HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2019/05/06CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA
MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL
Monday, May 6, 2019
6:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Mueller, Gunn, Hull, Meehlhause, Bergeron
PUBLIC COMMENT
Citizens may speak to issues not on tonight's agenda. Before speaking, please give your
full name and address for the minutes. Also, please limit your comments to three minutes.
AGENDA ITEMS DISCUSSED BY CONSENSUS
1. Charter Commission Presentation/Discussion — Chapter 4 — Special Elections —
Administrator Zikmund and Charter Commission Chair Marissa Reyes -Johnson
2. Five Year Financial Plan 2020 thru 2025 — Finance Director Beer
3. Council Direction on 2020 Municipal Budget — Finance Director Beer
4. Discussion of Park Dedication Fees — Community Development Director Sevald
5. Review of the Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan — Community Development Director
Sevald
6. City Hall Remodel — Public Works Director Peterson
7. Automobile Repair in Residential Zoning — Administrator Zikmund (Time Permitting)
8. Social Media — Administrator Zikmund (Time Permitting)
9. Minnesota State Fire Chiefs Association Letter (MSFCA) — Administrator Zikmund
(Time Permitting)
NEXT COUNCIL WORK SESSION: Monday, June 3, 2019 at 6:30 pm
NEXT COUNCIL MEETING: Monday, May 13, 2019 at 6:30 pm
MOUNDS ]VIEW
MEMORANDUM
to: Mounds View City Council
from: Nyle Zikmund, City Administrator
re: May 6, 2019 Workshop
date: May 1, 2019
1. Charter Commission Discussion — Special Election. Zikmund & Reyes -Johnson
Charter Chairwoman Marissa Reyes -Johnson will be on hand to discuss the request council
made over a year ago addressing the point in time at which a special election is held when a
vacancy occurs on council. During this time there were two things that happened causing some
delay in their deliberation; changeover in Commission Members and changes in state statute.
In short, the decision/consensus item before you, given that it takes a unanimous vote of all
five of the council to change a charter upon recommendation from the commission is what
option captures that unanimous consent. Doing nothing results in the current provision of 365
days (one year) remaining in place. The statutory change limits dates on which special election
can occur thereby restricting the options on changing. The three options if you want to change
include;
A. Approximately more thanl4 months remaining in the term
B. Approximately more than 18 months remaining in the term
C. Will follow state statute (but this option requires you to pick one of the two
options above.) By choosing this option, if statute changes there is no need to
revisit unless you disagree with the statutory change.
Consensus Requested — Which option has the consensus of all five council members
The Charter Commission had reached the point of drafting language. If a consensus is achieved, city
Attorney Riggs can use that draft in providing council with language that can be reviewed at a future
meeting for approval and back to the Charter Commission for their review and recommendation.
2. Five Year Financial Plan — Director Beer will present information at meeting
Consensus Requested — Provide direction to staff
3. 2020 Municipal Budget — Materials included in packet
Consensus Requested — Provide direction to staff
4. Park Dedication Fees — Further discussion
Consensus Requested — Provide direction to staff
5. 2040 Comp Plan — Review and approval
Consensus Requested — Final changes and place on May 13, 2019 agenda for formal approval
6. City Hall Remodel
Director Peterson will provide more details on scope of project and cost. Current funding allocated
by council will suffice to remodel Police Department needs but little more. As the PD is the
priority we can move forward and have further discussion at future meeting on desire/ability to
address needs.
Consensus Requested — Authorization to move forward with remodel for Police portion of city hall
7. Automobile Repair — Materials included in packet
Consensus Requested — Provide direction to staff if council wants to change code prohibiting auto
repair business operation in residential zoning.
8. Social Media — Discussion/Information Only
9. MSFCA Letter — Materials included in packet include letter that was emailed to Council last
Friday from President T. John Cunningham (Brooklyn Park Fire Chief) which includes email
exchange between myself and Eagan Fire Chief seeking clarification on several statements
made. The statements made regarding their positions would have significant impact on SBM
FD and subsequently the City of Mounds View. That email exchange resulted in a letter being
sent from the Mayor and Myself (as reported in weekly staff report). President Cunningham's
letter is in response to a near exact email sent (requesting clarification on MSFCA positions) to
Chief Scott. Chief Scott did not provide the clarification requested, thus, the same request was
sent to the President of the association).
President Cunningham's letter alleges/infers improper actions on my part but offers no
evidence or examples of such. Further, he provides technical information to support a
discussion on reallocation of pension aids to other uses related to recruitment and retention.
However, while the information is accurate it is incomplete and therefore, becomes inaccurate.
Pensions are powerful benefit tools and alteration of the model should occur with substantive
discussion and deliberation. President Cunningham copies a large number of individuals on
this correspondence including their board (comprised of 21 members). To the best of my
knowledge (obtained from being a member for over 30 years, being their executive director
from 2015-2017, and reading all minutes of all meetings since) the "official" positions
delineated in the letter have never been discussed by the current board nor ever adopted.
Given some of the statements made, inaccurate/incomplete information and widespread
dissemination of the letter; council may want to respond. Options include:
1. Written response from Mayor/Administrator.
2. Request additional information.
3. Invite President Cunningham to future meeting/workshop to discuss.
4. Other or combination of above (respond, request, invite)
Consensus Requested — Determine appropriate response.
Draft
2020 - 2024
Five Year
Financial Plan
MOUNDS VIEW
City of Mounds View,
Minnesota
_Jc
VI To
s
CS V
• C
o • LL
L @
t., }
O >
LL
General Fund Multi -year Operating Budget 2020 thru 2024
00 10
e-I �
Nu
N N
O u
N Q
C
0
a
E
‘.0 7
CO 0 u
N N Q
a)
l7
O ▪ O • O N. 00 ^ ,JD M 00 CO N CO 000 ▪ Cr) 01 Cr) N ' 0 '
O O N V 0 c-I 0 0 0 Lf) N LnN )f) Li-) N )f) ul 0 M 0
N N Cr)i a M ) m d' N ,--I Lf1 N N N 0 Cr) N N M 0 0
N LO M ^- co- o M N M Q1 co- LO co- M M M Q1 00
O 01 01 '" V N N c-1 V c-1 M N V M 01 01 N
M CO M N M eti M
✓ 1
V}
a` M Ln N o 0 ,--I N N. M N N Li-) er M M N N ' 0 '
O O ,, 0 7 01 , )f) a -I N 00 00 a -I V N. Q1 V 7 c-I II) 0
N M a M eti O m Lf1 V O M O) n ,--I e-I O) Lf1 Lf1 N CO 0
co- 01 Lf1 a O 00 eti LD co- W N V co- co- O M Q1 n
N N. 01 "' M N N O O .--I M N M m 0) 0) N
e-I M O m ,--I m N M e
1.f1 i--I
V}
O O O al Li-) e-I N N m 0) 0N N. O 0 l0 Cr)) 0 ) ' 0 '
O O Vf 01 7 LO .. N CO Lf) N. LnLO LO 7 Lf▪ ) 0 0 r1 N. 0
N M O O e'1 N m Cr) al 01 M 00 e-IO n M Q1 Q1 eti O 0
O V Lf1 e co- n 00 O co- 00 LO ey e I n n an- Ql LO
LO N N N N LO O N c-1 M N N m 00 00 N
00 M ,--I m N N e-I M e
V}
e• \ ° N Lf1 ,--I m Lfl co dl N n O M Lf1 Lf1 00 Lf1 ' co'
O O use-1 7 M m N 00 Lf) m V m e-1 Lf) 0▪ ) V 7 N c-1 O
N M ti Cr)O, L a 00 e� f1 1sCr)al 00 tO O CO Cr) M M O 00 0
0-d''Lf1 c-I Cr) LO LD elM n Lf1 O) eti Lf1 Lf1 M 00 Lf1
Ln LO N L., c-1 N LO 01 M c-1 M c-1 c-I g CO CO N
LD M t--I M e-I N e-I M m
e• \ ° M Ln Mrs co O M er V O M n 0) 0) O 00 ' 0 '
n p 000 M 7 Li-) L0 0 0 0 N. 0 N 01 .--1 0 Ln Li-) V Li-) 0
ey e,i ni Li-) e-I eti m L1 O O M O) eti O1 O O) co co 0) Ln 0
co- Ol O1 N la' Lf1 00 0-1 M n N N 00 N 00 el
Ln Ln N v O s LO CO 0) e-1 M r1 O m 00 00 N
d ' M r-I M e-I i--I e-I M
e-I
Other revenue
V}
v.) LnO m O O O N er a.) O O er LD LO d' 01 ' 0 '
a o0 7 0 ". O O O n e-1 tV 0 0 00 V V Lf) O O
a N e-I o0 N O O O M O LO o 0 0 er
V co M O
▪ Ql M^ v Lf1 0 Lf1 M M LO M Lf1 O O N 00 M
V V LO 0) N LO CO LO c-1 M c-1 0) m COCOI.
N
N Cr) e-I N e-I e-I e-I N
ey
V}
d ' al Lf1 o Q) LO Ln N. al LO 0 d"Q) M O eti n ' eti
N 7 M m e-1 d- e-1 7 e-1 M O n e-1 O LO N LO 01
0) e-I 00 ^ 0) co e-I O O N. 00 O N e-I 00 1...N.
O e-I
N elco- v 00 M N N 0) m Mn 00 ey N 00 Lf1
00 V 0) a M r N. c-1 N N CO .1 0 M N. LO N
O N M M N e-I M e-I
ey
V}
N Ln Lf1 M O LD Ln M V O LO LD ' CO O N ' 0 IN
V 7 M m O -1 LO LO LO V e-1 00 01 Lf) CT) M 0 N
00 eti 00 M LO LD 01eti eti CO 0 Lf1 0 LD 00 LO
0) elO 01 e-I 00 0 M n LD n N 0 N n e-I N-
o V 0) a 0 M LO -1 0) e-1 N N 00 f LO N N
CO NM M O e-I M m e-I
M e-I
00
R
u
N 01 Ln 01 Zr'' M LD 00 O) O 00 00 Lnn ' dl N 0 ' 0
0. n 7 e-1 .. n Ln O 01 O W n W V O e-1 O O
M e-I e-I ^ e-I L11 d' V .-I al N O) Lf1 M LD 0 0
14 O M LD N. N V co- 0 0) elN 00 N N. N
y 0 m Lf) ...... 0) N 0 CO 0) V N 0 V m Li-) N
N N e-1 N e-I 0 e-I M
M e-1
0) V}
Revenues:
d
ra
u d
O 3
u
0
u .+
-
0
O
C 0
O
in C
T 01
a • N . c M
vale f6 u � N -0
ro '6 C
CO 0_ 0) U a) o o C
V) -0 X 0) C > M M O 11
X 01 0) +X�+ N N L C Lo i 0 "C _C -C w 7'
+--' a Y C C O•
bD 7
T N X .66E
a) w C N w w J w
r+ Y m '� a0+ O N 0�j Y ,v N 0) N w
°1 0) a ' v C ao La v u 0 r0 3 a) `o Q
a
° O� F ro L 0 L) a) co C 0) - N
cc n N n
d d d w O= J U w = C H
M
lD
N
Lf
Ln
01
0
0
O
n
N
O
N
0
O
00
0
O
LO
N
N
00
LO
M
M
n
O
00
M
00
n
m
M
a
N
n
N
n
LO
n
N
N
0
LO
M
LO
Total revenues
0)
oi
a)
O
a) >
x
x Li)W
M a)
c .2
co 0
a) •E
Q to
O 3
eti N
0 00
O 0N0
M N
O 11)
0 CO
n N
O N
al 0
c-1
M 01
Lf1 LO
D N
V 0
e-I 0
M LD
L0 N
al 0
00 0
N
O Lf1
D N
N 0
Lf) 0
N
• cri
M N
0 Lf)
O) M
00 u1
Lf)
d Lf1
V M
Lf1
lf) c-I
m 0
c N
N .0
n Lf1
00
00
0
) -1
)11
01
00
dl
VD
-I
COCri
L0
n
CO
O
00
Lf1
Ln
0000
LO
00
N
lD
0
O
E
=
CCCLO
j ` O
O o _a
O <
Administrative Services:
M N eti 0
n N 00 O
O eti N N
O N 00 LD
CO M N M
M M M
O 01 N d'
N 00 l0 -1
N 0 0 M
n eti n Lf1
l0 M c-1 N
M H1 M
N n O M
O M N c
CO 0 0) M
• O 0 1
Lf) M c-1
M M M
0 c-I c- c0
O N 7 00
00 0 al LD
N Q LO
V N 01 0
M N M
d • Lf1 l0 d'
.--1 0 01 0
0 0) ey O
Q n LN
N NCO
01
Cr) N N
1 N dl M
co O n
0 CO eti n
OLDO
O N n CO
(1'1 N N
N O 01 0
00 LO N
CO d' M LD
O M. 00 e�
00 M lD LO
N N N
00 v.) V Lf1
m n n 0
Cr, 1.11 01
ey Q1
m• rsi. D )f)
N
LD n 0 M
N. LO 00 r-1
V eti 0 n
0) Lf1 N
00 c Lf) M
N N
Central Services
O
n
n
O
ey
00
ey
0
ey
0
0
0
0
ey
Ln
0
n
V
LO
dl
rq
01
00
n
N
O
00
N
01
CO
LO
00
7
01
01
n
0
ey
kri
N
n
O
LO
O
O
n
00
0
0
LO
0)
00
n
N
N
)f)
M
LO
l0
esi
M
5M-1
O
M
Lf1
00
00
H1
00
LO
n
(1'1
LO
O
Lf1
H1
M
LO
Hl
CO
01
CO
M
(1'1
Hl
0
0
00
(1'1
0
LO
N
V
LO
00
N
0
0
m
N
O
O
.0
O
00
00
O
O
Lf1
N
M
00
00
M
ul
u l-
LO
0
O
CO"'
M
N
00
51
00
n
00
M
O
0)
M
00
CO
CO
ey
00
V
00
ey
CO
Lf1
n
ey
LO
ey
N
0
N
ey
00
00
LO
fO
ey
Ln
Lf)
0
ey
Lf1
n
0
ey
0
n
L0
5'1
1
00 V) a
M 0 a
Q1 N Q1
ONN
eti M
0) Y 00 a LL
a
O a
0
00
V1
0
N
N
0 O
0
O
CN-1
Cr)
0
t0
0
O
01 V1
00 N 00
NI O M
t0 a c
ey ey M
O a M
ON
ON
01 N u a0
ey ey M
01 O
01 u)
N Ni
u m
ey ey
eti 00
WO
OW
01 'ChM
ey e-
N 00
O
M u1
M N
a N
ey ey
M 0
00 t0
N N
MN
ey e-
lr1 e-I
c-I
'Tr CO
a 00
a a
a N
ey ey
V1 01
u c-1
V CO
00 00
e-1 0
ey e-
e--1 LO
NM
tD t0
-1 00
ey
0
V1
O1
N
O
01
tD
00
00
N
ul
00
O
N
N
00
a
O
t0
N
kD
N
01
LID
N
M
N
N
00
ey
M
0
N
0)
0V
U) 0
�
0
c C
0 0.
