HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2000/03/06M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2000\City Council\Work Session Packets\03-06-00\03-06-00 Agenda (Revised).doc
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
WORK SESSION
REVISED AGENDA
March 6, 2000
6:00 p.m.
REVISED
Items Discussed
Per Consensus
_______ 1. Review of Highway 10 Issues
a. Past Highway 10 Studies and Planning Initiatives
b. Review of Pedestrian Bridge Project
c. Summary of Highway Related Incidents
d. Related Options and Issues
e. Agenda Addition – Resolution of Support for SF 3642 re: Ped Xings
_______ 2. Review of Pleasantview Drive Traffic Signal Plan
_______ 3. Catering Agreement for MVCC
_______ 4. Review of Proposed Business Subsidy Policy.
________ 5. Review of Point of Sale policy
________ 6. Agenda Addition – Review of Billboard Lease Agreement – City Attorney
March 2, 2000
To: Honorable mayor and City Council
From: Chuck Whiting, City Administrator
Re: Monday, March 6, 2000 City Council Work Session
In light of the tragic accident of last Friday, staff is preparing to bring to the meeting as
much information about Highway 10, the pedestrian bridge and the aftermath of the
accident as possible. I have arranged the agenda to facilitate the review and discussion. I
think everyone feels it is important to find both short and long-term actions that can be
taken in reaction to this accident. From some of the calls I have received from residents,
there is a normal frustration in feeling enough can’t get done fast enough, but there is also
a sense being shared with me that coordinating an effort to satisfactorily respond is also a
concern.
Item 1 – Review of Highway 10 Issues: With the attention now being focused on
Highway 10 related matters, it seems the first thing needed is to review the voluminous
work that has been done that either never came to fruition or was rejected. At the same
time, reality again confronts the City as another Highway 10 project is on the agenda, the
Pleasant View Drive traffic signal and design. While I may be speaking as the outgoing
administrator, I would like to comment at the meeting about the need to make decisions
better, and just what it may take to address Highway 10 issues for the long term.
Council will be receiving a large volume of materials that may or may not have been
sorted out by packet time. At Tuesday’s staff meeting, all department heads were asked
to prepared and gather any information that may be helpful for the Council and
community to respond to this incident. On the agenda, we are starting with the numerous
studies and attempts to deal with all or parts of the Highway 10 corridor. Being sensitive
to criticism that this is all just talk, it is still necessary to have some review particularly if
there is to be submittals for funds requiring plans. Council will probably note this issue
has been before the community on many occasions and from different vantage points.
Some specific inquiries that have been made are responded to in enclosed staff memos.
I’ll touch on some here:
Can the City accept donations from people for a bridge, a monument, a tree, etc?
Yes, Bruce’s memo touches on this. I have said to people that we will, but for the time
being the City may want to wait to see whether the family needs to arrange a repository
first, so as not to get their needs confused with something for the City to do.
What can MNDOT and Ramsey County do about this? MNDOT has turned the
highway over to Ramsey County, but is forwarding historical data on traffic, accidents
and other pertinent information the City may want to review in order to make a good
solid plan for the future. Staff can also review its contacts with MNDOT and the County
further for Monday night’s meeting.
What needs to be done for a petition? What has been submitted so far is being
collected and provided to the Council. Petitions are best when the purpose of the petition
is clearly stated at the top of each page and people sign their name and provide their
address. As for petitions that intend to call for a referendum, procedures for doing so can
be found in the Charter, or by calling my office.
What does a bridge cost and what is the status of the loan funds for a bridge? We
are reviewing this and Council may find it in some of the packet information. We will
certainly have it by Monday.
These are some of the issues brought up so far. Council will find a great deal to refer to
in this packet. We are looking into creating an Internet link as well for residents wishing
to research Highway 10 and bridge issues. For Monday, Council can expect to have
several staff members present to review this information and make suggestions.
Item 2 – Review of Pleasant View Drive Traffic Signal Plan: Mike will again go over
this.
