Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2000/01/03 (2)M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2000\City Council\Work Session Packets\01-03-00\Agenda.doc CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW WORK SESSION AGENDA January 3, 2000 6:00 p.m. Items Discussed Per Consensus _______ 1. Presentation and review of the City’s Risk Management Program Mike Ulrich _______ 2. Survey to Rank Priority Use of Ramsey County CDBG/HOME Funds for FY2000 Jim Ericson _______ 3. Notice of All City Board City Council Appreciation Dinner Meeting Chuck Whiting _______ 4. Review of Council Members Internet Access, Set Up Laptop Use Meeting Chuck Whiting _______ 5. Review of Wetland Buffer Permit Request for 2551 Ridge Lane Jim Ericson _______ 6. Set Up Meeting Time for TIF Policy Review with EDC Chuck Whiting _______ 7. Discussion of City Authorization of TOLD Development Co. to Proceed With the Preparation of a PUD Application That Would Include the City Remnant Parcel Rick Jopke _______ 8. Continued Discussion of Assessment Policy Revisions Mike Ulrich _______ 9. Review of Engineering Statements of Qualifications Mike Ulrich _______ 10. Review of Commercial Vehicle Parking in Residential Areas Chuck Whiting _______ 11. Discussion of Council Retreat Needs and Options for 2000 Chuck Whiting Work Session Agenda M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2000\City Council\Work Session Packets\01-03-00\Agenda.doc January 3, 2000 Page –2- _______ 12. Reviewing Survey Option Chuck Whiting Item No. 1 Staff Report No. ______ Meeting Date: January 3, 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: Presentation and Review of the City’s Risk Management Program Date of Report: August 29, 2018 In 1999 the City of Mounds View was mandated to develop and institute a Risk Management Program. This program identifies the risks and hazards the City shares with the community. The two major areas of risk the plan prepares for are the release of water production chemicals (Chlorine) and LPG (Liquid Propane Gas as motor fuel). There are several components to the program, highlighting the key chapters would be training, prevention and response. The program was developed with the assistance of Wenck and Associates and the Public Works staff. Representatives of Wenck will be present to explain in more detail the contents of the program and its’ purpose. The document is rather large and therefore if anyone wishes to examine it in greater detail and merely listening to the presentation, you can pick up my copy from my office. According to the law, the City must present this program to the public at a public meeting with adequate notice having been provided. The formal presentation of the program will be at the January 10, 2000 regular City Council meeting. _________________________________ Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works C:\Mike's documents\staff reports\Risk Mng Prg Staffrpt.doc Item No. 2 Staff Report No. Meeting Date: 1/3/2000 Type of Business: Work Session City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor & City Council From: James Ericson, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Ramsey County Community and Economic Development Priorities for CDBG / HOME Funds, FY2000 Date of Report: December 29, 1999 Background: The Ramsey County Community and Economic Development office has asked all of the municipalities within the County to rank eligible activities for funding in the coming fiscal year. The ranking should reflect the specific needs of each individual municipality. The eligible activities are listed below. Discussion: The following eligible activities were ranked as follows last year by the Ramsey County municipalities: 1. Rehabilitation of owner-occupied Single Family Houses (including energy efficiency improvements) 2. Removal of Dilapidated Structures (single family homes, commercial buildings, both require eligible re-use of the property) 3. Rehabilitation of Rental Property Large and Small 4. Job Creation (may include commercial building rehab, business relocation, business loans to purchase equipment/machinery, acquisition of land for business/industry) 5. Neighborhood Revitalization (combination of eligible activities) 6. Homeownership for First Time Homebuyers who are low to moderate income 7. New Affordable Housing Construction -- Families and Seniors (may include multifamily, townhouses, assisted living and acquisition of land for low income single family home ownership) 8. Infrastructure Improvements (limited to eligible low/mod areas) The following two eligible activities were not considered a priority in fiscal year 1999: Χ Provision of New and Expanded Social Services Χ Acquisition of Public Facilities and Improvements for Social Service Providers The only changes that staff might suggest would be regarding the ranking of ΑJob Creation,≅ in relation to the housing programs. It seems as though creating jobs--at least within our municipal borders--is less of an issue. Our employers struggle with a workforce shortage rather than a jobs shortage. This priority however may include business rehab, land acquisition, business loans, etc., which are still important activities and would benefit the City=s commercial/industrial community. Recommendation: If the Council agrees, Staff would suggest the following rankings for fiscal year 2000, with the Αquestion mark≅ going to the activity heading Job Creation: 1. Rehabilitation of owner-occupied Single Family Houses 2. Removal of Dilapidated Structures 3. Rehabilitation of Rental Property Large and Small 4. Neighborhood Revitalization 5. Homeownership for First Time Homebuyers who are low to moderate income 6. New Affordable Housing Construction -- Families and Seniors 7. Job Creation (??) 