O '5
a
W006 0
i 0 0z t
0 0 v
0 V C
, m i
a
NMM
N N c-I
0 a CO
O a tD
N N N
N eti
LC) ey ey
01 0
00 ul NI
0-00 a
t0 tO N
N eti
M N eti
O 0M0 N
N N u) lDN N
N eti
00 m M
N tD u)
mu-) Cr)
N t0 00
a ul t0
N eti
tD N ,--1
O V1 OM
ry o to
M u) l0
N eti
M M V
tO N N
N ul M
V1 00 N
O VD a
N eti
O O LO
O 00 N
N 0 tD
N N a
01 0 a
ey ey
O c NI
M 01 O
00 M M
e-I e-
0
al
ul
n
u1
CO
1p
0
O
1p
t0
00
0
0
O
N
ey
v
O
Vi
M
01
.0
O
o V1 0 0 0 0 0 tD t0
0 N 0 0 0 O O a 01
al a V1 O O O O a
Q1 eti t0 V1 O tD ul 01 a
t0 a N c-I CO N CO N
NI NI
l0 N O O O O O m t0
N N 0 0 0 0 O ul m
a 0 ul O O O O tD a
I- 0 t0 0 0 tD u1 00 a
t0 a u) a -I 00 N N NI
NI N eti
eti N O O O O O V1 t0
.--1 c-1 O O O O O e-1 01
V1 N V1 O O O O Ol a
V1 00 t0 O O tD V1 tD a
lD M ul O CO N. t0
NI N eti
M 00 0 0 0 0 0 M t0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ul 01
to a V1 O O O O V1 a
M N t0 O O tD V1 N a
lD M ul O CO N l0 N
NI N eti
co Ol co co co co co N t0
ul t0 0 0 0 0 0 r1 M
N M u1 O O O O 00 a
ey V1 t0 O O tD V1 tD a
lD M ul 01 CO N. t0
ey N ey
co Ol 0 0 0 0 0 tD al
to N O O O O O -1 01
N M ul O O O O r1 a
ey to t0 0 0 to Vi to a
tO N ul 01 CO N t0
ey N ey
O 00 t0 0 0 0 0 M V1
VD a lO 0 0 0 0 N 01
N N N 0 0 0 0 c-I a
rv1 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 a
sr.] ul m O O M N
ey M ey ey
M eti CO 0 0 0 0 N u1
M t0 M 0 0 0 0 tO 0
N a NICDOCDOM
V1 O V1 O O O V1 V1 a
tO N ul Q1 ul N 00 N
eti NI N
00 01 e-I O O O O N ul
M ul tO 0 0 0 0 N 01
o NI 0 0 0 0 0 N a
a 0 V1 O O O u1 tD a
lD N ul N ul N a N
ey ey M ey
Convention & Visitor's Bureau
Transfers to EDA
s to Comm Ctr fund
N
CO
O
N
00
00
00
e0'1
M
01
ul
V1
0
01
M
V1
m
00
O
01
t0
00
00
01
M
N
Ol
00
a
N
V1
l0
Q1
O
O
O
ey
V1
M 0000
00 N
t0
M
M
00
V1
� eMy
O f+i
N
t0
a -I
01 n
M
0
N
00
N p
M •
t0
M
t0
N
01
M
t0
00 N
M
N
Mg
eai N
lD
M
tO
V1
Lt M
eY
N
M
V1
us
o
0 o
e
N
a
tO
,o,
00
CO -
NI
N
N
0
ey
0
tO
00
tD
00
0
01
NI
a
l0
ey
0
N
N
N
0
a
N
00
0
M
M Cr)
eti 0
00 Vi
N ul
0
N
CO
01
0
0
ey
O
tD
CO
t0
00
0
01
a
O
ey
O
u)
t0
u)
N
N
0
N
00
0
N
N
ey
00
00
ns
O
lA
N
t0
N
0,
00
00
N
00
N
00
M
n
0
00
M
00
0,
N
t0
tt00
V1
N
N
tO
Total expenditures
CO N
O M
01 N
00 t0
M a
en eti
00
ul M
UD 0
a
N a
00
ul CO
CO 00
eti CO
u1 V1
a a
N t0
00
Revenue over (under) expenditures
Beginning Fund Balance
0,
M
N
0
00
N
N
tO
ei
Lf
M
O
N
O
O
00
N
00
00
00
u1
to
a
0
a
O
0i
N
V1
O
01
N
N
V1
O
01
N
01
01
t0
N
N
M
tO
er
01
er
01
N
Ending Fund Balance
M 001 0
N a O
O M N
00 M eti
a M
OWM
MOM
O M N
f11 00 a
D M
M M
a M
M V1 0
N CO M
e- ey V1
V1 V1 ul
N a N
NNW
a M
ONN
a M a
t0 eti 0-
'.000 0
u t0 Cr) M N N
a rh
NON
LID 01
0'.o to
oosrN
o N 01
u1 M
NON
t0 O 01
N O N
m u) u)
M N Q1
u1 M
CO V1 t0
a MOO
CO Cr) t0
00 M e-I
N t0 t0
0
ul a
01 O a
0N O0 ul
t0 0 00
u) ul M
LSD N V1
V1 M
N
t0
a
e�
00
M
O
N
0
O
00
00
00
00
V1
t0
00
a
N
0
O
01
N
0
01
N
O1
a
N
0
N
01
01
0
t0
N
01
M
t0
01
01
0
O
N
00
2
City of Mounds View
Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fund
Department Manufacturer
Model
Veh.
No.
VIN
Year Original Replace
Acq. Cost Year
ComDev
ComDev
ComDev
Cent Ser
Cent Ser
Cent Ser
Cent Ser
Cent Ser
Cent Ser
Police
Police
Police
Police
Police
Police
Police
Police
Police
Police
Police
Police
Police
Police
Police
Police
Pub Safety
Pub Safety
Pub Safety
Pub Safety
FORD
CHEVY
CHEVY
Various
Various
Various
Various
Various
Various
CHEVY
FORD
FORD
FORD
FORD
FORD
CHEVY
FORD
CHEVY
FORD
FORD
FORD
FORD
FORD
FORD
Motorola
ONAN
Street FORD
Street CASE
Street BOBCAT
Street BOBCAT
Street STERLING
Street BIG TOW
Street FORD
Street SPAULDING
Street REDIHAUL
Street FREIGHTLINER
Street DOOSAN
Street FORD
Street FORD
Street FORD
Street FORD
Street FORD
Street MACK
Street FELLING
Street TBD
Ranger Pickup
IMPALA (deputy chief)(to ComDev)
IMPALA LS (former PD staff car)
Computers, servers, & switches
Computers, servers, & switches
Computers, servers, & switches
Computers, servers, & switches
Computers, servers, & switches
Copiers (3) add pw copier replacement 2024
Tahoe - Comm. Resource Officer
Interceptor (deputy chief/staff)
Interceptor (Unmarked)
Interceptor
Interceptor (practice car)
Interceptor SUV
IMPALA (Detective)
Interceptor SUV (K-9 take home)
IMPALA (Police Chief)
Interceptor SUV (K-9 take home)
Fusion (Detective)
Interceptor SUV
Interceptor SUV
Interceptor SUV
Interceptor
800 Mhz radios (25)
Generator for EOC (City Hall)
Civil Defense Siren (upgraded in 2017)
Civil Defense Siren (upgraded in 2018)
Civil Defense Siren (upgraded in 2018)
Crown Victoria (parts car)(old K9)
621D Loader
BCA125 Compactor
S650 T4 Skid Steer
L 8500 (dump truck)
Bobcat trailer
F350 Pickup (To be ordered)
RMV Road Saver (Hot Box)
Trailer (tilt bed)
Dump truck
Air Compressor
Bucket truck (used 2006)
F350 Pickup
F150 Pickup (Sup)(to PW Admin)
F550 w/dump box and compressor
F150 4x4 Super Cab replaces 438
GU532 SBA (dump truck)
FT16-2 Trailer
Floor Sweeper/Scrubber (New item)
102 1FTYR10U26PA83660
107 2G1WB58K569361240
106 2G1WB58K079377475
0112
0131
0141
0142
0143
0144
0145
0161
0162
0163
0171
0172
0182
0191
0192
Various
Various
Various
Various
Various
Various
1GNSK2EO5BR320699
1FAH P2M87DG132282
1FAH P2MK3EG102967
1FAH P2MKXEG102965
1FAHP2MK1EG102966
1FM5K8AR1EGC61627
2G1WA5E32E1176673
1FM5K8AR5GGA19524
2G1WA5E39G1109252
1FM5K8AR1GGC91889
3FA6P0H75H R358333
1FM5K8AR2HGC86265
1FM5K8AR3JGB46585
1FM5K8AR5KGB14500
1FAH P2MK6KG107947
421 2FABP7BV5BX154316
423 JEE0135702
427 6814146-4916-11082
430 ALJ819700 (maybe 18 mon)
437 2FZAAWDC84AN52061
439 4KNUB16284L161539
442 1FDWF3657GED35714
443 T2DRS-07-0205-37
444 4755121T881023934
445 1FVAC3BS2BDBC6824
446 435928UAWD95
447 1FDAF56P86ED52058
448 1FTRF3B60CEC70104
450 1FTEX1EM1EKF28595
451 1FDUF5HTXFEA71029
452 1FTFX1EG8HKD27473
453 1 M 2AX35 C6J M 010381
454 5FTCF3127H1004474
2006 12,287.50 2021
2006 15,507.00 2021
2007 19,252.33 2022
2018 23,318.72 2023
2014 4,295.55 2019
2015 21,315.85 2020
2016 22,102.23 2021
2017 20,229.58 2022
2019 20,500.00 2024
2011 34,454.75 2022
2012 30,321.01 2022
2013 29,837.61 2020
2013 29,837.61 2020
2013 29,837.61 2022
2014 36,262.00 2021
2014 22,562.82 2024
2015 40,508.44 2022
2015 27,678.37 2025
2016 35,037.00 2023
2017 25,983.02 2027
2017 36,338.70 2023
2018 38,856.75 2024
2019 27,368.45 2025
2019 23,848.45 2025
2005 77,748.00 2021
2011 26,692.04 2031
2017 26,261.37 2037
2018 15,593.00 2038
2018 15,749.00 2039
2011 24,955.89 2021
2003 89,800.39 2023
2003 14,052.50 2023
2017 38,575.00 2021
2004 95,782.84 2021
2004 4,024.25 2029
2019 27,012.54 2032
2007 19,191.30 2027
2008 3,414.00 2033
2012 133,244.95 2027
2012 12,673.23 2032
2012 48,840.66 2022
2012 37,353.06 2025
2014 26,355.96 2027
2014 73,368.85 2027
2017 33,860.05 2030
2017 201,553.00 2032
2017 12,826.80 2042
2019 13,000.00 2039
3
Target Actual
Estimated Age Replacement Replacement Balance New
Replacement In Balance Balance Surplus Remaining To Be Annual
Life Cost 2019 as of 12/19 as of 12/19 (Deficit) Life Funded Cost
15 - 13 - - 2 -
15 - 13 - 2 -
15 - 12 - 3 -
Total Community Development
5 27,000 1 5,400.00 5,400.00 - 4 21,600.00 5,400.00
5 23,000 5 23,000.00 23,000.00 - 0 - -
5 24,000 4 19,200.00 19,200.00 - 1 4,800.00 4,800.00
5 25,000 3 15,000.00 15,000.00 2 10,000.00 5,000.00
5 26,000 2 10,400.00 10,400.00 3 15,600.00 5,200.00
5 28,250 0 - 5 28,250.00 5,650.00
Total Central Services 26,050.00
11 - 8 - 3 - -
10 - 7 - 3 - -
7 50,000 6 42,857.14 42,857.14 1 7,142.86 7,142.86
7 50,000 6 42,857.14 42,857.14 1 7,142.86 7,142.86
9 - 6 - 3 - -
7 51,000 5 36,428.57 36,428.57 2 14,571.43 7,285.72
10 35,000 5 17,500.00 17,500.00 5 17,500.00 3,500.00
7 52,000 4 29,714.29 29,714.29 3 22,285.71 7,428.57
10 37,000 4 14,800.00 14,800.00 6 22,200.00 3,700.00
7 53,000 3 22,714.29 22,714.29 4 30,285.71 7,571.43
10 38,000 2 7,600.00 7,600.00 8 30,400.00 3,800.00
6 53,000 2 17,666.67 17,666.67 - 4 35,333.33 8,833.33
6 54,000 1 9,000.00 9,000.00 - 5 45,000.00 9,000.00
6 55,000 0 - - 6 55,000.00 9,166.67
6 55,000 0 - 6 55,000.00 9,166.67
16 101,000 14 88,375.00 88,375.00 2 12,625.00 6,312.50
20 125,000 8 50,000.00 50,000.00 12 75,000.00 6,250.00
20 40,000 2 4,000.00 4,000.00 18 2,000.00 111.11
20 40,000 1 2,000.00 2,000.00 - 19 38,000.00 2,000.00
21 40,000 1 1,904.76 1,904.76 - 20 38,095.24 1,904.76
Total Police 100,316.47
10 - 8 - - 2 - -
20 150,000 16 120,000.00 120,000.00 - 4 30,000.00 7,500.00
20 20,000 16 16,000.00 16,000.00 - 4 4,000.00 1,000.00
4 - 2 - - 2 - -
17 210,000 15 185,294.12 185,294.12 - 2 24,705.88 12,352.94
25 8,000 15 4,800.00 4,800.00 - 10 3,200.00 320.00
13 50,000 0 - 13 50,000.00 3,846.15
20 30,000 12 18,000.00 18,000.00 8 12,000.00 1,500.00
25 6,000 11 2,640.00 2,640.00 14 3,360.00 240.00
15 240,000 7 112,000.00 112,000.00 8 128,000.00 16,000.00
20 32,000 7 11,200.00 11,200.00 13 20,800.00 1,600.00
10 75,000 7 52,500.00 52,500.00 3 22,500.00 7,500.00
13 51,000 7 27,461.54 27,461.54 6 23,538.46 3,923.08
13 35,000 5 13,461.54 13,461.54 8 21,538.46 2,692.31
13 92,000 5 35,384.62 35,384.62 8 56,615.38 7,076.92
13 45,000 2 6,923.08 6,923.08 11 38,076.92 3,461.54
15 280,000 2 37,333.33 37,333.33 13 242,666.67 18,666.67
25 20,000 2 1,600.00 1,600.00 23 18,400.00 800.00
20 20,000 0 - - 20 20,000.00 1,000.00
Total Streets 69,012.94
City of Mounds View
Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fund
Department Manufacturer
Model
Veh.