Item 3 – Catering Agreement for the MVCC: Bruce will follow up from the past
discussion on this item.
Item 4 – Review of Proposed Business Subsidy Policy: This policy is the result of
legislative actions last year. The EDC has reviewed this policy and staff will go over it
with the Council Monday.
Item 5 – Point of Sale Policy: We had planned on talking about this again since interest
persists, but with the events of the week we are still not very far on it. We will see what
we have on Monday.
In other matters, I have contacted Brimeyer who will send me a proposal. Council can
expect around $15,000 plus expenses for the search. He is conducting eleven other
searches right now and expressed some concern about a time frame. I said we would go
over that later.
We had a “big woods” meeting today and that is moving well. Council can expect to
discuss that at the April work session. Have a good weekend.
M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2000\City Council\Work Session Packets\03-06-00\Agenda.doc
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
WORK SESSION
AGENDA
March 6, 2000
6:00 p.m.
Items Discussed
Per Consensus
_______ 1. Review of Highway 10 Issues
a. Past Highway 10 Studies and Planning Initiatives
b. Review of Pedestrian Bridge Project
c. Summary of Highway Related Incidents
d. Related Options and Issues
_______ 2. Review of Pleasantview Drive Traffic Signal Plan
_______ 3. Catering Agreement for MVCC
_______ 4. Review of Proposed Business Subsidy Policy.
________ 5. Review of Point of Sale policy
Item No. 1
Staff Report No.
Meeting Date: March 6, 2000
Type of Business: W.K.
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: Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Highway 10 Planning Strategies
Date of Report: August 29, 2018
Here are a few of the things staff has put together to discuss with Council about what improvements could be
made to Highway 10 to perceivably increase pedestrian safety.
- Lower speed limit, would require speed study conducted by MnDot, could possibly increase speed
limit
- Fill ditches to a height, which would still allow drainage and plant trees, shrubs, etc. to lessen
openness of roadway. Plantings in the middle of the road might hinder the ability to cross at non-
designated areas.
- Construct paths on both sides of the highway for pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
- Install street / path lighting
- Construct bridge or tunnel for crossing of highway.
- Increase walk light time on traffic signals.
- Remove signal crosswalks that are not tied to sidewalks or trails.
- Conduct pedestrian study to determine best crossing locations.
- Install signs directing pedestrian / bicycle traffic to crossing locations.
- Install benches, drinking fountains, bulletin boards, etc. at crossings to draw people to those
locations
This is not a complete list by any means and staff can add more items from the discussion. This
list could then be forwarded to Ramsey County for future consideration. Some of these measures
could possibly be accomplished with relatively small amounts of funding and others will
obviously take a vast amount of planning and capital funding.
Staff will add other ideas to the list and set up a meeting with Ramsey County to discuss these
options.
_________________________________
Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works
C:\Mike's documents\projects\Hwy 10 - Bridge\hwy 10 ped measures.doc
Item No. 1
Staff Report No.
Meeting Date: March 6, 2000
Type of Business: W.K.
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: Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Review of Pedestrian Bridge Project
Date of Report: August 29, 2018
Staff has located the final documentation of the Ped. Bridge Project from the Park and Rec. files.
A detailed report was compiled by Pam Sheldon, Community Development Director for the
February 24, 1997 City Council meeting. This summary document was scanned and is available
with the packet for viewing. Directions to the Internet site to download the Adobe Reader are
available with the packet. If anyone has any trouble viewing or loading this document please
speak with Jim Hess. The entire long version of the document and additional Bridge files will be
available at the meeting.
_________________________________
Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works
C:\Mike's documents\projects\Hwy 10 - Bridge\Bridge summary report.doc
Item No.
Staff Report No.
Meeting Date: March 6,2000
Type of Business: W.K.
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: Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Pleasantview Drive Traffic Signal Plan
Date of Report: August 29, 2018
As of this writing staff has not received a response to the request to Anoka County to provide a
representative at the work session to review and discuss the preferred plan. Staff will continue
seek a response. Staff has received little additional information since the last meeting to review.