8. Infrastructure Improvements __________________________________________ James Ericson, Planner N:\DATA\USERS\JIME\SHARE\CC-REPRT.TEM M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2000\City Council\Work Session Packets\01-03-00\Item 6--Set Up Time for Joint EDA-EDC TIF Meeting (Aaron Parrish).doc Item No. 6 Staff Report No. Meeting Date: January 3, 1999 Type of Business: WK WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mayor and City Council Members From: Aaron Parrish, Economic Development Coordinator Item Title/Subject: Joint EDA/EDC Tax Increment Finance Meeting Date of Report: August 29, 2018 Background: Throughout the past several months, the EDA and EDC have been discussing Mounds View’s policy with regard to Tax Increment Finance. To obtain further insight and direction, it was recommended that the two hold a joint meeting. While other meetings have been scheduled and discussed, the Chair of the EDC has recommended the two groups meet on a Thursday evening. Possible dates include January 20th and January 27th at approximately seven o’clock. In addition, the EDC Chair has expressed a desire to hold the regular January meeting prior to the joint meeting. Necessary Actions: Set a meeting time for a joint EDA/EDC TIF policy meeting ______________________________________ Aaron Parrish, Economic Development Coordinator 1 Memorandum To: Chuck Whiting CC: From: Rick Jopke Date: 8/29/2018 Re: Authorization of TOLD Development Co. to Proceed With the Preparation of a PUD Application. The City Council at a previous meeting directed staff to work with TOLD Development Co. to develop specific plans for the use of the city-owned remnant parcel and the adjacent Videen property. Staff has met with representatives of TOLD and Mr. Videen and discussed a number of issues including types of uses, design issues, wetland issues, recreational issues, and procedural issues. I t was determined that the project should proceed through the normal PUD process. In order for TOLD to proceed they will need to develop more detailed plans to insure that all issues are addressed. Because the city owns a parcel which will be included in the PUD, TOLD has asked that the City officially agree to be part of the PUD and to authorize TOLD to proceed to develop the necessary PUD application and plans for city review. TOLD will be responsible for application and plan development costs. A plat will also need to be created. Staff and TOLD are negotiating an appropriate cost sharing arrangement for the plat preparation. This matter is scheduled for discussion at the January 3, 2000 Cuty Council work session. C:\OFFICE\TOLD Jan 3, 2000 Work Session Memo.doc Item No. 8_ Staff Report No.______ Meeting Date: January 3, 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: Continued Discussion of Assessment Policy Revisions Date of Report: August 29, 2018 Staff has revised the Street Rehab Estimates and inserted the percentages discussed by Council at a previous meeting regarding the earlier discussions on this matter. Staff has included both of these documents for Council’s review and further discussion. Perhaps the proposed revisions should be reviewed and clarified before proceeding to the final adoption of the policy. As you might recall, the first reading of this proposed revision was held on August 23, 1999. _________________________________ Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works C:\Mike's documents\staff reports\Assess Pol Rev Stfrpt 2000.doc REVISED STREET REHAB ESTIMATES Staff has revised the pavement rehabilitation method cost estimates for Council=s review and comments. These estimates are based on a street width of 28, assuming a one mile project, just for average calculations. Actual street widths would be adjusted accordingly. The various strategies for rehab are recommended based on the Pavement Condition Index (PCI). If the PCI is higher, the required amount of the pavement repair and preparation will be less, thereby lower the amount of the improvement. The improvement estimates are listed from high PCI to low. The following calculations are based on a budgetary quote staff received from a local contractor. The estimates presented earlier were also based on a similar quote although I believe it might have been the lowest received. These