in Taxation (TNT). My earlier memo refers to a
0.7618% limit on increases in the property tax levy. If the City stays under this limit, it will not
need to comply with TNT requirements.
The City may increase its property tax levy by more than 0.7618%, but by no more than the
overall levy limitation. Levy limitations are basically the same as last year. Components of the
levy limitation are: the implicit price deflator (0.7618%), change in commercial/industrial market
valuation, and population change.
I expect that Mounds View will pick up something on either commercial/industrial market
valuation or population change, but not a huge gain. The State will complete its calculation of
these factors and release the results by July 31, 2002.
The League of Minnesota Cities has estimated that Mounds View’s local government aid will
increase $84,886 from $789,466 in 2002 to $874,352 in 2003. This of course is before the
State of Minnesota deals with its projected 2003 budget deficit. We can also expect some
increase in other General Fund revenues. The following table charts out some possible
scenarios.
Property tax increase % 0.7618% 1.00% 1.50%
Property tax increase $$ $20,121 $26,412 $39,618
Local Govt. Aid increase $84,886 $84,886 $84,886
Other revenue increase $40,000 $40,000 $40,000
Total General Fund increase $145,007 $151,298 $164,504
We haven’t started working on the expenditure side of the budget yet, but it is possible to do
some gross estimates. One employee bargaining unit has a contract settled for 2003. The City
can probably take the position that it can offer no more to other employee bargaining units, but
they will probably settle for no less either.
Salaries and wages are set to increase by 3% in the settled contract. The maximum city
contribution to family health insurance will increase from $451.00 per month in 2001 to $557.55
per month in 2003. Single health insurance contributions increase from 212.00 per month in
2001 to $258.64 per month in 2003. This is about a 23% increase over two years.
Applying these factors to the General Fund budget yields the following results. Salaries, wages,
and fringes that are a percentage of salaries & wages will increase by 3% or $72,224. City
contributions to health insurance will increase 23% or $48,784.
The non-salary, wage, and fringe benefit portion of the General Fund Budget is $1,936,047. If it
increases by 2.5%, that will cost $48,401. Other items mentioned in tonight’s reports include
absorption of the YMCA management fee costing $37,500 and increasing the General Fund
transfer to the Vehicle and Equipment Fund from $25,000 (not $30,000 in Item 1A) to perhaps
$50,000 per year.
Pulling this all together in a quick and dirty estimate of the 2003 budget produces the following:
Revenue increase (assume 1% property tax incr.) $151,298
Savings from 3 Police Officer positions -$200,000
Salary, wage, & fringe benefit increase $72,224
Health insurance contribution increase $48,784
Supplies & contractual cost increase $48,401
YMCA management fee reallocation $37,500
Vehicle & Equipment Fund transfer $25,000
Total General Fund Expenditure increase $39,909
Excess of Revenue increase over Expenditure increase $119,389
While this initial projection seems quite positive, it must be remembered that the State budget
deficit will almost certainly cost the City of Mounds View something in 2003 and that work on the
Long Range Financial Plan will identify projects requiring additional resources.
Respectfully Submitted,
Charles Hansen
Item No. 2
Type of Business: WK
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Trunk Highway 10 (TH 10) Noise Abatement Issue
Update Report
Meeting Date: July 1, 2002
Background
Meeting with Mn/DOT
On February 14, 2002, Public Works Director Greg Lee, Community
Development Director Jim Ericson, and resident Michele Sandback met with
representatives from MnDOT to discuss the TH 10 Noise Abatement Issue.
Based on this meeting with Mn/DOT, two distinct options were evident:
Option 1: Install Wall as Required by Law – Staff Recommended
Option 2: Construct required wall to the east – Mn/DOT Proposal
Option 1: Install Wall as Required by Law – Staff Recommended
Under this option, the City would direct Mn/DOT to install a Noise Wall starting at
the point where it currently terminates and extend it approximately 1200 feet to
the east. It would terminate at the point where the three eastbound lanes reduce
to two lanes; the point where the creek crosses TH 10 and where the chain link
fence on the south side of TH 10 has a jog in it.