No.
VIN
Year Original Replace
Acq. Cost Year
Park
Park
Park
Park
Park
Park
Park
Park
Park
Park
Park
Park
Park
Park
Park
Park
Park
Storm
Storm
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Sewer
Sewer
Sewer
Sewer
US CARGO
AEBI
FORD
FORD
FORD
John Deere
CUSHMAN
JACOBSEN
BOB CAT
TBD
AEBI
AEBI
AEBI
FORD
TORO
TORO
BOB CAT
FORD
Tymco
Custom
CAT
REDIHAUL
FORD
ONAN
BOBCAT
FORD
FORD
BOBCAT
Interstate Power Systems
FORD
FORD
INT'NATL
FORD
Cargo trailer
TERRATRAC TT75 (Not replacing)
F250 4X4 Pickup (CC)
Sterling/Precision (Tanker)
F350 Pickup (To be Ordered)
Ordered
Ordered
Turfcat JRM372 4WD
3400 Utility Vehicle
Place holder to replace AEBI
TERRATRAC TT705 (not replacing)
AEBI/SMWA Rev CF225 mower (not replacing)
Lastec 126" Batwing mower (not replacing)
F350 w/service body and compressor
Groundmaster 4000
Groundmaster 4000
3400 Utility Vehicle (added 2017)
F250
SOOX mounted on International 4300-M7 Chassis
Water tower (fluted column)
446E Backhoe
WOLFPAC Trailer (Not replaced)
4X2 3/4 ton
Booster Station (generator)
5650
F350 Pickup
F150 4x4 Super Cab (ordered)
Hydraulic Frost Breaker
150RJC6DT3 Generator
F250 4X2
Ordered
Work Star (sewerjetter)
F250
306 4X4UTS2103W012414
307 14004
308 1FTNF215X5ED18387
309 2FZACHDC66AV96438
310 1FDWF35586ED96586
312 Ordered
313 Ordered
314 95723402186
315 AJNT11764
316 9098
317 1FTBF3A6XFEA71021
318 314000231
319 314000237
320 AJNT30458
2003 2,923.00 2028
2005 74,839.81 2025
2005 25,723.77 2023
2006 126,221.86 2026
2019 21,678.60 2032
2019 11,500.00 2029
2019 12,023.85 2032
2013 21,343.81 2023
2013 7,500.00 2023
2013 2028
2013 130,384.23 2028
2013 10,686.49 2028
2013 16,975.00 2028
2014 65,593.98 2027
2015 57,212.00 2025
2015 57,212.00 2025
2017 7,900.00 2027
646 1FTBF2B67BEC30936 2011 25,923.55 2024
647 1HTJTSKN1EH018891/2014075NF59502BAH 2015 272,612.45 2027
500,000 gallon
703 05BL00672
705 47SS121T5K1005396
706 1FTNF20L32EC81193
/910431288
708 ALJ819717
709 1FT8X3A64FEB55441
710 1FTFX1EG3HKD34430
A00Y02317
176142-0608
834 1FTNF20L11EA62781
835 1FTSS34P44HB43679
836 1 HT W GAZT4CJ 591184
837 1FT7X2A6OHEB80040
2012 517,019.07 2032
1995 88,281.05 2026
1989 2,129.75 2020
2002 25,761.85 2020
1990 2020
2017 38,575.00 2019
2014 64,414.70 2027
2017 33,120.00 2030
2007 5,888.39 2022
2008 83,125.61 2033
2016 35,500.30 2031
2019 190,000.00 2039
2011 346,416.78 2026
2016 43,064.00 2029
4,121,020.93
2010 125,000.00
2011 100,000.00
2012 125,000.00
2013 155,000.00
2014 155,000.00
2015 120,000.00
2016 82,000.00
2017 92,000.00
954,000.00
5
Target Actual
Estimated Age Replacement Replacement Balance New
Replacement In Balance Balance Surplus Remaining To Be Annual
Life Cost 2019 as of 12/19 as of 12/19 (Deficit) Life Funded Cost
25 5,000 16 3,200.00 3,200.00 9 1,800.00 200.00
20 - 14 - 6 - -
18 40,000 14 31,111.11 31,111.11 4 8,888.89 2,222.22
20 200,000 13 130,000.00 130,000.00 - 7 70,000.00 10,000.00
13 54,000 0 - 13 54,000.00 4,153.85
10 15,000 0 - 10 15,000.00 1,500.00
13 53,000 0 - 13 53,000.00 4,076.92
10 29,000 6 17,400.00 17,400.00 4 11,600.00 2,900.00
10 9,000 6 5,400.00 5,400.00 4 3,600.00 900.00
15 100,000 6 40,000.00 40,000.00 9 60,000.00 6,666.67
15 - 6 - - 9 - -
15 - 6 - 9 - -
15 - 6 - 9 - -
13 87,000 5 33,461.54 33,461.54 8 53,538.46 6,692.31
10 71,500 4 28,600.00 28,600.00 6 42,900.00 7,150.00
10 71,500 4 28,600.00 28,600.00 6 42,900.00 7,150.00
10 13,000 2 2,600.00 2,600.00 8 10,400.00 1,300.00
Total Parks 54,911.97
Total General Fund 250,291.38
13 37,000 8 22,769.23 22,769.23 - 5 14,230.77 2,846.15
12 355,000 4 118,333.33 118,333.33 - 8 236,666.67 29,583.33
Storm Water Fund Total: 32,429.49
20 780,000 7 273,000.00 273,000.00 - 13 507,000.00 39,000.00
31 140,000 24 108,387.10 108,387.10 - 7 31,612.90 4,516.13
31 - 30 - - 1 - -
18 35,000 17 33,055.56 33,055.56 - 1 1,944.44 1,944.44
30 125,000 29 120,833.33 120,833.33 - 1 4,166.67 4,166.67
2 - 2 - - 0 - -
13 85,000 5 32,692.31 32,692.31 - 8 52,307.69 6,538.46
13 45,000 2 6,923.08 6,923.08 - 11 38,076.92 3,461.54
15 7,500 12 6,000.00 6,000.00 - 3 1,500.00 500.00
25 137,000 11 60,280.00 60,280.00 - 14 76,720.00 5,480.00
Water Fund Total: 65,607.24
15 82,500 3 16,500.00 16,500.00 - 12 66,000.00 5,500.00
20 285,000 0 - - 20 285,000.00 14,250.00
15 450,000 8 240,000.00 240,000.00 - 7 210,000.00 30,000.00
13 57,000 3 13,153.85 13,153.85 - 10 43,846.15 4,384.62
5,815,250
Sewer Fund Total: 54,134.62
2,477,316.53 2,477,316.53 3,303,933.47 402,462.72
Fund Balance 12-31-2018 1,744,177.00
2019 Transfers In
2019 Budget Expenses
Unfunded Balance
733,139.53
(436,000.00)
513,000.00
810,139.53
2020 Budgeted transfers
General Fund 285,000.00
Water Fund 67,000.00
Sewer Fund 55,000.00
Storm Water 33,000.00
440,000.00
Over (Under) funded Transfers 37,537.28
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WORKSHEET
2020 - 2025
Year
Line
No.
Project / Improvement
Estimated Total Cost
451
Park
Dedication
480
Special Projects
485
Street
Improvement
700
Water
Enterprise
730
San. Sewer
Enterprise
001
2019 PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS
$ 2,680,198
$ 83,500
$ 912,698
$ 825,000
$ 50,000
$ 304,000
2019
002
Silverview Park Shelter (updates, remodel)
25,000
25,000
2019
003
City Hall park (2) shelters
58,500
58,500
2019
004
City monument sign Cty H roundabout
100,000
100,000
2019
005
PW bldg Cameras, floor sealing, Security System
43,340
43,340
2019
006
City Hall automatic transfer switch, DP switches
33,505
33,505
2019
007
CC locker room bathrooms, HVAC Imp, Dividers
83,853
83,853
2019
008
City Hall Police and basement remodel/upgrades
257,000
257,000
2019
009
Trench drain PW(15,000), Copiers(20,000), Park bldg cameras(10,000)
45,000
45,000
2019
010
Splash Pad (construction)
350,000
350,000
2019
011
Pavement Maintenance - Area E (2012), 2004 Project Area (2007)
110,000
110,000
2019
012
Program Ave from CSAH 10 to CR H2 (Closeout)
5,000
5,000
2019
013
Woodale Dr. (Construction) Silverview Parking lot
655,000
655,000
2019
014
Quincy St from CR H2 to CR I (Design)
55,000
55,000
2019
015
Municipal Well No. 6 Pump & Motor Rehabilitation
50,000
50,000
2019
016
Water Treatment System Upgrade (bonds in 2020)
400,000
2019
017
Upgrade panel Bronson lift station and nat gas generator
166,000
166,000
2019
018
Wastewater Collection System Rehabilitation (Slip Lining)
138,000
138,000
2019
019
Weir at Silverview Pond
75,000
2019
020
Silverview Pond aerators
30,000
021
2020 PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS
$ 5,022,454
$ 203,500
$ 291,000
$ 595,850
$ 100,000
$ 175,000
2020
022
Irrigation & landscaping improvements City Hall Park
45,000
45,000
2020
023
Rest room enclosures, roof, hockey lighting
58,500
58,500
2020
024
Trailway Development & ADA Transition Project
100,000
100,000
2020
025
Codification of City ordinances
21,000
21,000
2020
026
Sidewalk ADA improvements Comm Ctr, door locks and video
22,000
22,000
2020
027
Divider wall replacement & front counter gate - Comm Ctr
128,000
128,000
2020
028
CH conf room, harden dias & front counter, other misc imp
120,000
120,000
2020
029
Seal coating - Area F, G, Mustang Dr & Cr
98,850
98,850
2020
030
Woodale Dr (Closeout)
10,000
10,000
2020
031
Quincy St from CR H2 to CR I (Construction)(2610 ft)
895,000
487,000
2020
032
Water Treatment System Upgrade 3,159,104
2020
033
Municipal Wells No. 3&5 Pump & Motor Rehabilitation
100,000
100,000
2020
034
Wastewater Collection System Rehabilitation (Slip Lining)
175,000
175,000
2020
035
Ardan Ave Storm Sewer cleaning
60,000
2020
036
Storm Water Collection System Rehabilitation
30,000
037
2021 PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS
$ 4,027,072
$ 85,000
$ 237,000
$ 290,968
$ 50,000
$ 175,000
2021
038
Oakwood Park playground
45,000
45,000
2021
039
Ardan Park Dog Park
20,000
20,000
2021
040
Lambert Park Hockey boards
35,000
35,000
2021
041
Rest room enclosures
30,000
30,000
2021
042
Replace gym floor and dance floor
100,000
100,000
2021
043
Paint CH and Comm Ctr interior
37,000
37,000
2021
044
Replace carpet CH & Comm Ctr (CC last replaced 2004, CH 2006)
100,000
100,000
2021
045
Seal Coating - Area A
105,968
105,968
2021
046
Quincy St from CR H2 to CR I (Closeout)
55,000
55,000
2021
047
Pleasant View Dr/84th Ave (Design)(approx. 3566 lineal feet)
Water Treatment System Upgrade
130,000
130,000
2021
048
3,159,104
2021
049
Municipal Well No. 6 Pump & Motor Rehabilitation
50,000
50,000
2021
050
Wastewater Collection System Rehabilitation (Slip Lining)
175,000
175,000
2021
051
Storm Water Collection System Rehabilitation
30,000
052
2022 PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS
$ 2,891,665
$ 80,000
$ -
$ 2,158,657
$ 20,000
$ 175,000
2022
053
Random Park playground equipment
80,000
80,000
2022
054
Paint CH and Comm Ctr interior
8
2022
055
Pavement Maintenance - Area B, C, & H
141,657
141,657
2022
056
Spring Lake Rd and Bronson Dr (Design)
Pleasant View Dr/84th Ave Spring Lake Rd N of MV Blvd(Construction)
Water Treatment System Upgrade(Closeout)
130,000
130,000
2022
057
2,295,000
1,887,000
2022
058
20,000
20,000
7
MOLINDSIVIEw
745
Stormwater
Enterprise
Franchise
City Bonds
Municipal State
Aid
Ramsey County
State/Fed
Grants
Unfunded
Amount
$ 105,000
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 400,000
400,000
75,000
30,000
$ 90,000
$ -
$ 6,800,000
$ 408,000
$ -
$ -
$ (3,640,896)
408,000
6,800,000
(3,640,896)
60,000
30,000
$ 30,000
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 3,159,104
3,159,104
30,000
$ 50,000
$ -
$ -
$ 408,000
$ -
$ -
$ -
408,000
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WORKSHEET
2020 - 2025
Year
Line
No.
