Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2000/05/01M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2000\City Council\Work Session Packets\05-01-00\Agenda (Revised).doc CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW WORK SESSION AGENDA May 1, 2000 6:00 p.m. Amended Items Discussed Per Consensus _____ 1. Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Section 3.01 of the City Charter- Scott Riggs _____ 2. Discussion of Charter Amendments Alternatives / Form of Gov’t – Scott Riggs _____ 3. TIF District No. 1 Budget Modification – Aaron Parrish (Removed from Agenda, replaced with item below.) Golf Course Survey -- John Hammerschmidt _____ 4. Discussion of Legal Services Expenditures – Bruce Kessel (Removed from Agenda) _____ 5. Update on Hwy 10 Study – Rick Jopke _____ 6. Discussion regarding the pending appeal of Planning Commission Resolution 615-00, a resolution denying a variance for an 8-foot tall fence in the front yard of 8438 Groveland Road – Jim Ericson _____ 7. Discussion regarding Wetland Buffer Permit to allow for the construction of a twin home at 7654 Woodlawn Drive – Jim Ericson _____ 8. Big Woods Update – John Hammerschmidt _____ 9. Discussion of First Tee Letter of Intent – John Hammerschmidt _____ 10. Review of Pleasant View Drive Traffic Signal Comments -- Mike Ulrich (May be removed from Agenda) _____ 11. Discussion of Skidloader Purchase -- Mike Ulrich/Bruce Kessel _____ 12. Discussion regarding Insurance and Personnel Issues – Mike Ulrich/Bruce Kessel _____ 13. Closed Session to Discuss Police and Sergeants Labor Contracts – Mike Ulrich M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2000\City Council\Work Session Packets\05-01-00\Agenda.doc CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW WORK SESSION AGENDA May 1, 2000 6:00 p.m. Items Discussed Per Consensus _____ 1. Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Section 3.01 of the City Charter- Scott Riggs _____ 2. Discussion of Charter Amendments Alternatives / Form of Gov’t – Scott Riggs _____ 3. TIF District No. 1 Budget Modification – Aaron Parrish _____ 4. Discussion of Legal Services Expenditures – Bruce Kessel _____ 5. Update on Hwy 10 Study – Rick Jopke _____ 6. Discussion regarding the pending appeal of Planning Commission Resolution 615-00, a resolution denying a variance for an 8-foot tall fence in the front yard of 8438 Groveland Road – Jim Ericson _____ 7. Discussion regarding Wetland Buffer Permit to allow for the construction of a twin home at 7654 Woodlawn Drive – Jim Ericson _____ 8. Big Woods Update – John Hammerschmidt _____ 9. Discussion of First Tee Letter of Intent – John Hammerschmidt _____ 10. Review of Pleasant View Drive Traffic Signal Comments -- Mike Ulrich (May be removed from Agenda) _____ 11. Discussion of Skidloader Purchase -- Mike Ulrich/Bruce Kessel _____ 12. Discussion regarding Insurance and Personnel Issues – Mike Ulrich/Bruce Kessel _____ 13. Closed Session to Discuss Police and Sergeants Labor Contracts – Mike Ulrich 1 STAFF REPORT Date: 4/28/00 To: Mounds View City Council Cc: File From: John Hammerschmidt RE: Golf Course Questioner I am currently putting together an informational packet on the golf course and it’s possible plans to expand. Included in this packet will be information on finances, The First Tee, conceptual plans, possible time frames, and a questioner for people to respond to. I will copy all council members on the responses we get. The golf course committee recommended putting in a page with the council’s individual views being represented so that people may direct their opinions to them directly. I have included information to show you the percentages of golfers from which cities actually use our course. There will be a place on the questioner for respondent to list his/her city. If the Council members would care to put down their views on expanding the golf course,( ie. Step 1- expand driving range and make it a year-round operation. Step 2- build new clubhouse with food and beverage available. Step 3- build either 9 more holes in ‘Big Woods’ area or a chip and putt course if land use is restricted.) and views on us becoming affiliated with the First Tee organization, I will make sure that they are included in the informational packet. Demographic Breakdown Of Phone Numbers Mounds View 27% New Brighton 17% Blaine 12% Circle Pines 10% Coon Rapids 7% Fridley 7% Shoreview/ Arden Hills 5% Columbia Heights 3% Spring Lake Park 3% Ham Lake/ Andover 4% Roseville, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Plymouth White Bear Lake and Anoka 5% 4/28/00 STAFF REPORT: Golf Course Questioner 2 * These percentages are taken from the last 3200 tee times that have been called in representing 10,000 golfers. We average 45,000 rounds of golf for the year, with the mean rounds played at 12.8 rounds per golfer. Note: 27% of our play is generated by Mounds View residents. We would expect the percentages of Mounds View residents using the facility to increase as we expand. The advantage they currently have is an extra two days to make tee times. With a year-round driving range and adding food and beverage service, we can tailor our services for more use to the community. The next three cities, representing 39% of the use, all have golf courses in their cities. Item No: 7 Meeting Date: May 1, 2000 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 & City Council From: James Ericson, Planner Item Title/Subject: Discussion Regarding Wetland Buffer Permit to allow for the Construction of a Twinhome at 7654 Woodlawn Drive. Date of Report: April 27, 2000 Background: For many years, Victor Loeffler, the owner