The wall would be constructed by Mn/DOT and completely at Mn/DOT’s
expense, regardless of the project cost.
Option 2: Construct Wall to the East (City Built) – Mn/DOT Proposal
Under this option, Mn/DOT would enter into a joint powers agreement with the
City of Mounds View and allocate a total of $300,000 to be used to fund a noise
wall. As part of the joint powers agreement, the City would be the project
administrator and would need to hire an engineering consultant. This “city”
consultant would design a noise wall at a location along the TH 10 corridor
specified by the City. This location would need to be approved by Mn/DOT. The
“city” consultant would develop plans and specifications for the wall with the help
of Mn/DOT. The plans and specification would then be sent to Mn/DOT for
approval. The City would then advertise for bids and award a contract. The City
would be responsible for administering the construction, including inspection.
Upon completion of the wall, Mn/DOT would review it and, if they find it
acceptable, require the City to dedicate it to them. Mn/DOT would then be
responsible for future maintenance.
Option 3: Construct Wall to the East (Mn/DOT built) – City Council Proposal
On April 1, 2002, this issue was brought before the Council for discussion. After
Discussion of Options 1 and 2, the City Council proposed a third option - Option
3. This option would be the same as option 2, with the exception that Mn/DOT
would be the project administrator and build the wall according to their
specification and at their expense.
This item was placed on the May Work Session Agenda but was later tabled. It
was then placed on the June Work Session Agenda, however this meeting was
canceled.
Discussion
Staff suspected legal issues associated with Mn/DOT’s proposal, Option 2, and
City Council ‘s proposal, Option 3. The question was, “Can the City enter into an
agreement with Mn/DOT to take a noise wall that is required to be in a specified
location and move it to a location of the City’s choosing?” Staff discussed this
with the City’s legal counsel on April 15th. Staff also presented this legal issue to
Mn/DOT representatives.
On May 28th staff and the City’s legal counsel met with Mn/DOT representatives
to discuss this issue. In light of the legal issues, Mn/DOT has since revised /
clarified their option, Option 2. In addition to the City constructing a noise wall
further to the east, their proposal (Option 2) now requires that the City construct a
berm in the area where the wall would be constructed under Option 1. Staff legal
assumptions were correct. To be compliant with the law, a noise abatement
technique must be applied to the Arden Park area. Mn/DOT cannot enter into an
agreement with the City unless they address this issue in the agreement.
Under this “New Mn/DOT Proposed Option 2”, all of the requirements of the
original Option 2 would hold true. In addition, the City would be required to
construct a berm, in Arden Park, meeting Mn/DOT’s specifications, at an
estimated cost of $150,000 to $200,000. This berm would be 10 to 15 feet in
height and up to 90 feet in width, located mostly on City property. Mn/DOT also
estimates that the cost of a 1500-foot long wall to abate the noise in the Laport
Drive area would be $450,000, of which Mn/DOT would contribute $300,000. The
City’s combined financial liability for this new Option 2 is estimated to be
$300,000 to $400,000.
At this time staff is requesting direction from Council on what they actions they
prefer in order to seek resolution to this issue. The following is a list of some
possible courses of action:
Action A: Staff continues to recommend Option 1. Should Council select this
action, staff would contact Mn/DOT in writing requesting them to construct the
wall as required by law. The wall would be constructed by MN/DOT during the
2004 construction season at no cost to the City. Mn/DOT would construct the
remaining section of wall, from the east side of Arden Park to I-35W, when either
a third eastbound lane is added or if this area is ranked high on the Noise
Abatement Study. Mn/DOT is currently performing this study, with results
expected by this time next year. With “Action A” the City could continue to work
with Mn/DOT and our legislative representatives to lobby for the completion of
the wall all the way to I-35W. Staff would also conduct a neighborhood meeting
and / or develop a newsletter for the residents along the Trunk Highway 10
corridor explaining the City’s position on this matter and the ensuing steps. Staff
also recommends “Action D” also be considered in conjunction with Action A.
Action B: Council may want to select the revised Option 2. A feasibility report
would need to be ordered to start the public improvement process and develop
cost estimates. Funding sources would also need to be identified.