Project / Improvement
Estimated Total Cost
451
Park
Dedication
480
Special Projects
485
Street
Improvement
700
Water
Enterprise
730
San. Sewer
Enterprise
2022
059
Wastewater Collection System Rehabilitation (Slip Lining)
175,000
175,000
2022
060
Stormwater Conveyance System Improvement Project
50,000
061
2023 PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS
$ 1,574,897
$ 115,000
$ -
$ 826,897
$ -
$ 175,000
2023
062
Parking lot Random Park, Oakwood Park playground equip., trail maint
115,000
115,000
2023
063
Pavement Maintenance - Area D (2014), Business Park North (2018)
98,897
98,897
2022
064
Pleasant View Dr/84th Ave (Closeout)
Spring Lake Road/Sherwood PI (Const)(approx 6664 lineal feet)
Bronson from Edgewood to Quincy (design)
50,000
50,000
2023
065
1,041,000
633,000
2023
066
45,000
45,000
2023
067
Wastewater Collection System Rehabilitation (Slip Lining)
175,000
175,000
2023
068
Stormwater Conveyance System Improvement Project
50,000
069
2024 PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS
$ 767,887
$ -
$ -
$ 462,887
$ 50,000
$ 175,000
2024
070
Pavement Maintenance - Area I (2014)
52,887
52,887
2024
071
Spring Lake Road (Closeout)
Bronson from Edgewood to Quincy (construction)
50,000
50,000
2023
072
360,000
360,000
2024
073
Municipal Well No. 1 Pump & Motor Rehabilitation
50,000
50,000
2024
074
Wastewater Collection System Rehabilitation (Slip Lining)
175,000
175,000
2024
075
Storm Water Collection System Rehabilitation
30,000
2024
076
Stormwater Conveyance System Improvement Project
50,000
077
TOTAL 2019 - 2024
$ 16,964,173 $ 567,000 $ 1,440,698 $ 5,160,259 $ 270,000 $ 1,179,000
078
079
2025 and BEYOND IMPROVEMENTS
$ 5,912,000
$ -
$ 37,000
$ 677,500
$ 200,000
$ 700,000
2025
080
Pavement rehabilitation - 2003 project area (place holder no costs yet)
-
2025
081
Bronson from Edgewood to Quincy (closeout)
45,000
45,000
2025
082
Municipal Well No. 2 Pump & Motor Rehabilitation
50,000
50,000
2025
083
Wastewater Collection System Rehabilitation (Slip Lining)
175,000
175,000
2025
084
Storm Water Collection System Rehabilitation
30,000
2025
085
Pavement Maintenance - Business Park North
80,000
80,000
2026
086
Pavement Maintenance
100,000
100,000
2026
087
Pavement rehabilitation - 2004 project area (place holder no costs yet)
-
2026
088
Municipal Well No. 3 Pump & Motor Rehabilitation
50,000
50,000
2026
089
Wastewater Collection System Rehabilitation (Slip Lining)
175,000
175,000
2026
090
Sediment Removal - Silver View Pond (approx. 2026)
2,000,000
2027
091
Pavement Maintenance -
125,000
125,000
2027
092
Pavement Maintenance - Mustang Drive and Circle
60,000
60,000
2027
093
Municipal Well No. 5 Pump & Motor Rehabilitation
50,000
50,000
2027
094
Wastewater Collection System Rehabilitation (Slip Lining)
175,000
175,000
2027
095
Storm Water Collection System Rehabilitation
30,000
2027
096
Pavement Maintenance -
125,000
125,000
2028
097
Municipal Well No. 6 Pump & Motor Rehabilitation
50,000
50,000
2028
098
Wastewater Collection System Rehabilitation (Slip Lining)
175,000
175,000
2028
099
Storm Water Collection System Rehabilitation
30,000
2025+
100
MV Blvd (CSAH 10) / Co. Rd. H2 Intersection Improvements (move to 2020) 450,000
22,500
2025+
101
CSAH 10 / Woodale Dr. Intersection Improvements
250,000
35,000
2025+
102
CSAH 10 / Edgewood Dr. Intersection Improvements
250,000
35,000
2025+
103
City Hall irrigation & landscape, Police parking lot lighting
37,000
37,000
2025+
104
CSAH 10 Trail - Segment 8 (Knollwood Dr. - Silver Lake Rd.)
250,000
2025+
105
CSAH 10 Trail - Segment 7 (Pleasant View Dr. - Knollwood Dr.)
300,000
2025+
106
CSAH 10 / Spring Lake Rd. Intersection Improvements
150,000
2025+
107
CSAH 10 / Groveland Rd. Intersection Improvements
150,000
2025+
108
Other Pavement Maint - parking lots and trails
50,000
50,000
2025+
109
CSAH 10 / Co. Rd. I Intersection Improvements
500,000
TOTAL 2019 - 2028
$ 22,876,173 $ 567,000 $ 1,477,698 $ 5,837,759 $ 470,000 $ 1,879,000
9
MOLINDSIVIEw
745
Stormwater
Enterprise
Franchise
City Bonds
Municipal State
Aid
Ramsey County
State/Fed
Grants
Unfunded
Amount
50,000
$ 50,000
$ -
$ -
$ 408,000
$ -
$ -
$ -
408,000
50,000
$ 80,000
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
30,000
50,000
$ 405,000 $
- $ 6,800,000 $ 1,224,000 $
- $ (81,792)
$ 2,090,000
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 232,500
$ 985,000
$ 990,000
30,000
2,000,000
30,000
30,000
22,500
405,000
35,000
180,000
35,000
180,000
250,000
300,000
20,000
110,000
20,000
20,000
110,000
20,000
100,000
360,000
40,000
$ 2,495,000 $
$ 6,800,000 $ 1,224,000 $ 232,500 $ 985,000 $ 908,208
o 0
uO
o v 0
M O N
a`
m 00
u O
a
N
701000ou10
0 lO 01 0 0 01 7 0
ul m co 0 0 o m o
m O ul 7 00 O O ul
01 m 0
00
7 N 0 0 7 N 0
CO m 0 0 0 0 m 7 0
ul r v o o r In o
O I- l0 7 06 .--I r - ul
m co co 0 co ul .�
m
N I- .--1 0 0 N ul 0
-r-o100o00
06uir: v 06ni 4 ui
.-i co O co O
lO lO m 0 0 0 ul 0
l0 Ol 7 0 0 0 7 0
0O lO N O o 0 m 0
NGO 4 m 4 Nui
O coOl CO N 0 ul .--I
7 N m N
ul N I,- 0 0 I,- 01 0
7 00 ul o o l0 ul o
O N ul 0 0 ul 00 0
071 00o 0000 co m 0000 V ui
-I
m N N e
CO 01
0
n.i. I: .-i 0 06 I: ul
co r, co co m 7 .--1
m N N .--1
m N CO 7 I,- m
CO 0 7 ul c-1 0
O1 N O1 I,- I,- e-I
NN7 r: 7 O 7
Ol m Ol N 7
m N N .-1
m N n CO Ql
ul CO
m n p Q
7 0 N Ol m
m N N
N 0 c CO m
7 l0 7 00
ul l0 0 O ul
0 7 N N 0
l0 7 CO N
M N N
0
co
GO
m
GO
GO
m
m
m
O
1
1
v
00
o 0 7 Ol
oo o o .�-I
00 ul .--I .--I
CO
ul
ti
CO O 7 N
0
.--I CO
0 00
7
co 00 0 00 ul M 0
o0 0 1--1 0 7
mM. CO Obi - 7
m
.--1 ' 0 7 .--1
ul M 0 N LO
o
m W.I. 0O .ti
N co CO
N
.4
.-lo O N 0m 0
O O CT O O
N CO lO
N .-1
0 000
ul ul 04. .-I
ti
.--I
l0 ul O ul
m 0 N n O
ul l0 N m e
.4 7 0o r
GO 00
1
I� l0 ul ul .-I 0
GO 00 to 00 m o
O 0o .--I ul .-I 0
l0 ul 0O .--I N ul
co m
0
7 7 u CO 7
u l0 N 7 7
l0 l0 l0
c c N m
00
m
n
GO
0
7
0
0
CO
7
CO01
01
m
O
1
0 GO
Cr 'Cr
Lf1 1-1
OD m
N N
00
00
m
m
n
a
rn
N
N
0,
0
v
n
GO
CO
00
ul
0
v
0
7
GO
0;
o
o GO
o o
00
W
co
N
co
lO 0 CO
0 ul ul
N V lO
N I�
N 01
o ' o
o cn
u)
00 00
o
7 GGll
o .~-1
0) N
v I
O
00 ul
0 00
.-1-1 0 .m-1 0 O~l
m 0 l0 0 .-1
.--1 .--1 GO N N
N M m m
m a
m o 0 0 o N
N 0 0 0 o V
r: o O O 0o ui
,-1,--1--1 --1 CO0N 7
0- Go
N 0 0 .m-I
ul O O Ol
.--i 0 00 ul
0 m .-I
ul N N
0CO Ln O .--1GGO M
l0 .-I I-- ul N
M V O I-: m
.-1 N - 7
co 0 v
m o co
O ul r
co v m
ti
ul M
N Lo
N
m 0l
lO N
01 CO
00 0
N 0
m m
N
CO
00 CO ul
CO 7 l0
ul ul I-
O ,4 7
ko
N .-1
E
v 3
C O
w
0) t
C 0,
E , O U
Es
O__ 0) - 0
w
0) 0) .-000 N Q 05 0) T
.� .0 02f co v _ Q
Q +"' Q U 3 01 CO T O- f0
Ili'
w N 0) 01 U Vl 0 y 7 .Q 0)
01 0 &) 1 j O 0 c O v c 1
C L - O E. 'C y. ' O_
i N 0) a0+ 01 0) _ j 00 00 T U
N E- U C 01 T t0 b0 U O C C O f0 C -O C
02f 3� ,o U 3 r`0 - a0) w a ra n ?) a o U N .o
75 f0 i v) 0) 'O t 0) C v1 y U C co OO v 'i .0
C 0 N .0 01 U E L b0 n N C 01 _ 'F.,
O•
0)
O Q a. O y 0) 0) 0)
01 0 01 01 p 3 ccv ccv Vs j cc rY 01 C a O w r0 O 01 O 0) t
y a N U O O H U y G G C G F C 30 O. coC 7 0 0 0 S CO O U
uJ s uaz z vvo a
i
Cash - Beginning of Year
O
0
00
IMn
n
N
01
00
N
N
Cash - End of Year
v o 000 o
� Nor N M M
o 0 0 1N N
0 ON• 0l
• N N N M
M N
N O t0 00 N
N
N O N N ••�
N N N N M ,�
N o a , o
ui oo N N M
oom.-I
• t0 N N N
a 0 0a N
N N N N
v o m
V 00 N N N
00 00 .0-I M ,00
fYl•
D N N N
-N•I
N
11
v
p
p
o
M
1 col
NCO
f0
7
U
N
m O ci O N 0
a -I Ln CA N O Ln 0
N lD lD a Ln Ln
M 01 010 ci 01
0) lD 01 c-1 O N o
Ln Ln ci ci 0 a 0
Ln a N Ln 0 Ln 0
M M lD CI) c-1
a c-1 c-1 c-1
41 m m lD 0 Ln 0
m tV Ln 0 0 0 0
m a 00 ID O 0) O
a 0 N o N Lf1
o
O m N N 1
c-I
Ln O O Ol O Ln O
N 0 N 0 Cr 0
Cr Cr ci Cr O m 0
Ln M Ln O1 O 0 L/1
O1 M N IN 01 a ci
M ci 0 ci
c-i
D n n m O m 0
Ln Ln c-I 0 Ln 0
4 a a O O 0 O
M N 01 LD n Ln
00 01 NI
N M CFI M ci
M ci O ci
c-i
m N Ol CO 0 ID 0
N O ci O1 0 a 0
Ln O1 0) O Cr 0
c-1 IN IN Ln N Ln
m M .-i 01 01 M .�
M 01
N. N. Ln CO N. 0
01 0 LD O1 O1 lD
Cr Cr Ln N Ln CO
N n 0 a ci 0)
-
0 M n IN 0 0
M O1 c c
O O ID Ln N 00 '
c-1 01 ID m ID Ln
CO Ln c-1 0 m 0
N lD lD lD Ln 0
c-1 c-1 Ln ci 01 01
M 01
N 00 0 .--1 00 Ol '