appear to look better incrementally and the scope of the project increases. Included in the estimates are the following (which were not included previously) : Manhole adjustments avg 18 / mile @ $281.00 each, or $.95 / ft. / 2 = .48 / ft. Topsoil and sod on recycle $5.60 / sq. yd. = $3.75 / ft, per side 25 % contingency all projects * Method #1 1 2" Overlay $12.15 per foot for total width $ 6.10 per foot for 2 street width ( one side ) $488.00 improvement cost for typical 80' lot * Method #2 1" milling with 1 2 Α wear overlay $15.65 per foot for total width $7.80 per foot for 2 street width ( one side ) $624.00 improvement cost for typical 80' lot * Method #3 Recycle existing road, 1 2≅ base + 1 2≅ wear ** $29.20 per foot for total width $14.60 per foot for 2 street width ( one side ) $1,170.00 improvement cost for typical 80' lot ** This estimate does not include a surmountable bituminous curb. * These estimates do not include driveway apron paving. Staff has also received a budgetary estimate for lining existing sanitary sewer mains in a project area. Lining of the City main lines would obviously not correct any deficiencies or defects in the residential service. This price would be $36.00 per lineal foot for an eight inch main. Utilizing the same scenario as above, the estimates for this improvement are as follows: 8" Sanitary Sewer Main Lining $36.00 per foot for total width $18.00 per foot for 2 street width ( one side ) $1,440.00 improvement cost for typical 80' lot In light of time schedule for any future improvements and the relatively reasonable expenses associated with any combination of the street rehab methods and sanitary sewer lining, staff would suggest that these type of improvements be assessed at rate of 100 % residential. When the residents wish to have curb and gutter installed, the City might contribute to the costs of the curb and gutter. In an MSA project, the residents could be assessed for the maximum rehab method, together with any utility improvement that might take place. These are just a few project estimates and one method of financing future street and utility projects. There are as many alternatives as one can think of, each with their own pros and cons. Staff is seeking additional Council input and ideas. _________________________________ Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works C:\Mike's documents\staff reports\Revised Street rehab estimates rpt.doc ORDINANCE NO. 600 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 202, SECTION 202.09 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE VIEW ENTITLED "PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS" The City of Mounds View ordains: SECTION I Chapter 202.09,Subd 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code is amended to read: Subd.2 Improvement Type and Apportionment of Cost: a. Street Reconstruction Including Curb and Gutter. The cost of street reconstruction shall be recovered by the adjusted front footage method. The front footage rate shall be determined by dividing the project cost by the total number of adjusted front feet in the project area x the individual adjusted front footage x one-half (2). The assessments per adjusted front foot may vary depending on the underlying zoning of a parcel. Assessments for residential properties which are on collector or arterial streets,(MSA, County road) shall be assessed for one hundred (100%) of the pavement surface and base, up to a width of 26 feet, equally divided by both sides of the street. shall be adjusted so that the amount of the assessment shall be the same as if the project were constructed to residential street standards. a.1. Residents requesting Curb and Gutter and/or installation of sidewalks/trails on a construction project will be assessed twenty-five (25%) of the total cost of the Curb and Gutter which will include engineering, additional removals, base and all other associated expenses. a.2. One hundred (100%) of the turn back funds received from Ramsey County will be applied to the new construction or pavement cost of the road that was received. The remaining cost shall be recovered by means of the general ad valorem property tax paid by the entire community or by other funds that may become available to the City for infrastructure cost recovery. b. Street Resurfacing. Street resurfacing is commonly known and referred to as street overlaying whereby a new bed of road material such as bituminous is installed over an existing paved road to a specific thickness. Assessments shall be determined by the adjusted front footage method at one hundred (100%) percent to properties on both sides of the street. A mill and overlay to an existing paved road will be assessed by the adjusted front footage method at 100% percent to properties on both sides of the street. A recycle and overlay to an existing paved road will be assessed by the adjusted front footage method at one hundred (100%) percent to properties on both sides of the street. c. Sidewalk. Sidewalk improvements may be done in