Action C: Council may want to discuss this issue with Mn/DOT and state
legislatures at a future Work Session Meeting. Staff would invite Frank Pafko, the
Mn/DOT Area Representative, and any other Mn/DOT representatives involved
with this issue. Staff would also invite state legislators, as they may be influential
in securing funding or overcoming any legislative obstacles. These
representatives include: State Senator Satveer Chaudhary, State Senator Don
Betzold, State Representative Geri Evans, and State Representative Connie
Bernardy.
Action D: Council may direct the City’s legal counsel to further investigate noise
abatement laws and requirements. It is staff’s understanding that Mn/DOT is now
required to apply noise abatement techniques such as the installation of walls in
areas they have expanded the capacity of their trunk highway system. Question:
did this law apply when the single eastbound lane just west of I-35W was
expanded to two lanes several years ago?
Action E: Any other action the Council may choose.
It has been some time since the City has held a neighborhood meeting pertaining
to this issue. Staff would like direction from Council as to whether (and possibly
when) a meeting should be held. This meeting could be held prior to or after the
City Council takes official action on this matter.
Recommendation:
Staff is looking for direction from the City Council pertaining to this matter.
Specifically, staff is looking for Council input on which action to pursue and
whether (and possibly when) the City should hold a neighborhood meeting
regarding this issue.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item No. 03
Type of Business: WK
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Bus Safety Committee
Requested Items
Meeting Date: July 1, 2002
Background
In response to a projected budget shortfall in 2002-2003, the Mounds View
School District held a series of meetings to hear the public’s reaction to proposed
budget reductions. During those meetings citizens agreed that keeping cuts out
of the classroom was the highest priority and that transportation was one area
where reductions were possible. On April 11, the School District revised its
transportation policy.
The new policy includes a fee for transportation for students residing within two
miles of their school. With this new policy, the School District developed a Bus
Safety Committee. The charge of this committee was to study hazardous
crossings and general pedestrian safety in areas around the schools.
The School District has selected two representatives of Mounds View, Public
Works Director, Greg Lee, and D.A.R.E. Officer, Terry Broos. The committee has
met twice, Friday May 3rd and Wednesday, June 12th. A final plan is being
developed. Staff has performed a thorough review of the three Mounds View
school sites - Edgewood Middle School, Pinewood Elementary School, and
Sunny Side Elementary School.
Discussion
The Bus Safety Committee will be submitting a final list of items they recommend
to be implemented and / or addressed later this year. At this time, however, there
are two items identified which the School District has requested City Staff to bring
to the Council for consideration. These are the installation of a pathway along
County Road H and the installation of “No Right Turn on Red” during school
hours signs at the for the intersection of County Road I and Quincy Street.
Pathway along County Road H
The School District is requesting that the City construct a pathway along County
Road H from Old Highway 8 to Edgewood Drive. The pathway would be
approximately 2900 feet in length with an estimated cost of $40,000 to $45,000.
Bus service is currently being provided to students living within Towns Edge
Terrace without charge. With the new transportation policy, the school district
anticipates that many of these students will opt to walk or ride their bikes to
schools. The data for students residing in Towns Edge Terrace is as follows: 92
students attending Sunnyside Elementary, 35 attending Edgewood, and 30
attending Irondale.
The speed limit on County Road H is currently posted 40 miles per hour. County
Road H is a two-lane roadway section with 4 ½ -foot wide shoulders. It has a
current daily traffic volume of 6000 vehicles per day and a projected volume of
7400 for the year 2020.
The City’s Comprehensive Plan depicts a pathway to be constructed along this
section of County Road H. The plan, however, does not identify a funding source
or an implementation schedule. The Comprehensive Pathway Map is included on
the next page.
Should the Council want to consider construction of this pathway there are other
issues that should be discussed. These are:
Funding: What sources are available?
Timing: When would it be implemented?
North versus South side of County Road H: Issues of having students go
east to County Road 10 to cross to the north before heading west to
school.
Multi-jurisdictional: If constructed on the south side approximately 1300
feet of the total 2900 feet of pathway would be in the City of New Brighton.