n N CO N 00 0
0) CO 00 ID CO CO
c-1 lD 00 CO V1 O
a c Ln 01 00 a
M 0
c
0
n
co
00
c-i
m
00
c-i
m
N
n
0
LD
Total Expenses
e
O 0
u+oo 0
M1 co
0
0 0
O al
a m -1
O m
0000 01
O al 0
a Ln n•1
m m
0NI
0 u
0 Ln Cr
a N
00 M
c-i
00.-0 0 0
O LD O 0
V1 Ln ci O
in N 0
LO ci
c-I
0 N m I� ID
0 m 00 0 m
ID LO
m
c-I
0 0 o n 0
0 co m o m
LOn N
c-I
e 01 N al Ln 0
0 al 0 Ln .-i 0
O O N m nl 0
00 O N C N 0
r N LO
c-I
m
01
1
N
r-
m
O
0
00
0
c-i
CO
N
N
c-I
0
O
N
03
Ln
LO
c-I
00
0o
m
Ln
Ln
c-I
Total Revenues
000 n
Ln N
r
m O
a
V1 Ln
0 Lo
co R
M m
O
a
co Lo
com
o: u
o ci
ei co
n'1
to
o m
O Ln
M 0
.i r
n'1
N
00
0
O
O
'•I
.0
N
N
O
m
Lti
O
0
N
O
to
N
M
O
N
m
V1
co
n
Net position - end of year
I- ' O 0 ' Ol V1 V1 O N N e
.-1 O 0 .-1 m V1 N 10 N 0
CO O o m ci 00 4 m D O
00 Lfl LD N N 0 a m 'Cr
m cNi Ql in inLn .-1 et
.-i '•i
VT VT
e
000 0 o m .M-I 000 O^ O4. m o
Ln 0 o r- m a ni m Vi O
m Lfl LD N N 0 Cr ci a
m cNi Q1 a) inin Ln
,-1
.--i c•l
iR iR
al ' O 0 ' N 'i V1 LO N 0 'a
aai O 0 00 m 0 O N Lo
O .- Lh Oi 0
1 Lri v r.z.
oa ma
N ,N-i 01 Lo co ,-1m
.--i .ti
iR in
1-1 ' 0 0 ' O N I� 0 a ci o
0 00 00 0000 00 ma ,-1m 0
, V1 LD N a' O01 m "� 04
0 a
c-I N Ol N in m
ci N LD
.-i ri
in VT
ID ' 0 0 ' N O a LO N m e
N O O O 0 N O1 O V1 O
.-1 O O N 10 m N m Ol O
m Ln LO a N CO CO LO a
c-I 01 CO0N m
-1 '•i
CO 0 0 0 N 0 LO V1 O1 mrsi 00e
01 O O 0 IN N 01 tGI fV V1 m
.m-I C 0 01 00 C. 0 00 m CO N CO c-1 CO
N rl
in VT
al 0 I� .-i N N 00 LD N O N
COR ul 01 Cr 01 NI
.- I Ln 0 N N m^^ 03 a a
N V c-i N N O 0N0 m N m to
O 0 0 N 0 m
c-I c-I v c-1 .••I
N NI
in VT
e\°
LMD CO LND 001 CO0m in 000 to N
O N rfl 01 0 N N N Ol 01
O a Ln LO 0 N 00 m ci ci
cmi LD 01 a O N m
N
m a n 0o n n 0
NI LD .-i CO .-i CO 00
LD o CO CO o LD 0
N. m O Ii LD N. 00
0 a c-1 0 0 LD IA
0 0
N N
co 4 LD N e
01 Ol a ci m
V1 O N ci
n CO O N
m
VI)
ai to
;;
3
N C 6
Q O
C >.. v C.
a) La C
to
O_ C 00
3 N u N O
c o-a *' O
0 al co N C a) ti 0
i W to.al N L .-1 N
O- O O o
D a/ E O 01
a/ p u 6 C a/ • > C
N C
C _ i U N O N
o r
L. 0y }; Q C ..1 L. to m LY C C C s 0C
C
L0 c o o O 0 P P P 7 w
tlI
uuc < Lj u ccccccccc¢2 CO CO C
12
"0 0
N
c Ol N N Ol
Ln LO Ln
m c N m
Qi c-I c-i Ol
Ol LD m N N
LO NJ O 1.11ci
0 c CO N N
M c 00 M M
00
Lfl m LO N Ol
O 01 Lfl ci
00 0 N N '--
00 ci 00 m m
00
Ol c-I Lfl N CO
LO O Lfl N
Lfl O 0
00 c 00 al m
00
o o 0
O M l0 Lfl
m 0 N N Ol
00 c-I c-i al N
00
0000s—I d-
Lfl 0 0 1.11 1.11
O 0 01 N CO
00 c-I 00 O1
n
o o 00 ti
L�fl al N N
I� n N N
o ▪ N 00 0
Lfl m 01 NJ 01
Lfl m Lfl m LD
I� ci LD N N
N
m Lfl 0 N N
Lfl N al M c-I
Lfl I� Lfl LD
a> O N N
N
1J
Lease debt service
Transfer to other funds
00
ci
LO
c-I
00
CO'
0
ci
00
00
N
0
ci
al
O
csi
c-I
IJ
CO
Total Expenses
m in
ci CO
N 0
O M
ci
(
N 0
O M
ci
m Lfl
ci Lfl
N Ol
O N
ci
N 0
ci N
O ▪ N
ci
N m
ci CO
O • N
ci
O 0
O
ci
N
M
m m
O c
0
c-I
0
NJ 00
N -
0
O
ci
• C1-
1.11 LO
N c
0)
0
00
O L
a) v
• 0
U E
L
N C
L
• N
i• ) 0
• N C
0)
Ce
00
Ol
m
ci
LO
m
ci
m
N
0
ci
LD
01
00
l0
0
ci
csi
O
00
L!1
0
ci
00
Total Revenues
M NJ
m
N '--i
CO'
0
ci
0 NJ
000 m
m
a -I lD
0
c-i
m 0 a
LD LD
• 0
c-i
00 c-i
I. Ol
- 01
Ol
N m
0 0
ei 00
R m
M U0
N 0
l!1 0
O
NIJ
L!1 00
0
0
VI
0.
d
00
N
Z
13
Net position - begining of year
an
N
M
00
0
an
N
M
M
(0
0
an
t-I
01
01
Ol
N
L/l
N
m
N
N
Lft
00
M
Net position - end of year
N
M
00
ci N
m
00 Lfl
LD N
cr
ci
00 LD
M c
N 0
ci
N 00
O 0
c-i
1
M LD
n ti
Lfl D
N N m N
0 O1 m 01
m 0 0
lD ci I� 00
c-I N
c-I
�O Lfl N IJ
Ni 0 0l 00
Lfl M LO Ni.
c-I Ni
ci
1/}
.--I .--I Ol I�
c-I (fl ci c-I
M I� Lfl
0•1 1.0 LO
ci
1/?
0
0
O
m
M
an
N
M
N
00
0
Ol
01
LD
L0
M
N
cn
O
00
N
00
N
00
N
N
Cash - End of Year
O N o
0•
-I
VI-
8 • n o
VI-
0 • o
O a0-I
it}
O o
O a0-I
O no
o '4
• O O
O O
O VI
«1 LA • 0
V
l0
i?
' N • 0
N • • •
0
0)
0
U
•>
tel
(0
v
0)
>• 0)
•• Trs
CU
o'r <
0
O
N
W
n N m 0 -,
Ln CO 0 1n
CO c N 0 M
M r4 Ol Lfl N
M c Ln m
ti ti
N m C 0 a-1
Ln 0 V 0 Ln
N 00 Lo 0 M
0 ( V Lfl N
N c Ln m
- c-1
M O Ln o M
N Ln V 0 N
O V c-1 0 0
Lfl c-I O Lfl N
N c Ln m
c-1 c-I
LO NI 0 ul
0 rN 0 c-1
M c N 0 00
N c-I Ln Lfl ci
N c V m
ci ci
c-1 N Lo 0 00
V O N O Lfl
N 00 In 0 1n
00 O c1 Lfl c1
ci c V m
c-1 c-1
M N V O Ol
00 00 0 0 0
N V V 0 M
Ln O N Ln M
c c M m M
ci ci
M CO CO LO N
N N N c Lo
M V N 0 0
LT LT
c.D
i r Lo M
ci
M LO N V N
Lfl N V M
00 N LD m 00
O r- M Lfl Ql
N c Ln M M
a-1
00 N V m
M N N Ln O
N 0 V m D
N c Ln Ln V
N c N m c-1
ci ci
0
O
N
L0
N
0
0
m
Total Expenses
0 ,-I' 0
CO O (-I 0
M Ln 0
M o r.
Lfl m m
v
0
0 000
Lfl
0 Lfl
oo m
c 0 LO '
00 0 0
CO
M lfl
m
O 0
rV O 0
Ln 0
LO LO
00 ti
N
o c N m
r M Lfl N
m
N N
N N
otio('
00 N Ln
Ln N
CO N
N
0 000
V N
V 0
Lo r
Ln
3
3
CC
>
a
N
Storm water service fee
Investment income
rT
I
CO
0
0
0
v
V
V
N
00
M
O
O
Lfl
N
0
M
0
O
n
N
00
N
Total Revenues
OD
N Lrl
N N
N
O ' LO
Ol Lfl
CO LO
M N
0
Ol
N
rn
.1 coM-N
Lti
a ONO
c-I
rn
0 0
rsi
'I N
I c
rl
rn
' N
Ln
0 N
O n
LO
LO
Net change in position
rri
O
o)
Q ro
v
COco >,
CO 0
Ln
Q C
C
C 0
ro -0
Q C
to.0
.y N
O
� Q
a z
Ln
00
CO
LO
CO
L0
Ol
CO
Ol
M
Net position - end of year
0 0 0
M 0 0 0 Ln
CO' N O In Ln
m 00 m N
m
c-i
N 0 0 0
Lo 0 0 M
O d Lfl M
M Lfl M .r
0o
c-I
00
O
n
ti
0 0 ' N
0 0 co
0 0 ,--1
O LO M
Lfl rn co
n
c-i
O ' 0 0 ' N
M 0 0 0
00 0 0 M
N 0 Lfl Lfl
Lfl Lfl M Ln
n
c-i
c-1 O 0 00
Lo 0 o LO
0 0 Ln Ql
M Ol m N
N
c-1
M 0 0 0 LO
O LO L.fl
M M N m o0
0
c-i
a/}
LO 0 CO
0 Lo O
CO" Ol Lfl Lfl
v m M M
0
c-i
0 V V V V
c-1 N m V M
,4 O Ln 0 n
V N m M
0
c-i
a/}
N N ' m V c-1
Ln N Ln LD c-I
0 CO m N -i
Lo N L0 0 N
N c m c-1 N
0
a/}
c-i
Cash - begining of Year
Ln
O
Ol
Ol
-1
1.4
Ln
CO
CO
Ol
1.
n
-1
ifa
O
CO
CO
00
co
co
ita
O
0
Ll1
M
co
-1
Cash - end of year
UD 0 0
N O
'i L0
4.4
U O
- l0
4.4
0oo 0
L0
oO00
M N
Ln
tT 0 0
N O
V
14
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
MOUNDS VIEW
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To:
From:
Item Title/Subject:
Item No. 3.
Meeting Date: May 6, 2019
Type of Business: Work Session
City Administrator Review:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Mark Beer, Finance Director
Discussion of Priorities for the 2020 Budget
City staff has been busy working on the details of the 2020 budget.
This item is placed on the agenda to give the City Council and residents the opportunity to provide input to staff
early in the process. Department Heads can then use this guidance as they work on the details of their proposed
budgets.
General Fund 2019 Budget by Type
Personnel 60.9% 4,506,086
Contractual services 23.3% 1,723,184
Capital outlays 0.8% 59,761
Supplies 4.3% 317,738
Transfers 8.1% 601,000
Fire debt service 2.2% 166,116
Capital lease 0.3% 24,495
Total 100% 7,398,380
General Fund 2019 Budget by Function
Police
Public Works
Park and Recreation
Fire (SBM)
Community Development
Administration
Fi nance
Central Services
Debt Service (Fire bonds)
Misc. Contracual Service
Legislative
Debt Service (Ca pi to I I ease)
Transfers to other funds
Total
General Fund 2019 Budget by Revenue Source
Taxes (property)
Other taxes (hotel, mfg home)
Intergovernmental
Franchise fees
Licenses and Permits
Charges for Service
Fines and Forfeits
Investment earnings
Miscellaneous
Transfers In
Total
66.58% 4,759,230
1.31% 94,000
16.27% 1,163,014
4.13% 295,000
2.57% 183,372
0.23% 16,625
0.46% 33,000
1.61% 115,000
4.11% 294,084
2.73% 195,055
42.6%
11.7%
7.2%
7.0%
6.4%
4.5%
3.7%
3.8%
2.2%
1.3%
1.1%
0.3%
8.1%
3,148,099
866,979
529,980
518,262
477,189
336,487
274,169
280,773
166,116
94,579
80,252
24,495
601,000
100% 7,398,380
100.00% 7,148,380
Key 2020 Budget Issues:
Local Government Aid is projected to increase minimally as long as state revenue projections hold. In our case,
the 2020 amount is estimated to be $744,315 under current law compared with $739,446 in 2019. There are
some proposals at the state legislature that would increase that by $85,000 but we won't have final numbers until
the legislature adjourns in May. (if they don't need a special session) The Council budgeted for 90% of anticipated
LGA for 2019 to guard against any legislative cuts or economic weakness.
Inflation is modest at present. (1.3% - 1.8%) The City's charter cap would allow a levy increase of up to (3.8%) or
($206,253) based on the above inflation and excludes debt service levies, voter approved levies, and capital
project levies from inclusion in the cap calculation. A 1% levy increase would generate an additional $54,277 in
tax revenue. Property taxes account for 66.58% of General Fund revenues and operating transfers in. Ramsey
County will provide preliminary 2020 values in late August.