One further note is that if the City of Mounds View rescinds its support of the project, it appears
the project could continue if no change in grade or cross section of the Mounds View side of
Pleasantview occurs.
__________________________________
Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works
C:\Mike's documents\staff reports\Pleasantview Sig.doc
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Chuck Whiting, City Administrator
From: Bruce A. Kessel, Finance Director
Item Title/Subject: Catering at Community Center
Date of Report: February 17, 2000
The following is a summary of some of the issues relating to catering at the Community Center.
The issues include: 1) Generating funds to offset operating costs at the Community Center; 2)
Limiting the City’s liability exposure at the Center; 3) Minimizing wear and tear on facility; 4)
Maximizing revenues from each event; and 5) Keeping fees low for users. There are several
issues that have opposite goals and as such, conflict with each other.
I. Generating funds to offset operating costs at the Community Center.
During the planning of the Community Center, my understanding is that the portion of the
building including Children’s Home Society, the School District and the Banquet Center was
designed to be used to generate revenues to offset the operating costs for the gymnasium,
meeting rooms, and teen area. Leases were entered into with Children’s Home & the School
District which removed the City from using that portion of the building. Based upon discussions
with other cities, it was determined that it would be in the City’s best interest to contract out
management of the banquet center. A main component of this contract is that the more successful
the banquet center is, the higher the compensation to the banquet manager, therefore, a win-win
for both parties.
The banquet center generates revenues from several sources including the rental of the space, a
percentage of the food and liquor catering, and miscellaneous charges. Based upon a review of
other facilities, it was determined that the City’s policy relating to catering should be to receive a
percent of the catering, with a minimum guaranteed fee. Demand for space during certain periods
of the year and certain days exceeds the available space in the area, and as such, to maximize
revenues, it was determined that during peak days of the week and months, the full banquet
center would have to be rented (can not rent only a portion of the banquet center) in addition to
having a guaranteed minimum catering amount or catering fee. This would maximize our
revenue while still allowing us to be competitive with other facilities.
To maximize both the number of rentals and the fees earned, users who wish to reserve the
facility three or more months prior to a date are required to pay the standard fee. However, if a
date is open within three months, there may be lower fees to rent what may have been unused
space.
II. Liability & Health issues
The City’s liability exposure can arise in a number of areas, including food prepared and/or
served at the facility, the condition of the facility, and/or acts of the City, its agents, or the general
public.
City of Mounds View Staff Report
August 29, 2018
Page 2
Relating to food, the first issue relates to food being prepared at the Community Center. In order
to prepare food there, it would need to be done in the kitchen (State/County regulations). The
Lease with Children’s Home gives them the right to use the kitchen. My understanding is that for
other parties to use the kitchen, they need a valid catering license. From a practical standpoint, if
any health issues arise, the greater the number of users of the kitchen during a short period of
time, the greater exposure to the City (possible neglect for not properly overseeing the different
users). In addition, since food and utensils are stored in the kitchen, the more users of the kitchen,
the greater the likelihood that problems will arise relating to those items (problems relating to
items missing or damaged and which party is responsible).
Relating to food served at the facility that isn’t prepared at the facility, there are two options: 1) a
temporary event food license issued by the County at a cost of approximately $100, or 2) no
license if the event is a private party (only invited guests, no advertising to the public, etc.). The
State of Minnesota has indicated that these events have the highest incidence of food poisoning;
last year there were 16 cases of food poisoning at such events, or approximately 1/3 of the total
cases reported. While in theory, if food is prepared outside and served at the Center, the City
should not have any liability, from a practicable standpoint, any party involved in the event could
be a party to a lawsuit and while the City may ultimately be found not guilt of any negligence,
attorney fees to defend ourselves could be tens of thousands of dollars.
To minimize the City’s liability exposure, our insurance agent recommended that we receive a
certificate of insurance from any party that provides food at an event, whether they are a caterer,
a not-for-profit, or an individual, in the amount of one million dollars of coverage, naming the
City as an additional insured. There may be problems with private individuals obtaining such
coverage. The other issue relates to setting up procedures to insure that a certificate of insurance
is received prior to the event.
