HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2002/10/07 (2)
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION AGENDA
Monday, October 7, 2002
(will begin immediately following
the Special City Council Meeting)
CALL TO ORDER ( pm)
ROLL CALL: Sonterre, Stigney, Quick, Thomas, Marty
Agenda Items Discussed by Consensus
_______ 1. Discussion of the 2003 Budget
a. Street reconstruction and bonding alternatives (attachments
to be handed out on day of meeting)
b. Allocation of employees to departments
_______ 2. Discussion with the Cable Committee regarding Cable
programming needs
_______ 3. Discussion regarding new Clear Channel Billboard on County Road
10 (verbal report)
_______ 4. Discussion regarding Expansion of the Scope of Administrative
Offenses
_______ 5. Discussion regarding Banquet Center Contracts—no attachments
_______ 6. Discussion regarding a pathway on County Road H from
Edgewood Drive to the West City Limits
Next Council Worksession: November 2, 2002
Next City Council Meeting: October 14, 2002
M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2002\City Council\Work Session Packets\10-07-02\Item 02 Discussion with the Cable Committee regarding Cable Programming Needs.doc
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: Kathleen Miller, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Discuss Programming Needs With the Cable Committee
Date of Report: October 7, 2002
Background
Jerry Skelly, Chairperson for the Mounds View Cable Commission has requested to
appear before the City Council at a Work Session to discuss programming needs with the
City Council. Mr. Skelly and other members of the Commission will be in attendance to
discuss programming needs and the hours available for the Cable Technician.
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________
Kathleen F. Miller
City Administrator
Item No.4
Type of Business: WS
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: Expansion of the Scope of Administrative Offenses
Date of Report: October 7, 2002
NATURE OF REPORT: At the September 3, 2002 City Council Work Session there was discussion as to
the viability of expanding the scope of administrative offenses to include minor moving traffic offenses such
as speeding, stop sign violations, etc. City Code currently adopts by reference Chapters 169, 168 and 171 of
Minnesota Statute relating to traffic law. On the surface it appeared that in order to expand the application of
administrative violations into the area of some minor moving traffic offenses, all that remained to be done was
to establish a penalty (fine amount), and determine which offenses within these chapters the expansion would
be applied to.
Council directed staff to contact other communities in Ramsey County that utilize administrative offenses and
ascertain what level of application they exercise, and obtain some examples of penalties they impose. Staff
contacted White Bear Lake and Roseville, the only other communities known to use administrative offenses
for a scope of violations beyond what Mounds View currently addresses. Roseville has expanded their
administrative offenses to include, in addition to non-moving traffic violations, a few minor alcohol offenses.
Our code does not adopt or reference that section of Minnesota Statute, so Roseville’s application did not
apply to what Mounds View is considering. White Bear Lake has expanded their administrative offenses to
include, in addition to some non-moving traffic violations, violations of MS 169.14, which is the Basic Speed
Law. Violations of this section are assessed a flat penalty of $40.00 under WBL’s code.
I spoke with the city attorney on the matter and he brought up a few possible concerns. This subject was
explored about three years ago, at which time the following issues were raised: 1) Moving violations of
Minnesota traffic law are addressed through the county court system to help ensure due process is afforded to
violators. 2) The courts have been resistant to cities expanding the scope of administrative violations due to
the diversion of revenue away from the court system. 3) Mounds View City Charter does not grant authority
for administrative violations. The opinion of the city attorney seemed to be that expanding administrative
offenses to include violations of minor traffic law could probably be done until such time that someone
challenged the process in court. If and when that challenge were to occur, there would then be a possibility
that this practice would be ordered to cease.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council consider the information provided above, and give further direction as
to their wishes for implementing expansion of the scope of administrative offenses to include minor moving
traffic violations.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________
Tim Brennan
Deputy Police Chief/Acting Chief
Item No. 6
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: Construction of a Pathway on County Road H
from Edgewood Drive to the West City Limits
Meeting Date: October 7, 2002
Background:
On September 23, 2002, the City Council approved Resolution 5841. This
approved Change Order No. 1 for the County Road H2 Street Project that
authorized construction of a pathway on County Road H from Old Highway 8 to
Edgewood Drive.
Discussion
The Council wishing to explore the cost of providing a pathway on the north side
of County Road H directed staff to continue on with the development of a
feasibility report and cost estimates for a pathway that would extend from
Edgewood Drive to the west City limits.
The pathway associated with Change Order No. 1 from Old Highway 8 to
Edgewood Drive will be ten (10) foot wide constructed of bituminous. Since this
particular pathway will be part of the County’s regional trail system, it needed to
meet the County’s specifications. This is not the case for the proposed segment
from Edgewood Drive to the West City Limits.
The right-of-way along this segment of County Road H is limited and the
boulevard is littered with obstructions. For this reason, three pathway cross
sections were explored:
Scenario 1 – Five (5) foot concrete walkway
Scenario 2 – Six and one-half (6 ½) foot concrete walkway
Scenario 3 – Eight (8) foot bituminous pathway
Scenario 1– Five (5) foot concrete walkway
A five (5) foot concrete walkway is fairly typical. It is the cross section chosen by
New Brighton on the south side of County Road H. It offers the capability of being
installed in areas where space is a minimum. It also offers the longevity of
concrete. Draw backs are the initial costs and the fact that the City of Mounds
View currently does not have a piece of equipment for snow removal from this
narrow of a walkway.
Scenario 2 – Six and one-half (6 ½) foot concrete walkway
This has the same advantages as a five (5) foot concrete walkway, in addition
the City can use existing equipment to remove snow. However, the 6 ½ foot
width requires more boulevard space and costs more.
Scenario 3 – Eight (8) foot bituminous pathway
An eight (8) foot bituminous pathway has a lower initial cost. However it has a
higher long term maintenance costs and require significant amount of boulevard
space.
The cost estimates for the three scenarios have been developed. Each scenario
has been broken down into two segments – Edgewood Drive to Silver Lake Road
and Silver Lake Road to the west City limits. These are as follows:
Edge to Silver Lk Silver Lk to city limits Total
1.) 5’ concrete $130,826 $89,870 $220,696
2.) 6 ½’ concrete $154,518 $102,339 $256,857
3.) 8’bituminous $115,755 $81,938 $197,693
4.) 10’bituminous $131,729 $90,345 $222,074
The cost estimate for a 10-foot pathway was also listed. This data was included
in the September 23, 2002, staff report.
Staff would like to point out that these are very rough approximations at this time.
With a project of this nature, it is difficult to develop accurate cost figures without
all of the data being collected. The engineering firm of Short-Elliott-Hendrickson
(SEH) is currently performing a complete survey of this area. Once this is
completed, plans which will be developed. These plans will then show items to
be removed and relocated. It will also identify the need for other items such as
retaining walls.
Points Of Consideration
This project will involve the disruption and altering of many residential
properties. At this time there has not been any direct contact with the
potentially affected property owners.
This segment of pathway is not part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
It may not be feasible to construct this segment of pathway this year.
Maintenance of this pathway.
How this pathway segment may set the precedent for the remaining future
pathways to be constructed as per the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendation:
Staff is looking for direction from the City Council pertaining to this matter.
Specifically, staff is looking for Council input on whether the Council is interested
in authorizing construction of a pathway on the north side of County Road H
which would extend from Edgewood Drive to the west City limits.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works