The City will be negotiating contracts with the two police unions and the public works bargaining group. (Contracts
are thru 2019) The contracts provided for a 3% cost of living adjustment in 2019. 17 employees will receive step
or longevity increases in 2020 of 2% to 10%. Health insurance premium increases are not known, we will receive
our rate notice in mid October. The impact to the budget will depend upon the size of the unknown rate increase.
The City's health insurance contribution increased $30 in 2019 to $1,125 per month compared with $45 in 2018.
The employer's share of PERA will remain at 7.50% for General (non -police) plan members, the PERA General rate
has increased from 5.53% in 2005 to 7.50% in 2015. The Police plan will increase in 2020 by 0.75%. The 2020
employer amount will be 17.7%. The police PERA rate has increased from 9.3% in 2005 to 17.7% in 2020. Current
PERA pensions are funded at 79.50% for General Employees Retirement Fund and 88.80% for Police and Fire
Retirement Fund. A liability has been recognized in the entity -wide financial statements, (General $1,481,207,
Police 1,668,130) as a result of implementing GASB Statement 68. The state legislature controls the resolution of
the underfunded pensions.
The payroll cost for 51 FT 9 seasonal employees is $2,876 per hour, $23,008 per day, $115,040 per 40 hour week
and $5,982,513 per year. Work comp will increase by $11,243 due to an increase in salaries and rates, our
experience mod will be similar to 2019 at 1.14. Overall, pay and benefit costs will increase by approximately
$296,407 across all funds and $243,551 for the General Fund.
County dispatch fees were reduced in 2019 due to the addition of White Bear Lake. 2019 fees decreased $11,921
or 11.2% to $94,793 we have not received the 2020 amounts.
Fire department costs will increase by about 5-8% in 2020, our share will depend on the cost sharing formula.
Capital costs will increase. (2020 — 15.998%, 2019 — 16.373%, 2018 — 16.158%, 2017 — 15.819%)
Information technology costs (phones, computers, copiers, cameras, squad computers, network switches, desktop
services, virtual servers, internet, email, software, laserfiche, anti -virus, VPN connections, and facility WiFi) will
increase by 5-6% due to additional services and storage capacity related to body cameras, laserfiche, and security
cameras. This continues to be an excellent value for the City.
Fuel prices were budgeted at $2.60 for 2019, with a possible gas tax increase being considered staff would
recommend using $2.75 if no increase in the gas tax for 2020.
Overall most revenues that are tied to economic activity will be improving. Investment income will remain flat to
increasing in 2020 as a result of Federal Reserve activities and modest economic activity. The franchise fee rate
is at 4.00%, the revenue is split between the General fund and the Street Improvement fund.
2018 General Fund unassigned fund balance is $3,952,927 this represents 53.43% of 2019 budgeted expenditures
and transfers compared with 53.08% for the prior year. The General Fund also has Assigned fund balance for Levy
Reduction of $5,337,607, and $250,000 to balance the subsequent budget. It has been the Council's policy to
draw down the levy reduction funds over time.
The City Council adopted a strategic plan for 2020 thru 2022. One of the City's strategic goals is to develop a
balanced budget and reduce reliance on the Levy Reduction fund and LGA by 3% to 5% from 2020 thru 2022. The
General Fund deficit will be $475,000 to $525,000 this will be partially offset by the drawdown of assigned (levy
reduction) funds of $246,000 which reflects the strategic goal. This will leave a deficit of approximately $229,000
to $279,000 before considering any expenditure reductions or a levy increase.
Conclusion
Staff is looking for direction from the Council on priorities for the budget and property tax levy. The above items
are some of the issues that will drive the 2019 budget and are presented for your consideration.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mark Beer
Item No: 04
Meeting Date: May 6, 2019
Type of Business: Work Session
City Administrator Review:
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Jon Sevald, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Discussion of Park Dedication Fees
Introduction:
A Park Dedication Fee may consist of land or cash charged to a Developer, to be used for
capital improvements to parks, trails, and open space. The Fee cannot be used for operations
or maintenance. The intent is for the Fee to offset the City's cost of providing park facilities for
use by these new residents and new businesses (e.g. Nexus between fee and need).'
During the Council's April 1, 2019 Work Session, the Council briefly discussed Park Dedication
Fees, directing Staff to conduct further research.
Discussion:
Mounds View's Park Dedication Fee is 10% of the land, or 10% of the estimated market value
(EMV) of the land (or a combination of the two).2
If the project is a re -development in which a Park Dedication Fee was previously collected, then
that fee amount is credited toward the new fee. In practice, the City has provided a credit for
pre-existing homes, whether or not a previous fee was collected. For example, if one lot is
subdivide into two lots, only one fee is charged.
Because the cash fee is based on the EMV of land, which can vary widely, Staff have found this
difficult to estimate on projects involving multiple properties. For example, on the planned Long
Lake Woods Second Addition, the EMV varies between $0.40 and $2.19 per sq ft. Often times,
a developer will request a fee estimate prior to submitting subdivision plans, or obtaining plan
approval. It is difficult to estimate Park Dedication Fees because of the varying land values.
The City of Roseville conducts an annual survey of Park Dedication Fees, finding that most
cities charge a flat fee per dwelling unit, or per acre in the case of commercial/industrial
developments. It is Staff's opinion that a flat fee for residential projects would be simpler.
Attached is a chart comparing Park Dedication Fees of recent Mounds View developments if
those projects had been in nearby cities. In summary, Mounds View charges a reasonable fee
for single-family developments, a low fee for multi -family, and a high fee for commercial and
industrial developments.
In considering the Fee, the Council needs to consider the "nexus", between the need (park
funding) and the additional demand of new users associated with new development.
Strategic Plan Strategy/Goal:
MN Statute 462.358, Subd 2(c) (Nexus)
2 In 2004, Ord 745 increased the fee from 5% EMV to 10% EMV for residential subdivisions less than 1-acre. If
greater than 1-acre, the fee remained 10%. It is believed the City has charged a park Fee since 1988, and is based
on 1980 legislation.
The Mounds View Visior
A Thriving Desirable Commu tt)
Maintain and plan for infrastructure improvements including waste water, water, &
transportation.
Financial Impact:
Park Dedication Fees is a significant income source for park facilities.
Recommendation:
Staff is suggesting that Mounds View charge a flat fee between $3,000 and $4,000 per
residential unit, and maintain a commercial/industrial fee of 10% of the EMV of land. This
change would take effect with the 2020 Fee Ordinance. Because the City and INH Properties
have agreed in good faith, on preliminary plans for Crossroad Pointe, Staff does not recommend
introducing a substantial expense at this stage.
Estimated Park Dedication Fees:
Current (10% EMV)
$3,000 p/DU
$4,000 p/DU
Long Lake Woods Second Add (12 units)
$35,955
$36,000
$48,000
Crossroad Pointe (128 units)
$110,000
$384,000
$512,000
Skyline Motel (Commercial)
$69,780
-
-
Staff is requesting that the City Council provide direction. If consensus, then any changes will
be incorporated into the 2020 Fee Ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Park Dedication Fee (Fee if Mounds View project was built in the respective City)
Respectfully,
4.„asly
Jon Sevald, AICP
Community Development Director
The Mounds View Vision
A Thriving Desirable Community
Park Dedication Fee (Fee if Mounds View project was built in the respective City)
Project
Units (or
acres if non-
residential) DU p/ac EMV p/sf
x
-o
m
0
0
u
0
0
Mounds View
0
0
L
CO40
3
z
1
0
0
.5
0
Spring Lake Park
7800 Eastwood Rd (2016)
1
2.1
1.55
$ 6,500
$ 4,320
$ 1,800
$ 2,000
$ 3,000
$ 1,500
$ 1,082
$ 1,825
$ 4,000
$ 866
$ 2,200
$ 2,645
$ (1,563)
8456 Red Oak Dr (2018)
1
2.2
2.87
$ 6,500
$ 4,320
$ 1,800
$ 2,000
$ 3,000
$ 1,500
$ 4,972
$ 1,825
$ 4,000
$ 2,486
$ 2,200
$ 3,146
$ 1,826
Long View Estates (2014)
10
1.7
0.39
$ 65,000
$ 43,200
$ 18,000
$ 20,000
$ 30,000
$ 15,000
$ 12,000
$ 18,250
$ 40,000
$ 4,800
$ 22,000
$ 26,205
$ (14,205)
Long Lake Woods Second (2019)
12
2.1
1.45
$ 78,000
$ 51,840
$ 21,600
$ 24,000
$ 36,000
$ 18,000
$ 35,955
$ 21,900
$ 48,000
$ 17,978
$ 26,400
$ 34,516
$ 1,439
Boulevard (2018)
60
18.4
2.80
$ 390,000
$ 259,200
$ 108,000
$ 81,600
$ 180,000
$ 90,000
$ 38,576
$ 109,500
$ 240,000
$ 39,720
$ 132,000
$ 151,691
$ (113,115)
Bel Rae (2011)
95
43.0
7.10
$ 617,500
$ 410,400
$ 171,000
$ 129,200
$ 285,000
$ 142,500
$ 75,760
$ 173,375
$ 380,000
$ 67,500
$ 209,000
$ 241,930
$ (166,170)
Crossroad Pointe (2019)
128
30.1
5.95
$ 832,000
$ 552,960
$ 230,400
$ 174,080
$ 384,000
$ 192,000
$ 110,000
$ 233,600
$ 512,000
$ 110,152
$ 281,600
$ 328,436
$ (218,436)
Mounds View Business Park 3rd Add (2014)
17.79
0.0
4.49
$ -
$ 154,844
$ -
$ 71,160
$ 42,696
$ 17,823
$ 115,426
$ 239,187
$ 115,426
$ 115,426
$ 104,383
$ 88,761
$ 26,665
Skyline Motel/Hotel (2020)
3.50
0.0
$ 4.58
$ -
$ 30,451
$ -
$ 17,493
$ 8,396
$ 3,505
$ 69,780
$ 47,037
$ 69,780
$ 69,780
$ 20,934
$ 30,651
$ 39,129
Res Fee
Com/Ind Fee
Arden Hills
Blaine
Circle Pines
Coon Rapids
(Single -Family)
(Two -Family)
(Muyltiple-Family)
Lino Lakes
Fridley
Mounds View
New Brighton
Roseville
Shoreview
(0 - 2 DU/ac)
(2.1 - 3 DU/ac)
(3.1 - 4 DU/ac)
(4.1 - 5 DU/ac)
(5.1 + DU/ac)
Spring Lake Park
$6,500 p/DU
$4,320 p/DU
$1,800 p/DU
$2,000 p/DU
$1,700 p/DU
$1,360 p/DU
$3,000 p/DU
$1,500 p/DU
10% of EMV
$1,825 p/DU
$4,000 p/DU
4% EMV
5% EMV
6% EMV
7% EMV
10% EMV
$2,200 p/DU
$ -
$8,704/$6,702 p/ac
$5,000/$4,000 p/ac
$2,400 p/ac
$0.023 p/sf (e.g. $1,001.88 p/ac)
10% EMV
$13,445 p/ac
10% EMV
10% EMV
3% EMV
$ (444,428)
`0
r
2
x
m
0
0
0 N
0
0
m
$ (2,581)
$ (2,581)
$ (25,806)
$ (30,968)
$ (150,038)
$ (237,559)
$ (320,080)
$ (93,190)
$ (24,700)
Item No: 05
Meeting Date: May 6, 2019
Type of Business: WS
City Administrator Review:
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Jon Sevald, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Review of the Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Discussion:
Staff will provide a brief update of the Comprehensive Plan, and discuss the Mixed -Use
designation on the Future Land Use Map.
Update:
A joint work session was held on April 23, 2019 between the City Council, Comprehensive Plan
Taskforce, and all advisory commissions. The group reviewed the Future Land Use Map, and
Goals and Policy statements. The group submitted comments and edits to Jon, who with
Stantec are editing the plan. The intent was to review these edits at the May 6th Council Work
Session and request consent to distribute the Plan to affected jurisdictions for a mandatory 6-
month review, but Staff is still working on edits.
Mixed -Use designation:
The Mixed Use designation is intended to obtain a 60% residential and 40% commercial mix.
The mix is not intended to occur on the same property or the same development, but within the
same Mixed -Use area. For discussion, Staff is lumping these areas into two groups:
East: Mounds View Blvd, between Co Rd H2 and Woodale Dr.
24-acre area, includes Crossroad Pointe, Bel Rae and land east, Rydel Auto, and Bio-
Life. The 60/40 split would look similar to if all residential south of Mounds View Blvd,
and all commercial north of the Boulevard (similar to current land use).
West: Mounds View Blvd, between Spring Lake Rd and Sunnyside Rd.
13.4-acre area, including the Boulevard apartments, Steve's Appliance, Muscle Gym,
Simon's, Tires N'More, and a few residential properties. The 60/40 split would be 8
acres of residential, and 5.4 acres of commercial. It could look similar to as if Steve's
Appliance and the Muscle Gym area are commercial, and all else is residential.
During the April 23rd discussion, it was not clear to Staff if the group understood the 60/40
commitment, that once 60% of the area fills with residential (e.g. area east of Bel Rae), the
remainder must be commercial (Rydel Auto & Bio-Life vacant lot). Under this scenario, the City
would turn down any prospective residential projects, once the 60% is filled.
The intent of this discussion is to clarify the 60/40 commitment of adopting the proposed Mixed -
Use designation.