III. Minimize the wear & tear of the facility
The easiest way to minimize wear, tear and damage is to not use the facility, however, this would
not generate any revenue nor achieve any public purpose. Therefore, the next best option is to be
able to monitor usage and to be able to hold some party accountable for any damage that occurs.
While the existing policies require damage deposits, in most instances it is not practicable to
obtain a large enough damage deposit to cover anything other than minor damage. To recover
costs above the damage deposit from a private party will in a lot of cases, be time consuming and
expensive. The next issue relates to monitoring. The greater the number of different providers of
services, the higher the amount of monitoring that will be required. For example, if there are
three different events on a weekend, with three different providers of food, it will require more
monitoring to insure that no damage was done by the previous party, that the previous party is
out of the facility by the agreed upon time and that the condition of the facility is how it should
be so that the next party can prepare the facility for its use.
Relating to set ups and take downs, staff feels that it will be in the City’s best long term interest
to perform the majority of this work through our staff. This is for several reasons including:
a. Less potential damage to tables, chairs, etc. Outside parties may not take the same
level of care with the City’s equipment, or may damage a piece of equipment and put
it in a storage area where it may not be discovered for several weeks, at which time it
may no longer be possible to identify who caused the damage.
b. Less potential for loss of equipment. There are several storage areas for tables, chairs
& equipment. It would not be practical to inventory all items after an event to insure
that nothing is missing after an event.
c. Less liability exposure. Liability could arise in several areas. If non-city personnel
perform set up the facility, they would be lifting tables that are heavy, and moving
high stacks of chairs. If they were to get hurt during this, they may pursue a claim
against the City. Also, if they were to set up damaged tables or chairs and someone
was to get hurt, it is likely that a claim would be filed against the City. While the City
would be subject to the same types of claims if the work was performed by City
employees, the City should be able to exercise greater control over its employees to
minimize its exposure.
IV. Minimize the cost to users.
Most users would like a high level of service at no fee or as low of a fee as possible. This is in
direct conflict with the City’s goal of maximizing revenues. As such, the goal of the facility has
been to set prices and fees at levels that are competitive with similar facilities in the area. As
previously noted, the contract with Innovative Images (Images) was established with this in mind
– the greater the revenue at the facility, the higher the compensation for the banquet center
manager. If the fees at the facility are too high, users will use other facilities, thereby lowering
the revenue generated and the fees paid to Images. Likewise, if the fees are to low, the facility
will be used more but revenue will not be maximized and therefore the fees to Images will not be
as high as they could have been.
If users are allowed to perform set ups, take downs, cleaning, etc., it would first appear that the
fee that they would need to pay the City would be lower. However, as noted above, the City
would have higher liability exposure. In addition, the possibility of damage to City property will
be greater and our ability to find the responsible party will take staff time and we may ultimately
not be able to get reimbursed for such damage. Relating to cleaning, we would not want users to
bring in their own chemicals (chemicals & cleaning supplies could damage property), nor may
not want them to use our chemicals and supplies (Federal right to know regulations, liability
issues, theft of supplies, equipment, etc.)
The contract with Images does not include the level of monitoring that would be needed for users
performing various tasks themselves. In addition, there is a higher probability of damage that the
City would not be recoverable. To recoup these costs, the City may have to charge a fee to all
users.
V. Minimizing operating costs.
The contract with Images requires Images to market the facility, take reservations, collect fees,
schedule City staff for set ups and take downs, and be available at the beginning and ending of an
event. With a limited number of outside vendors (caterers), this level of supervision should be
City of Mounds View Staff Report
August 29, 2018
Page 4
adequate. If each event has a different vendor, it will require greater supervision at an additional
cost to the City.
VI. Positive experience at the Center
One of the goals of the Center has been to provide a positive experience for users, which should
result in future referrals. To date, it appears that most users have had very positive experiences
resulting in repeat business with businesses, and also positive word of mouth advertising. Several
examples include: the annual Bridges Golf Leagues banquet – comments from golf course staff
indicated that it was the best service and best overall experience of any similar event that they
have had; also received several comments from other cities relating to the quality of the facility
after joint city training seminars.