Type of Pathway: 5 foot wide concrete versus 8 foot wide bituminous
Should the Council NOT want to consider construction of this pathway at this
time. The Council may want to recommend to the School District that they
continue to provide bus service, without charge, to students residing in the
Towns Edge Terrace until such time as the pathway is constructed.
No Right Turn on Red
The School District has asked the City to request the County to erect “No Right
Turn on Red” during school hours at the for the intersection of County Road I and
Quincy Street.
The School District is in the process of developing a “school route plan” which
establishes the routes students should follow when walking to school. As per this
plan, the intersection of County Road I and Quincy Street represents a major
safety issue for most of the students walking to school (all except those
originating south of Co. Rd. I and east of Quincy Street).
Restricting right turns at this intersection during school hours will allow crossing
guards at this intersection to time the crossing of the students with the red phase
of the traffic signal without the possible conflict of vehicles wanting to turn right.
Staff has discussed this with the County. The County has indicated that they
would look into what impacts this proposal may have on traffic and safety at this
intersection. However, to begin the evaluation process, the City must first submit
a formal request with the County.
Recommendation:
Staff is looking for direction from the City Council pertaining to these two
requests by the School District. Specifically, staff is looking for Council input on if
they should be pursued further.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item No: 10
Meeting Date: July 1, 2002
Type of Business: WK
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Tim Brennan, Deputy Police Chief/Acting Chief
Item Title/Subject: Citations and Service Activity Statistics
Date of Report: July 1, 2002
Background: On June 10, 2002 I presented the quarterly report for the police
department covering the time period from March-May, 2002. Statistical data provided in
that report showed a reduction in part I and part II crimes from 475 in 2001 to 400 in
2002. Adult arrests were down from 173 to 128. Juvenile arrests were down from 36 to
18. Since the presentation of this report I have had time to analyze the data in order to
respond to questions surrounding this information.
During the past year, two officers have been working on a Community Oriented Policing
(COP) Project with staff at the Mermaid. This goal of the project was to address the high
number of calls for disorderly patrons, underage consumption and possession of alcohol,
and false ID’s. The focus of these efforts was to effectively reduce the number of police
calls for service for the aforementioned problems.
Discussion: The reduction in number of calls for service for Part I & II crimes comparing
the three month period of March-May 2001 to the same period in 2002 shows that a
majority of the decrease can be attributed to a reduction in calls to the Mermaid. Total
calls to the Mermaid for this quarter in 2001 were 95. For the same period in 2002 it was
49, a reduction of 48%. To highlight the major areas of reduction, calls for Illegal
possession of alcohol went from 12 in 2001 to 4 in 2002. False ID’s went down from 3 in
2001 to 0 in 2002. Underage consumption went down from 33 in 2001 to 12 in 2002. And
disorderly conduct went down from 11 in 2001 to 7 in 2002.
MERMAID
March-May 2001 2002 Change
Calls for Service (Part I & II Crimes) 95 49 -48%
Illegal Possession of Alcohol 12 4 -66%
False ID 3 0 -100%
Underage Consumption of Alcohol 33 12 -64%
Disorderly Conduct 11 7 -36%
Overall reductions citywide for adult arrests can also be tied to this reduction in reported
crimes at the Mermaid during this period, since a vast majority of these types of calls
typically result in the arrest of one or more persons.
CITY-WIDE
March-May 2001 2002 Change
Adult Arrests 173 128 -26%
Juvenile Arrests 36 18 -50%
With the implementation of a School Resource Officer at Edgewood Middle School the
expectation on the part of the school and the police department was that there would be
a reduction in juvenile problems and arrests. This expectation has been met. We have
also been handling less serious juvenile violations with a grant-funded program called
Family Group Conferencing. This approach also reduces the number of juveniles being
routed through the juvenile court system.
A second area requiring further attention was the number of traffic citations being issued.
Data comparing the number of citations for every officer on the department has been
compiled showing a comparison of March – May of 2002, versus the same period for
2001. In 2001 459 citations were issued, compared to 192 in 2002, a reduction of 58%.
The result of this data was eye opening. Of the 12 street officers whose statistics were
analyzed, only two of the officers showed an increase in citations issued in 2002 for the
same period in 2001.