Respectfully submitted,
44.,,aso
Jon Sevald, AICP
Community Development Director
The Mounds View Vision
A Thriving Desirable Community
IZ+ i- i 85tti- ve NE
-.. Imw
City of Mounds View
Single Family Detached
Single Family Attached
Multi -Family Residential
Manufactured Housing Park
Neighborhood Commercial
General Commercial
Mixed Use
Office
Light Industrial
Utility
Parks/Open Space
Public/Semi-Public
Open Water
NWI Wetland
Mustang or i-1
Figure 2-2: 2040 Future Land Use
City of Mounds View
0
1,500
3,000 Feet
MOUNDS VIEW
V.11938VaaNe11938041741GlSVPto;eas\2040 FLU.mxd
MOUNDS ]VIEW
MEMORANDUM
to: Mounds View City Council
from: Nyle Zikmund, City Administrator
re: Item 7 - 2817 Bronson (Complainant) & 7501 Groveland (Complaint Against)
date: May 1, 2019
Executive Summary:
Residential complaint against adjacent neighbor doing car repair and using wood heat in garage.
Complainant disturbed by noise, fumes and parking as well as smoke from wood stove. See full
report below. Car repair operation and stove are, practically speaking all code compliant.
However, the wood burning stove smoke is an irritant as it prohibits complainant from parking
their RV in its traditional spot given close proximity to smoke and subsequent odor impact to RV.
This is the only complaint we have from one resident against another specific to a home occupation
doing automobile repair.
Options:
Options for council are limited to amending code to disallow any auto repair business (generating
revenue) from operating in a residential setting.
History:
November 5 2018 — Annette Hurtado and behalf of herself and her wife Susan Gaertner appeared
at Council Workshop to share/discuss neighbor at 7501 Groveland who was operating an
automobile repair shop.
Fall/Winter — Jacob had numerous conversations and exchanges with her.
April 24, 2019 — Annette emails council with numerous concerns (addressed below)
April 25, 2019 — Administrator Zikmund travels to site at 4:15 AM until 4:45 AM accompanied by
Officer Aase. We do not witness any on -street parking violations. Later that morning (8:15 am to
10:00 AM) Zikmund meets with Annett and Susan and resident of 7501 — Steve — who the alleged
complaints are against.
I spoke with Annette and Susan, then proceeded on foot to 7501 where I spoke with Steve for
approximately 20/25 minutes and he allowed me to see and observe his operation and then I
returned to 2817 Bronson and visited with Annette and Susan again and covered the following;
1. 607.01 Subd. 5 Junk — advises her that the wood pallet, tarp and front end of a car are in
fact violations but not so egregious as to warrant an action.
a. Both the tarp and pallet were newer/not deteriorated and minimally meet the
definition of junk.
2. 607.01 Subd. 8 and 10 improved surfaces — They do in fact have class 5 in the rear of their
garage for parking the motor home and Steve did move his cars onto the driveway and that
while the boat is in fact in violation, we are not enforcing that anywhere in the city and are
in the process of updating that section of code. Steve did park cars on the grass but no
longer does so.
a. Steve admitted the four cars parking on his driveway were ones he purchased, fixed
up and intends to sell. State law regulates this if he does more than 5 per calendar
year which would require him to obtain a Dealers License — see next section.
3. 607.02 Subd 1 and 2 — Parking on the Street —
a. Officer Aase and I did not witness, PD does 1 and sometimes 2 sweeps per month.
I advised her to call 911, declare non -emergency and report any violations. I also
gave her my cell phone number and told her to call me if she witnesses street
parking violations. She also detailed noise from pneumatic tools, paint sprayers,
etc. During my visit (which was unexpected) I found a very neat, tidy operation
with no pneumatic tools other than an air chuck for filling tires. There is no body
work or painting going on, mechanical repair only. The only tool I observed that
would make noise is a battery riven drill impact wrench. Steve also indicated his
work hours are between 8 and 5, occasionally going into the evening but never past
10. I did not address the foul language as there is no law or code prohibiting that.
4. 607.03 Subd.1 — Public Nuisance — Specifically his wood burning stove which I observed
to be very small and he only had firewood, kindling, and brown craft paper. Complainants
had video of when he was burning, presumably starting up and the smoke was white.
a. I believe this to be a major issue and Annette states this is the straw that broke the
camel's back as the stove location is in close proximity to the parking pad for the
RV and while I assured Annette there was little cause for concern specific to fire, it
would in fact cause the motor home to stink if it sat there all winter. I suggested to
Steve, strongly, that he might consider being a "good neighbor" by installing a gas
furnace.
5. 607.06 — Unlawful Parking and Storage
a. They allege decrease of property value which I did not address nor is there any
means to accurately assess.
6. 607.08 Subd. 1— Loud noise
a. Did not witness nor see anything that would make a loud noise other than the
impact wrench. I did share with complainant that they were the only complaint in
the area and that Steve stated he serviced/repaired the vast majority of the
neighbor's cars in the area, sans the complainant.
7. Uses Prohibited
a. Complainant does not believe auto repair business should be allowed in residential
area. I advised that was a council decision and would be sharing a report with them.
8. 1103.10 — Smoke, Dust, Odors
a. There is no evidence of painting nor did I see a welder. I discussed this with Steve
and he stated that he uses on solvent which does have an odor but the use is limited
and in small quantity. I shared this with the complainant.
9. 1103.11 —Noise
a. Already addressed
10. 1103.12 — Refuse
a. Already addressed
11. 1103.13 — Storage
a. Shared with them that directly across the street in front of their house was a home
with 6 cars, 4 of them clearly in some state of junk or repair and that they had not
filed a complaint against that property.
We finished the discussion with me asking what they wanted to happen to which they responded, stop
the repair business and quit burning. I offered that the stove and garage were all code compliant and
that the smoke in fact did prohibit them from parking their RV there if they did not want it to smell but
there simply was no code provision preventing this. As to the operation, I stated I would follow up
with council on allowing auto repair and would investigate Steve operating as a "Automobile Dealer"
which as indicated above, he is on the cusp of doing.
Minnesota Statute:
Minnesota Statute does regulate auto sales and addressed both new and used and sets forth the
following regulations:
May buy, sell, lease, broker, wholesale or auction any make of used vehicle.
Requirements:
- Commercial Building
- Display Area for a Minimum of 5 Vehicles.
- Zoning Approval
- Surety Bond
- Liability Insurance
- Signage
- Posted hours of operation.
*A separate license is required for any location in a county other than the one listed on initial
application for license.
A person could not obtain a Dealer's License to operate from their home, unless the property were
commercial (e.g. home is a non -conforming use within a commercial district). Thus, the intent is for
Steve to stay at 5 or fewer vehicle sales per year. The State's intent is to prevent cases like Steve's,
from happening.
Aerial:
MOUNDIfitIEW
City of Mounds View Staff Report
Item No 9
Meeting Date: May 6, 2019
Type of Business: Workshop
Administrator Review:
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Nyle Zikmund, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Correspondence with Minnesota State Fire Chiefs
Introduction:
See packet memo for more details. Correspondence began with email to Executive
Committee member Eagan Fire Chief Mike Scott, his reply which resulted in formal letter from
Mayor Mueller and myself. That letter resulted in a phone conversation with Eagan
Administrator Dave Osberg and Chief Scott. Subsequently, email sent to President of Fire
Chief, T. John Cunningham seeking clarification on statements impact volunteer fire pensions
and benefit programs; both of which would substantively impact operations and efficiency of
SBM model. President Cunningham's letter is the response to the email sent to him. Copies
of all emails and letters are included as well as a "commentary" version of President
Cunningham's letter. That version includes my comments to some of the statements made.
Discussion:
Council memo details the concerns and options to responding if council deems appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
Nyle Zikmund
City Administrator
The Mounds View Vision
A Thriving Desirable Community
(`hicf T Inhn (..nninrihrim Prccirlcnf
Developing Current and Future Leaders
Friday, April 26, 2019
Carol Mueller, Mayor
Nyle Zikmund, City Administrator
City of Mounds View
2401 Mounds View Boulevard
Mounds View, MN 55112
Dear Mayor Mueller, City Council Members, and City Administrator Zikmund,
Administrator Commentary
This letter is in response to Mr. Zikmund's April 23, 2019, email and related
attachments, a copy is attached hereto. While I was not present for the March
27, 2019, meeting at the Office of the State Auditor, I have discussed the matter
in detail with some of the parties present and have had the opportunity to
review documentation from the meeting. Based on this information, I find the
information provided in your April 23, 2019, letter to be an inaccurate
representation of what was discussed and the position of the Minnesota State
Fire Chiefs Associations (MSFCA). I did request that President Cunningham
provide that documentation. I confirmed with the State Auditor they have no
official notes/minutes.
References are made to an April 23, 2019 letter. I am unaware of any letter
dated April 23, 2019 from me or the City. It could be the letter of April 13, 2019
which is included as part of the correspondence.
He states the information I provided to be an inaccurate representation of the
MSFCA position. The purpose of the email exchange that led up to the letter,
and the letter itself were directly seeking what the MSFCA position was. Email
sent to Chief Scott resulted in a response did not address the direct question of
clarification. Subsequently, the letter dated April 16, 2019 includes a second
request for clarification. Eagan City Administrator Osberg/ Chief Scott
telephoned on April 22, 2019 to discuss the letter but clarification was still not
provided during that conversation. Subsequently (the next day - April 23, 2019)
email sent to President Cunningham and their Legislative Chair seeking
clarification.
The MSFCA is a professional member -driven organization that represents the
interests of departments, chiefs, command staff, and line officers/firefighters
throughout the entire State of Minnesota. We are a proud partner of the
Minnesota Fire Service Association Coalition (MnFAC) (MnFAC was created by
Chief Zikmund in 1996) and have appointed representatives on committees,
working groups, and task forces throughout the State. Other professional
Minnesota fire service organizations include the Minnesota State Fire
Department Association (MSFDA), Minnesota Professional Firefighters
Association (MPFF), the Minnesota Chapter of the International Association of
Arson Investigators (MNIAAI), the Fire Marshals Association of Minnesota, just to
name a few. While I cannot speak on behalf of other professional
organizations, I am confident in stating that they are comprised of professional,
dedicated, and actively -involved fire service leaders.
While I appreciate Mr. Zikmund's past involvement in the Minnesota fire service,
including his tenure as the former executive director of the MSFCA, he does not
represent the interests of the MSFCA (Have not claimed or represented in any
way that I do. Consider requesting further documentation supporting this
statement) and, to our knowledge, has not been engaged in any other official
capacity to speak on behalf of the Minnesota fire service. (Ibid)
LLr,ercnff:
.z
April 26, 2019 Page 2
Over the past year, there have been several working groups that have been
focused on improving the Minnesota volunteer firefighter pension program.
These working groups brought together active fire service leaders, legislative
liaisons, state agencies, and other impacted parties to ensure a broad
representation of stakeholders. (Attended all of these. Recommendations from
2 of the 3 committees were not included in this year's omnibus pension bill.
Commission members had questions, no fire service organization (MnFAC)
representatives were present to address questions. Representative O'Driscoll
moved to lay working group recommendations over the interim until next year.)
With 751 volunteer firefighter relief associations across the state (175 of which
are now part of the PERA statewide plan), it is imperative that proposed
changes to state statutes be discussed, vetted, and presented in a
collaborative environment that represents the broad interests of the entire
Minnesota fire service and not just a single agency or jurisdiction. (Concur, but
equally important that recommendations achieved by working groups
consensus process become law.)
As I hope that Mr. Zikmund will attest to, the fire service is built on trust,
teamwork, and collaboration with the priority of providing our communities with
prompt, professional, effective, and efficient service. My overarching concern
over Mr. Zikmund's "white paper," is that it was created and distributed (White
Paper had draft watermark and was not widely distributed. It was distributed to
two Pension Commission Legislators who were being asked to consider
"leading/chairing", State Auditor Staff, and LCPR Staff. Absent willing legislators
and staff support, there would be no working group. Auditor/LCPR meeting
was to determine their participation interest.) and without the involvement of
active fire service stakeholders, specifically the many working groups that have
devoted countless hours to this topic. While Mr.Zikmund is certainly entitled to
speak on behalf of the City of Mounds View, its elected body, and as a citizen,
I hope future discussions concerning statewide fire service matters are shared
and discussed in a transparent and collaborative manner. (Minnesota Fire
Chiefs (and all MnFAC partners) are named as possible participants in the new
working group that would be legislatively led. Historically, working groups has
legislators as mechanism to assure authorship into pension bill.)
In response to the specific questions raised in your March 28, 2019, email to Chief
Scott, I welcome further dialog among active fire service leadership, local/state
officials, and key stakeholders involved in these efforts. To further clarify
statements and positions: (Given the importance of these issues to our joint fire
department Council may consider accepting President Cunningham's offer to
have further dialogue and invite him to one of our future workshops.)
1. Volunteer Recruitment and Retention
The MSFCA is committed to the long-term health and sustainability of the
Minnesota fire service. It is remarkable that the SBM Fire Department has
"exceeded all expectations in our ability to retain volunteers" as noted in your
April 26, 2019 Page 3
April 16, 2019, letter. It is great to hear that these efforts are continuing and
growing under Chief Smith's leadership.
Sadly, this is not the case across Minnesota as the number of volunteer and paid
on -call firefighters continues to rapidly decline. As illustrated in Figure 1, there
has been a 14.3% decrease in active members in the volunteer pension
programs across the state between 1996-2017. This alarming trend is despite
significant investments into the pension program, including supplemental state
aid which has increased the annual contribution for many relief associations.
In your April 16, 2019 letter, you bring attention to Mr. Zikmund's "top expertise"
in volunteer pension plans and claim that, "[he] has been directly responsible for
April 26, 2019 Page 4
securing millions in additional fire pension aids over the past 25 years." You fail,
however, to mention the steep decrease in active participation in volunteer
pension programs statewide during the same period. (The data presented is
accurate but incomplete as it only includes data from plans subject to
oversight/regulation by the Office of the State Auditor. As mentioned earlier,
and in a data set/documents provided to Chief Scott at the Auditors meeting,
the 142 plans [calendar year 2017 plan members versus the 175 current in the
plan today] membership number in fact result in a tally closer to 17,718.