VII. Food Caterer
There are at least three options to consider, only a house caterer, a house caterer with the option
to use outside caterer(s), or no house caterer. Based upon discussions with other facilities, it
appeared to be the most advantageous to have a house caterer. Since the food at the Center
affects individuals perception of their overall experience at the Center and their comments to
others about the Center, the better able the City is to monitor the quality of the food, the better it
should be for the City.
From a management standpoint, the fewer caterers that are dealt with the easier and cheaper it is
to manage. If there is damage to the facility, it is also easier to determine the responsible party
and get the problem rectified in a timely manner. It should also be easier to monitor the fees
charged by the caterer to insure that the City receives the appropriate fees from the caterer.
To maximize revenues at the facility, there are opportunities for joint marketing with a caterer,
however, to do this, most caterers will want to benefit from such marketing efforts. Since there
can be fairly long periods between when an event is scheduled and when it happens (one year is
not uncommon), most caterers will want a longer term contract to market themselves at a facilty.
If a house caterer is used, it is in the best long term interest of the City for both to be successful,
and to enter into a longer term partnership. As such, it is recommended that the City consider a
term of at least three or five years, with renewal options, and options to terminate the agreement
for cause.
It should also be workable to allow other caterers. It is recommended that such caterers would
need to submit an application, with applicable licenses and fees. The application would then be
reviewed, and if everything appeared in order, they would be allowed to provide catering at the
Center. Depending upon the event(s), day of the week, time of year and the frequency of catering,
fees would still need to be paid to the City for the opportunity to provide such catering.
The bringing in of prepared food raises numerous issues from liability issues, to damage, to
additional supervision, and finally to not generating any catering fees for the City. A recent
Church group event where a group had coffee is a good example – the Center was left very messy
and there were numerous coffee stains that the City had to clean which cost more than the event
generated in revenues. We have had similar experience at City Hall. As such, it is recommended
that the ability of users of the Center to bring in food and beverages be severely restricted. Since
we have a contract with Coca Cola, we can not allow any none Coca Cola products to be used,
nor should we allow anyone other that a licensed liquor vendor to serve alcohol at the Center.
Summary
The above outlines most of the issues relating to renting the Center and catering. In order to
proceed, staff needs some direction including:
Do we proceed with a House caterer; if so, for how long of term.?
Do we allow other caterers to use the facility? the kitchen?
Should we charge an investigation fee the first time a new caterer uses the facility, similar to the
procedure used for new city licenses?
Do we charge a catering fee? How is the fee calculated?
Do we allow food prepared outside the facility to be brought in? do we place any restrictions on
the type of food? Do we charge a minimum fee to cover the City’s share of lost catering?
Do we charge additional fees to supervise such events to insure that the Center is not damaged?
Do we require a certificate of insurance naming the City as an additional insured? If so, do we
require at least one million dollars of coverage?
M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2000\City Council\Work Session Packets\03-06-00\Item No. 04 -- Business Subsidy Policy--Aaron Parrish.doc
Item No. 4
Staff Report No.