conjunction with a street reconstruction or as a separate project. In any event, cost of sidewalk improvements shall be recovered by assessing twenty-five (25%) to the affected property owners and the remainder paid by the general ad valorem property tax paid by the entire community or by other funds that may become available to the City for infrastructure cost recovery. Sidewalks are generally installed on the City=s major streets, which will connect several neighborhoods and community attractions in a logical pattern. d. Sealcoating. Sealcoating, patching and cracksealing are considered general maintenance activities and the expenses of such acts will be paid for by ad valorem property tax or any other funds available to the City at that time. e. Sanitary Sewer and Water Mains. Repair and replacement of sewer or water mains is usually done in conjunction with a street reconstruction project and the cost of this work should be included as part of the total major street project cost and should also be considered to be included in the rate assessed for street reconstruction. If it is determined that the repair and replacement work results in a greater benefit to some properties and not to others, the Council should consider establishing a different assessment rate based on the benefits received. Sanitary sewer and Water Main replacement / rehabilitation will be assessed at fifty percent (50 %). f. Sanitary Sewer and Water Trunk Improvements. Trunk sewer and water mains are usually designed to carry larger volumes of flow than are necessary within an immediate property area in order to serve additional properties beyond the area of their immediate placement. Therefore, one hundred percent (100%) of the cost of trunk improvements will be assessed on a unit basis to all properties within a district deemed to be benefitted from the trunk improvements. g. Sewer and Water Services. Individual sewer and water services benefit only the properties they serve and 100 percent (100%) of their cost shall be assessed to the property for which they are installed. h. Drainage Improvements. Storm drainage and ponding/basin systems are usually constructed to serve a specific drainage or "watershed" district. These drainage districts have trunk lines, which are large diameter pipes that transport large volumes of water from one or more drainage districts. Property within drainage districts that would receive benefit from a trunk storm sewer, would be assessed a unit amount of $400.00 per lot for a single family residential lot. This amount would be determined and adjusted annually by resolution using the Engineering News Record (ENR). Multifamily housing lots that exceed 1/3 acre would be assessed based on the number of acres, multiplied by the unit cost of $1,200.00 per acre. Commercial / Industrial property would be assessed based on the number of acres that are determined to benefit from the trunk line multiplied by the unit cost of $1,200.00 per acre to a maximum amount of three (3) acres or $3,600.00. The remaining cost will be paid for by the Surface Water Utility and/or by an ad valorem property tax paid by the entire community or by other funds that may become available to the City for infrastructure cost recovery. Should a project be initiated on a particular street that requires storm sewer laterals which would be connected to the trunk lines, the Surface Water Utility would fund these expenses. I. Special Conditions. Special consideration shall be given to the "age" of a street or utility system when determining the proportion of cost to be assessed to benefitted properties. If it is necessary to reconstruct or resurface a street or perform major repair/replacement work on sewer and water utilities, before a reasonable amount of time (10 to 12 years for resurfacing, 12 to 17 years for partial reconstruction and 17 to 25 years for total reconstruction) the assessment shall be calculated on a pro-rated basis. The remaining cost shall be recovered by means of the general ad valorem property tax paid by the entire community or by other funds that may become available to the City for infrastructure cost recovery. J. In projects involving new street construction, and mill and overlays, mailboxes will be grouped on gang posts in numbers logical to the spacing required. This practice will insure the proper placement of the mailboxes, reduce potential roadside hazards, and generally clean up the edge of the street. The cost of the new posts and installation will be added to the project. Residents of overlays and mill and overlays may request the new posts and installation, which will be added to the cost of the project. Section II. Chapter 202.09 Subd 3 of the Mounds View Municipal Code is amended to Read: Subd.3 METHODS OF ASSESSMENT a. The nature of an improvement determines the method of assessment. The objective is to choose an assessment method which will arrive at a reasonable, fair and equitable assessment which will be uniform upon the same class of property within the assessed area. The