One qualifier affecting the overall number of citations is that one officer who historically
has been the leading producer of traffic citations for the police department was moved to
an assignment in the schools. Because this officer was no longer on the street, this
factor alone resulted in a reduction of 84 citations, and we had one less officer on the
street during this most recent quarter.
Another factor that should be considered is the AFSCME strike that occurred during this
most recent quarter. During the time of the strike, street officers provided assistance and
support of office and clerical responsibilities as much as possible. Street officers were
also directed to spend as much available time as possible monitoring the strike situation
at the Bridges and at City Hall.
The overall numbers of citations issued, looking at a longer time period of one year, as
opposed to only one quarter, shows that citations issued comparing a one-year period in
2000-2001 versus 2001-2002 are fairly comparable. In fact, if one were to eliminate the
most recent quarter, total number of citations issued for the most recent period would
show an increase. It should also be noted that the number of citations issued from
March-May in 2001 was higher than any other quarter in recent history.
Citations
June 1- May 31 2001 2002 Change
1192 1029 -13%
Recommendation: The information in this report has been shared with the supervisors
and officers on the police department. It is hoped that providing this information on a
regular basis from this point forward, will help all officers and supervisors monitor and
respond to future fluctuations in traffic enforcement efforts. All officers and supervisors
have been directed to focus as much attention as possible in the area of traffic law
enforcement whenever time and other priorities allow.
Respectfully submitted by:
Tim Brennan
Deputy Police Chief/Acting Chief
Mounds View Police Department
Attachment: Memo to Officers dated 6/25/2002
1
Memorandum
To: All Officers
From: Deputy Chief Brennan
Date: 8/15/2018
Re: Traffic Enforcement Statistics
I have been directed to provide the city council with additional details as to the number of traffic
citations that have been issued in the past. In trying to determine why tickets are down, we ran the
activity for each officer comparing the most recent quarter this year to the same quarter last year.
Attached you will find a printout reflecting this activity. As you will be able to see, the amount of
traffic enforcement activity on the part of most officers is down for this most recent period.
I am presenting you with this information to assist in raising awareness about the type and amount of
enforcement that is being focused on traffic in and around the city.
I believe it may be helpful for officers to have access to this information on a more regular basis. I
will begin compiling and making this information available to all officers on a quarterly basis, if not
more frequently.
Traffic law enforcement is an important part of our job in helping to keep the residents of Mounds
View safe. Please focus more effort on traffic law enforcement whenever time is available.
I am in the process of going through some of the other statistics involving calls for service and
arrests. When I complete that report I will make it available for review.
CONFIDENTIAL
Item No. 12
Meeting Date: July 1, 2002
Type of Business:WK
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Givonna Reed, Assistant City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Discussion Regarding Scheduling a Six-month
Performance Evaluation for the City Administrator
Date of Report: June 27, 2002
I have spoken with the Brimeyer Group regarding conducting the City
Administrator’s performance six-month evaluation which is long overdue.
Mr. Brimeyer is available July 22, 2002 to meet with the City Administrator and
the City Council regarding this issue.
The suggested timeline for the evening is as follows:
• 4:30-5:30pm meeting between Brimeyer and the City Administrator
• 5:30-6:15pm meeting between Brimeyer and the City Council
• 6:15-6:45pm meeting between Brimeyer, the City Administrator and the
City Council
• 7:00 Council Meeting begins
At the request of the City Administrator, the entire performance evaluation will be
closed as per Minnesota Statute 13D.05 Subd 3a
“What meetings may be closed. (a) A public body may close a
meeting to evaluate the performance of an individual who is subject
to its authority. The public body shall identify the individual to be
evaluated prior to closing a meeting. At its next open meeting, the
public body shall summarize its conclusions regarding the
evaluation. A meeting must be open at the request of the individual
who is the subject of the meeting.”
Please remember to bring your calendars in case we have to consider dates
other than July 22, 2002.
Respectfully Submitted,
Givonna Reed