Meeting Date: 3-6-00
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 Members
From: Aaron Parrish, Economic Development Coordinator
Item Title/Subject: Business Subsidy Policy
Date of Report: August 29, 2018
Background:
Last year the Minnesota Legislature and Governor passed the “1999 Business Subsidies Law”
(Minnesota Statutes § 116J.993 through §116J.995). As a result, communities are required to
develop and adopt a business subsidy policy for all subsidies granted after August 1st, 1999. After a
policy is developed, business subsidies granted that exceed $25,000 require a local unit of
government to enter into a “Business Subsidy Agreement.” In short, the policy under consideration
will guide the development of “Business Subsidy Agreements.” Accordingly, the law outlines eight
elements that must be incorporated into the agreements including:
• A description of the subsidy, including the amount and type of subsidy, and the type of district if
the subsidy is TIF
• A statement of the public purposes of the subsidy (Generally, public purposes include
enhancing economic diversity, creating high-quality job growth, providing for job retention where
loss is imminent and demonstrable, stabilizing the community, and increasing the tax base)
• Goals for the subsidy
• A description of the financial obligation of the recipient if the goals are not met (If goals are not
met, a recipient must pay back subsidy with interest; Partial fulfillment of goals will require a
prorated repayment)
• A statement of why the subsidy is needed
• A commitment to continue operations at the site where the subsidy is used for five years
• If applicable, the name and address of the parent corporation of the recipient
• A list of all financial assistance by all grantors for the project
Types of assistance meeting the definition of a “business subsidy” include:
• State or local government agency grants
• Contributions of real property, personal property, or infrastructure
• The principal amount of a loan at rates below those commercially available
• Reductions or deferrals of taxes or fees, including tax increment financing
• Preferential use of government facilities
The law also explicitly excludes 18 types of assistance from the business subsidy requirements
including assistance provided for the sole purpose of renovating building stock, and various other
City of Mounds View Staff Report
August 29, 2018
Page 2
M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2000\City Council\Work Session Packets\03-06-00\Item No. 04 -- Business Subsidy Policy--
Aaron Parrish.doc
assistance oriented toward pollution/contamination clean up.
In addition, all “Business Subsidy Agreements” must include job and wage goals with specific goals
to be attained within two years of the benefit date. However, the law does not specify minimum
criteria for these goals. On an annual basis, the Department of Trade and Economic Development
will require all municipalities and development organizations to submit a “Minnesota Business
Assistance Form” to monitor compliance with the legislation.
The EDC has considered and is recommending a policy. The recommended policy has been
included for your review on the proceeding page. As a requirement of the legislation, a public
hearing will be held by both the EDA and the City Council at 7:10 p.m. on March 13th, 2000.
Action Required:
No action is required. Information is provided for the March 13th, 2000 Public Hearing.
____________________________
Aaron Parrish
Economic Development Coordinator
M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2000\City Council\Work Session Packets\03-06-00\Item No. 04 -- Business Subsidy Policy--
Aaron Parrish.doc
Mounds View Business Subsidy Policy
This Policy is adopted for purposes of the business subsidies act (the “Act”), which is
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 through 116J.995. Terms used in this Policy are intended to
have the same meanings as used in the Act, and this Policy shall apply only with respect to subsidies
granted under the Act if and to the extend required thereby.
While it is recognized that the creation of good paying jobs is a desirable goal which benefits
the community, it must also be recognized that not all projects assisted with subsidies derive their
public purposes and importance solely by virtue of job creation. In addition, the imposition of high
job creation requirements and high wage levels may be unrealistic and counter-productive in the face
of larger economic forces and the financial and competitive circumstances of an individual business.
With respect to subsidies, the determination of the number of jobs to be created and the wage
levels thereof shall be guided by the following principles and criteria:
Each project shall be evaluated on a case by case basis, recognizing its
importance and benefit to the community from all perspectives, including created or
retained employment positions.
If a particular project does not involve the creation of jobs, but is nonetheless
found to be worthy of support and subsidy, it may be approved without any specific
job or wage goals, as may be permitted by applicable law.
In cases where the objective is the retention of existing jobs, the recipient of
the subsidy shall be required to provide reasonably demonstrable evidence that the
loss of those jobs is imminent.
The setting of wage and job goals must be sensitive to prevailing wage rates,
local economic conditions, external economic forces over which neither the grantor
nor the recipient of the subsidy has control, the individual financial resources of the
recipient and the competitive environment in which the recipient’s business exists.
Because it is not possible to anticipate every type of project which may in its
context and time present desirable community building or preservation goals and
objectives, the governing body must retain the right in its discretion to approve
projects and subsidies which may vary from the principles and criteria of this Policy.
Adopted by: ______________________________
Date of adoption: ___________________________
Date of public hearing: ______________________