most frequently recognized assessment methods are: the unit assessment, the front footage assessment and the area assessment. Depending upon the individual project, any one or a combination of these methods may be utilized to arrive at an appropriate cost distribution. City staff will consider all methods and weigh their applicability to the project and present a recommendation to the City Council in the form of a mock assessment roll (or rolls). A description of each assessment and its corresponding policy application is presented. A separate section (Section III) will identify the appropriate matchup of method with a specific type of project and analyze why each is generally used. The purpose of assessment formulas is to allocate assessed costs among benefitted properties, the formula should result in a allocation of assessments which is reasonably related to the benefit received. Any one predetermined formula will not be appropriate in all cases because of circumstances unique to the relationship between the specific project and the specific properties benefitted. When considering an assessment method or formula for any given project, it may be necessary to combine assessment methods or to modify the methods described below. Therefore, the following description of methods of assessments should be regarded as guidelines, which may not be appropriate in all cases. b. Unit Assessment. A unit assessment shall be derived by dividing the total project cost by the number of Residential Equivalent Density (RED) units in the project area. A RED unit is defined as a single family residential unit. All platted and unplatted property will assigned RED unit values equivalent to the underlying zoning. When the existing land use is less than the highest and best permitted use, the Council may consider the current use as well as the full potential of land use in determining the appropriate number of RED units. Otherwise, the following RED chart will apply on a per unit basis, subject to adjustment by the Council for any inequities: Single Family 1.00 RED Duplex 1.00 RED Condominium 0.80 RED Multifamily (3 units or more) 0.80 RED Townhouse 0.80 RED Commercial 2.00 Units Industrial 2.00 Units The unit approach has proven to be the best method in those instances whereby the improvement largely benefits everyone to the same degree and the cost of the improvement is not generally affected by parcel size. c. Area Assessment. The assessable area shall be expressed in terms of the number of acres or the number of square feet subject to assessment. When determining the assessable area, the following considerations will be given: (1) Ponding Assessment Consideration. Lakes, ponds and swamps may be considered a part of the assessable area of a parcel. (2) Road Right-of-Way Assessment Consideration. Up to 20 percent (20%) of the gross acreage may be deducted for street right-of-way purposes within unplatted parcels of five acres or more depending upon the parcel configuration and is only applicable to single family residential use. Parcels of less than five acres may not qualify and may be assessed full acreage. The reason for this size restriction is that, in most instances, parcels of less than five acres cannot support an internal public road system. (3) Park Dedication Assessment Consideration. When park land is dedicated as part of a residential development, as required by Subdivisions Code - Chapter 1204.02, the developer shall not be assessed an acreage charge on the portion of land dedicated. d. Front Footage Assessment. The actual physical dimensions of a parcel abutting an improvement (ie., street, sewer, water, etc.) will generally not be construed as the frontage utilized to calculate the assessment for a particular parcel. Rather, an "adjusted front footage" will be determined. The purpose of this method is to equalize assessment calculations for lots of similar size. Individual parcels by their very nature differ considerably in shape and area. The following procedures will apply when calculating adjusted front footage. The selection of the appropriate procedures will be determined by the specific configuration of the parcel. All measurements will be scaled from available plat and section maps and will be rounded down to the nearest 2 foot dimension with any excess fraction deleted. e. Categorical type descriptions are as follows: Standard Lots Rectangular Variation Lots Triangular Lots Cul-de-sac Lots Curved Lots Irregularly Shaped Lots Corner Lots Flag Lots Double Frontage Lots The ultimate objective of these procedures is to arrive at a fair and equitable distribution of cost whereby consideration is given to lot size and parcels are comparably assessed. SECTION III. This ordinance is effective thirty days after its publication. Introduced and read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on April 28, 1997. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 12 day of May, 1997. ATTEST: ____________________________ MAYOR (SEAL) ____________________________ ADMINISTRATOR APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________ CITY ATTORNEY Item No. 9 Staff Report No. Meeting Date: January 3, 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 Engineering Statements of Qualifications Date of Report: August 29, 2018 Council may recall that staff was directed to advertise for engineering proposals. An advertisement for statements of qualifications was placed in the local paper and trade journals. As a result, staff received statements from seven firms. The intent of this procedure was to select three to five firms to form a pool of qualified consultants to perform various engineering tasks on a project specific rotational basis. SEH, which also submitted a statement would be retained as the City’s Engineer for purposes of signing MSAS reports and fulfilling the requirements of the MSA system. Minor issues or questions of which SEH would have ready access and or knowledge to would be directed to their personnel of which staff is most familiar with. Any other projects such as street projects, wetland delineations, surveys, mechanical, some plan reviews, environmental studies, to name a few, would be offered to the firm at the top of the list at the time. The next such project would be offered to the firm then at the top of the list. This plan will provide the City with some comparison of firms and personnel, effectiveness, quality of product, expense, and timeliness of commitment. It is suggested that this pool be in effect for a period of at least five years, pending further evaluation. The following firms submitted Statements of Qualifications: Enviroscience Hennning, Metz, Hartford & Associates, Inc. SEH TKDA Schoell & Madson, Inc. Bay West Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates Staff is recommending that all firms with the exception of Bay West and Henning, Metz, Hartford & Associates, Inc. be included in the City’s pool. Bay West is specializing in environmental issues and engineering and Henning, Metz… are located in Fargo, N.D. which might make them somewhat more difficult to readily contact and be involved with on various projects. If Council agrees with this selection, staff will pursue agreements and wage scales with the selected firms. Staff seeks Council direction in this matter. A packet of the submittals is in the Council office for your review. _________________________________ Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works C:\Mike's documents\staff reports\Engineering SOQ.doc M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2000\City Council\Work Session Packets\01-03-00\Item 12.doc Surveying Criteria -- Spec Draft Objective: Have a neutrally developed, unbiased survey conducted to produce factual data for the Council and community to review and interpret. Survey data should be generated to measure resident satisfaction with City services and identify attributes corresponding to satisfaction measures. Purpose: Provide the Council and community with an ongoing assessment tool for evaluating City services, understanding that survey results and their meaning are open to interpretation by the Council and community. Recognizing that, conducting surveys as a matter of routine and reviewing their information only guides the Council for future decision making, and does not obligate the Council to particular actions. Surveys would be conducted on a quarterly basis. The Council would determine the theme to be surveyed, after which the surveyor would have six weeks to formulate the final written report for the Council. City determines the quarterly subject, subject should be citywide theme oriented, like “parks”, or “customer service”, and not specific issue or locale oriented like “Spring Lake Road improvements”. The Council would determine the theme to be surveyed, after which the surveyor would have six weeks to formulate the final written report for the Council. Surveyor proposes standardized and consistent surveying methodology, like random phone calling, mail surveys, etc. The number of survey questions shall not exceed 25 per survey. Surveyor develops the questions based on the subject theme the City chooses. City does not review or approve the questions, and agrees with the surveying methodology at the time of bid award. Any interference from Council or City staff in formulating or conducting the survey are to be reported to the Council in writing immediately, and would constitute grounds for dismissing the survey at full cost to the City. The City’s agreement lasts one year and requires four surveys to be done. Options: The City may request a survey to address resident preferences for an upcoming Council decision that pertains to the whole community. For instance, “If the City was to build a community center, what attributes would you want …” Surveyor provides City a written report of their survey findings. Recognizing the City’s limited budget, survey results should be presented in writing to the City in plain report form. The surveyor will make no presentation in person to the Council.