of 7654 Woodlawn Drive, has been actively seeking buyers for his property, which is located between Bronson Drive and Woodlawn Drive, adjacent to the Sunrise United Methodist Church property. There are wetlands present on the site which has until recently made the property somewhat less desirable for development. In October of 1998, the property owner contracted with Summit Envirosystems to perform a wetland delineation of the site in preparation of an eventual sale of the property. Rice Creek Watershed District inspectors have reviewed the wetland delineation report and approved the delineation subject to their revision. Mr. Loeffler has a potential buyer for the property and is seeking City approval of a buffer permit to allow for the construction of a Twinhome on this R-2 zoned lot. Discussion: The City reviews all development that occurs within wetlands and their buffers because of the important role that wetlands play in maintaining the ecosystem and the area hydrology, in that they are critical to the present and future health, safety and general welfare of the land, animals and people within the City. Chapter 1010 of the City Code outlines the permitting process for work occurring within a wetland buffer. The intent of the buffer permit requirement is not to prohibit development within 100 feet of a wetland, but rather to allow the City an opportunity to review the work in relation to the potential impacts to adjacent wetlands. Buffer permits do not allow for any alteration of a wetland—only those areas surrounding a wetland. The boundaries of the wetland on the subject property cover the northwest corner of this irregularly shaped lot. The attached survey shows the location of the wetland (as adjusted by RCWD staff) and the footprint of the proposed twinhome. At its nearest point, the westernmost-corner of the twinhome is approximately 10 feet from the wetland. The southernmost corner of the building would be approximately 55 feet from the delineated boundary of the wetland. Wetland Buffer Report 7654 Woodlawn Drive May 1, 2000 Attached is a letter from Rice Creek which approves of the proposed development as long as fill is contained east of the estimated delineation. RCWD staff also recommends the installation of a retaining wall between the westernmost corner of the building and the wetland as well as the addition of a type of rip/rap feature at the end of the concrete swale that drains onto the property. Staff concurs with these suggestions. The survey and delineation report have been forwarded to SEH, the City’s engineer, who will be able to review this request prior to the Council’s May 8th meeting. Recommendation: Direct staff to draft a resolution for action at your meeting on May 8, 2000. _____________________________________ James Ericson, Planner O:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\WB00-002\Buffer Report -- May 1, 2000.doc Zoning Map 7654 Woodlawn Drive Item No. 10 Staff Report No. Meeting Date: May 1, 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 Pleasantview Drive Traffic Signal Comments Date of Report: August 29, 2018 Attached are the residential comments from the informational meeting, additional concerns and proposals from the residents and Anoka County’s response to these issues. Council requested this information for review to determine if any change would be made in the City of Mounds View’s position on the proposed signal. __________________________________ Michael Ulrich, Interim City Administrator NOTE: At the time of this writing the information has not been released by the agencies involved. If possible it will be forwarded via e-mail or presented at the meeting on Monday night. C:\Mike's documents\projects\Pleasantview Signal\Comments stfrpt.doc Item No. 11 Staff Report No. Meeting Date: May 1, 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: Discussion of Skidloader Purchase Date of Report: August 29, 2018 Per discussion at the April 17, 2000 work session, staff has received a quote from Lano Equipment for the replacement of the City’s skidloader. The current loader will be traded in on the new purchase. The new equipment will be purchased from the State bid procedures and funded from the departments capital construction fund, Pavement Management 100-4470-7050. New Skidloader $24,349.00 Trade-in - $12,859.00 Tax $ 746.00 Total $12,236.00 Staff recommends purchase of a new skidloader from Lano Equipment for $12,236.00 to be funded from a transfer of $12,236.00 from the Pavement Management fund 100-4470-7050 to 100-4470-7030. ___________________________________ Michael Ulrich, Interim City Administrator C:\Mike's documents\staff reports\Skidloader pur.doc Item No. 12 Staff Report No. Meeting Date: May 1, 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: Discussion Regarding Insurance and Personnel Issues Date of Report: August 29, 2018 At the April 17, 2000 work session some pay equity items and health insurances issues were mentioned. Staff would like to discuss these further with Council and seek some direction in them. Briefly speaking, some consideration to establish a set percentage of City contribution to the employee’s health benefits, and possibly bringing the City’s pay equity plan into compliance were touched on. A set percentage of the health insurance will be presented for some City bargaining units, which begs the question of whether this practice would be extended to the remainder of the employees. One additional item is the consideration of extending the severance provision of utilizing 65% of an employee’s (Police & Public Works) accumulated sick leave for extended health insurance benefits upon retirement to the non-bargaining group of employees. This issue has been discussed several times at the staff level prior to the former Police Chief’s departure, with the explanation that this issue would be presented prior to the adoption of the “New Personnel Policy Manual”. I personally don’t recall any discussion on this matter. Staff would seek Council direction is this matter. Bruce Kessel, Finance Director will present a brief analysis of the insurance issues and pay equity proposal. Should Council have any questions, which might require additional research prior to the meeting, please do not hesitate to call staff. ___________________________________ Michael Ulrich, Interim City Administrator C:\Mike's documents\staff reports\Health benefits Pay Equity.doc City of Mounds View Staff Report August 29, 2018 Page 2 City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mike Ulrich From: Bruce A. Kessel, Finance Director Item Title/Subject: Pay Equity & Health insurance Date of Report: April 27, 2000 Pay Equity Based upon preliminary pay equity data, if the 4 full time female dominated positions (7 employees) were raised to the predicted pay equity line, the City would be in compliance with 80% of its female dominated positions at or above the predicted pay equity line. The cost to raise these positions to the predicted line, including social security, retirement and workers compensation, is estimated to be $10,500 if the adjustment was retroactive to January 1, 2000. Of this amount, $1,650 would be from funds other than the General Fund, for a net general fund cost of $8,850 if retro active to January 1, 2000 Health Insurance The City makes health, dental, and life insurance available to its employees. For some time, it has provided a not to exceed amount which is first used for $10,000 of life insurance, then is available for either health or dental. Depending upon an employee’s situation, they can pick the policy and coverage that best suits their needs and then pay for any costs above the City’s contribution. The following is a summary of the City contribution and employee’s cost for the last several years: Employee Low Medium Employer Jan-96 25.52 54.58 310.00 May-96 7.63 62.31 310.00 Jan-97 0.00 62.31 330.00 May-97 33.71 85.60 330.00 Jan-98 24.31 76.20 340.00 May-98 76.25 87.09 340.00 Jan-99 66.20 77.09 350.00 May-99 66.20 77.09 350.00 Jan-00 56.20 67.09 360.00 May-00 118.20 130.72 360.00 It should be noted that the medium employee column is the second most popular policy picked by employees. Depending upon the period in question, there may have been two additional policies available, with higher premiums than those listed. Based upon a discussion with Laura Kushner, Director, Human Resources Management and Personnel Services at the League of Minnesota Cities, there are still a few public employers within the state that pay a percentage of health insurance premiums, however the trend has been away from such arrangements. She indicated that her past experience has been that it is difficult and costly to remove percentage of premium language in contracts, and at times, can also complicate changes from existing coverages and deductibles (ie changes in copays, prescription costs, maximum out of pocket costs, etc.). She did indicate, that she is aware of some employers who have agreed to share a large rate increase with employees on a percentage basis for one year (in other words, if the premium increase exceeds x%, Y% will be paid by the employer and Z% by the employee). For 2000, everyone except police union employees had the City contribution towards insurance increase from $350 to $360 effective January 1, 2000, which lowered the employee’s cost $10 for the first several months. Since police union employees did not have a contract in place, no change was made for their insurance costs. If the police contract provides a different City contribution than is presently provided to other employees, the City would have to determine whether it will grant such a change to other employees, and when such a change would take place. It would then also have to determine how to handle the first several months when employee’s contributions decreased, how to handle employees that have since retired, and would probably need to modify the collective bargaining agreement with public works employees if they were also to receive the same benefit change. Since the City’s insurance provider provides several different policies and coverages with different costs, it would also need to insure that language was clear as to whether it would pay %’s of the lowest cost policy and coverage or % of any policy and coverage. Assuming that the City would provide 80% of the cost of $10,000 life insurance and 80% cost of the lowest cost family health insurance cost, the following is the estimated cost: Police union $3,500 Other General Fund non-union 2,500 Other General Fund union 1,100 Other Funds non-union 1,200 Other Funds union 1,100 The above costs are for 2000 assuming a full year. Actual costs would depend upon classes of employees granted any change and effective dates of any such change. Funding At this time, I am unaware of any General Fund revenues that will be exceed the budget by any substantial amount, nor am I aware of any General Fund expenditure line item that will under budget by any large amount. Two other funding sources are contingencies and reserves. The 2000 budget for contingencies was $51,162. The General Fund reserves at the beginning of the year will be somewhere around three million dollars. Retirements and prior usages of reserves will reduce these amounts in 2000.