This "estimate" is validated further by an actual hard count survey done by the
State Fire Marshal's Division and Minnesota Board of Training and Education in
2019 which resulted in total count of 20,391 of which 2,384 are career leaving
18,007 as Paid on Call/Volunteer/Part Time. The difference between the 17,718
and 18,007 can be explained by the fact the 17,718 are reported numbers for
departments with relief associations/pension plans. Approximately 20 of the
states 781 departments have not formed a relief. These are very small
departments with 8 to 15 members which when added to the 17,718
approximate and reconcile to the actual count of 18,007.)
17,500
17,000
16.500
16,000
15,500
15,000
14,500
14,000
13,500
13.000
12,500
16,839
16,496 16,490
1996 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Source: Minnesota Office of the State Auditor, Financial and Investment Reports of Volunteer Fire Relief Associations
Figure I
Similar trends also exist across the country1. Recent data released by the
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) estimated that there was a
significant drop in volunteer firefighters in recent years. Kevin Quinn, Chair of the
National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC) states, "We know many volunteer fire
departments are struggling to maintain adequate staffing. However, the scale
of the loss of volunteer firefighters estimated in this report is really disturbing and
something that we need to work as a community and a nation to address."
April 26, 2019 Page 5
The State's leading fire service agencies, including the MSFCA, are committed
to addressing this crisis. (Indicates some type of action and/or plan, Council
may find this of interest and seek further information.) As a point of fact, Chief
Scott's department was the second largest volunteer department for many
years with an authorized strength of 150 volunteers. Eagan received nearly
$418,000 in Fire State aid in 2018 and very much understands the importance
of this aid. Even though Eagan has a very robust volunteer relief pension with
regular increases in the annual amount, it has had no impact on retention or
recruitment of volunteers.
1 https://www.nvfc.org/new-nfpa-report-finds-significant-decline-in-volunteer-
firefighter-numbers/
April 26, 2019 Page 6
Chief Scott shared this at the March 27, 2019, meeting, and is one of the many
reasons that Chief Scott became concerned with Mr. Zikmund's proposal to
change the use of state aid (Egregiously inaccurate statement. Provide basis
for statement - what is the proposed change in use? MSFCA 's representatives
at the meeting - Chief Scott and Chief McCoy (Austin) offered, suggested,
questioned, or inferred a different use of pension aids. It was this dialogue
which triggered the email to Chief Scott seeking clarification on what the
official MSFCA position was. Mr. Zikmund's proposal was to form a legislator
led working group on addressing the record level of surplus in volunteer plans
which the White Paper details) without vetting it through the established
working groups (only working group currently operation is State Auditors
Group which historically does not address issues unless they impact all plans.
The plans in PERA are not regulated by Auditor. Part of the purpose of
meeting was to determine if Auditor would be open to working with PERA plan
entities) and state fire service agencies.
The MSFCA, along with our fire service partners, have been actively engaged on
statewide initiatives to help local departments - including cities- on fire service
issues. (Council may have interest in what those are - current and future) Fire
protection districts, for example, was introduced (Passed in the Senate last year
with a levy cap, no senate hearing this year. House hearing held this year. LMC
Governmental Relations Director Gary Carlson stated at the annual Metro City
Managers Meeting; "Hearing as brutal, with several legislators opposed".) as a
measure to help two or more units of government in creating a more effective
and efficient fire service model. For communities like yours that have restrictive
levy caps2, for example, a fire protection district would allow for greater flexibility
in meeting the long-term public safety needs of a community while still
maintaining local control. This is one of many (Ibid - council may want to
request more information) examples in which the MSFCA along with our fire
service partners are working collaboratively to help the entire Minnesota fire
service.
As the data suggests (See page 4 commentary re incomplete data. The Fire
Marshal/Training Board data does not contain duty shift availability (day/night).
However, anecdotal evidence abounds regarding daytime available volunteers
numbers decreasing dramatically. Thus, when factoring in the significant
decline (SBM FD went from 34 to 1) of day available from 1994 to 2005) an
argument can be made that there has been an actual increase in the number
of night/weekend available volunteers based on the complete data. Further
analysis would be needed to validate that), the past practices and models of
the fire service are not working, specifically with regard to recruitment and
retention. This deserves greater discussion with fire service leadership and a
broader investment into fire protection across the state with the hope of
achieving a better ranking than 45th (Council may be interested in what
measures and subsequent funding needed to achieve this goal and the
cost/benefit of that endeavor) inn per -capita spending in one of the most
essential public services.
April 26, 2019 Page 7
2. "Double -Dipping"
(Precursor - Any discussion on "Double -Dipping" inevitably included a
discussion on the "Two Hatter"issue which in turn brings into discussion the Fair
Standards Labor Act (FLSA) of 1938. Definitions can aid in this discussion.
"Double Dipping" is widely accepted/considered to mean double
pension/double benefits coverage for the same service.
Two -Hatter refers to being a full time and volunteer and is forbidden under the
International Association of Fire Fighters union constitution.
FLSA - Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 addressing overtime, minimum wage,
child labor and others.
As the Minnesota fire service continues to evolve into different staffing models,
there is understandably ambiguity as to previously established legislation,
industry practices, and traditional volunteer recruitment and retention tools.
Career firefighters, like police officers, participate in the PERA Police and Fire
Plan (PERA P&F Plan)3. It has, however, become the practice (issue emerged
with 1989 major reform effort of PERA) of some fire departments and
municipalities to allow full-time career staff, including many chief officers, to
participate in the PERA P&F Plan and the fire department's "volunteer" fire relief
association (Lawful under Chapter 353 Statutes (PERA) and Volunteer Pension
424.A02 Statutes (Voluntee Relief). This has raised questions and concerns by
several fire chiefs (myself included), municipal and state officials, as well as
elected representatives. (Council would be interested in this list as SBM is one of
many departments that lawfully complies and practice allows greater
efficiency. A change in the law may result in increased costs.) Regardless of
personal opinions on the matter, there is inconsistency and confusion across the
state. This is a topic that most certainly warrants a more in-depth discussion
among stakeholders (Concur, see above), including legal counsel, and clear
clarification/direction to ensure compliance with modern- law, legal
precedence, and alignment with the spirit and intent of Minnesota
(Administrator
2 Per your April 16, 2019, letter, "We are a charter city with a very restrictive levy cap of 2% plus
inflation which is currently insufficient to meet our base salary and benefit needs"
3The General Plan (Coordinated Fund) of PERA has an employee contribution of 6.5% and an
employer contribution of 7.5% compared to the PERA P&F Plan of 11.30% for the employee and
16.95% for the employer.
April 26, 2019 Page 8
Statute 424A (Volunteer Firefighters Retirement), not to mention the "front-page"
headline test of whether it is the "right" and ethical thing to allow. (Like most
Tabor law, the issues are complex and fact intense. In short, the ability to receive
dual pensions for the same hour of service is unlawful in Minnesota and is not
prevalent in the current fire service to my knowledge. See White Paper on
Double Dipping/Two Hatter/FLSA for more detail.)
3. Further Discussion
As previously stated, there are several working groups that are already actively
engaged in these matters (To the best of my knowledge there are none. The
two working groups aforementioned completed their work and while they could
be reconstituted, one was statutorily driven and expired with completion. The
State Auditors Volunteer Pension Working Group is likely to meet but other than
agreeing to consider two items regarding vesting raised by Pension Commission
member,s their agenda items are set by a submission/consensus choice process
that will not occur until they meet again next November. Furthermore, I am
unaware of any group that has ever taken up the charge/issues of Double
Dipping and re -consideration of pension funding for other uses.) These working
groups should be allowed to continue their work on pension -related matters as
this collaborative approach has proven to be an effective model.
The fire service would most certainly welcome a meeting and further discussion
with Chair Murphy. Chief BJ Jungmann serves as the MSFCA and MnFAC
Legislative Chair; he will be happy to bring together fire service leadership to
further discuss our efforts across the state.
I trust that Mr. Zikmund will allow current fire service leaders the opportunity to
speak on behalf of and advocate for the Minnesota fire service. (Ibid Page 1.
Similarly, current/active city officials/leaders who are responsible for funding the
fire department as well as underwriting the associated relief association should
be able to speak on and advocate for those things that impact them.) I am
personally fortunate to have over 21 years of fire service experience in both a
volunteer and career capacity, including experience in a large combination
department with over 150 volunteers in Connecticut. I understand firsthand the
challenges that face the fire service and it is the driving force for my service as
President of this great Association.
Minnesota is fortunate to have many experienced, talented, and well-educated
fire service leaders. I know our fire service leaders are committed to working
together to ensure we can serve our communities with the utmost honor and
pride.
Respectfully,
April 26, 2019
7I$Z4 c
T. John Cunningham
President
Attachment: Original Communication
Page 9
April 26, 2019 Page
Cc: Dave Osberg, City Administrator, Eagan
Clark Arneson, City Manager, Blaine
Dan Bucholz, City Administrator, Spring Lake Park
Charles Smith IV, Fire Chief, SBM Fire Department
Harley Wells, President, Spring Lake Park Fire Inc.
Dan Retka, President, Spring Lake Park Fire Relief Association
Joe Flagerty, Mounds View Community Fire Board
MSFCA Board of Directors
Mark Rosenblum, President, MSFDA
Chris Parsons, President, MPFF
Susan Lenczewski, Executive Director, Legislative Commission on Pensions
and Retirement
Bruce West, Fire Marshal, State of Minnesota
April 16, 2019
Dave Osberg, City Administrator
Dear Administrator Osberg:
We wanted to reach out to you today regarding an email sent by Fire Chief Mike Scott, to Mounds View City
Administrator Nyle Zikmund. We would like to address several issues raised in the correspondence.
Chief Scott indicated concern regarding who Administrator Zikmund represents based on the attached email.
Please accept this letter as validation that Administrator Zikmund does represent the City of Mounds View.
Additionally, he has, like most administrators -flexibility of schedule. Finally, his employment agreement
specifically provides for legislative activity as well as outside consulting and training activities.
Of greater concern though, is the directive to "leave those actively serving in the fire service to do their job".
Mounds View is a partner to the one of the largest volunteer/combination fire departments in the State of
Minnesota and the Spring Lake Park- Blaine - Mounds View Fire Relief pension fund is approaching $17 million
in assets. The utilization of that fund as a retention tool has exceeded all expectations in our ability to retain
volunteers. As an Administrator you are aware that the City (s) underwrite the pension plan and in our case,
continue to save millions of dollars on an annual basis via the volunteer or mostly volunteer model.
Administrator Zikmund is considered one of the top experts in the state on Volunteer Pension Plans and has
been directly responsible in securing millions in additional fire pension aids overthe past 25 years. Additionally,
he was responsible for the creation of the State Wide Volunteer Pension plan of which SBM is a member. Thus,
it is in city's direct and best interest to stay involved and engaged on issues impacting reliefs.
Chief Scott indicated in his email that Administrator Zikmund should endeavor to cease communicating with him
which he did reply to the affirmative. However, Chief Scott was the official representative of the Minnesota
State Fire Chiefs Association (MSFCA) at a meeting with the Minnesota State Auditor (the meeting he
references), her Pension Oversight Director, and the Executive Director and Deputy Director of the Legislative
Commission on Pensions and Retirement. He made a statement to the effect that the MSFCA questioned the
value of volunteer fire pensions as a recruitment and retention tool and intimated that those funds might have
greater use/value in things such as training orcertification.
From our perspective, this was very troubling as any reduction or redirection of aid would or could result in an
increase in a municipal contribution. In our case, loss of the Supplemental Aid would require an additional
contribution of $28,500 or just over%% levy increase. We are a charter city with a very restrictive levy cap of
2% plus inflation which currently is insufficient to meet our base salary and benefit needs. Thus, any additional
burden furthers that challenge.
Administrator Zikmund cautioned Chief Scott that his statement regarding the official MSFCA position could
have substantive impact to fire departments and reliefs association and their associated city (s). As the
designated representative for the MSFCA and the one who made the statement, Administrator Zikmund sought
clarification/validation with Chief Scott who indicated he "may be misrepresenting what he said" but offered no
other response/clarification to the direct question.
To that end, we remain very concerned about this position and troubled by the statement he made. The
audience present represents the highest level possible (absent the Governor himself) in pension
regulation/oversight and governing state statutes.
In closing, our purpose in writing is to make you aware of the situation and our position that Administrator
Zikmund will remain actively involved in legislative issues that impact our City and the Fire Department we are
partners in. It would be appreciated if you could convey this to Chief Scott in order to alleviate his concerns.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you wish to discuss this further. Administrator Zikmund can be reached at
612-860-7442, Mayor Mueller at 763-458-2719.
i
Mayor Carol Mueller
Cit'°Administrator Nyle Zikmund
Cc: Clark Arneson, Blaine City Manager
Dan Buchholz, Spring Lake Park City Administrator
Charles Smith IV, Spring Lake Park - Blaine - Mounds View Fire Chief
Harley Wells, President Spring Lake Park Fire Inc. Board of Directors
Dan Retka, President Spring Lake Park Fire Relief Association
Joe Flaherty, Mounds View Community Fire Board Representative
Nyle Zikmund
From: Mike Scott <MScott@cityofeagan.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 11:30 AM
To: Nyle Zikmund
Cc: T. John Cunningham; BJ Jungmann (BJ.Jungmann@Burnsvillemn.gov); Jim McCoy
Subject: RE: Follow Up
Nyle,
As City Administrator, as indicated by your email address below, I'm baffled why you are using Mounds View city
resources to send me an email at 4:20am concerning fire department related items that you are not part -of. I believe as
usual you may be misrepresenting what I said at the meeting you called with the Auditor.
I'm going to step outside my "humble bubble" and tell you that I have been active in the Public Safety profession for 36
years, and grew up in an all -volunteer department since 1971. I know you feel that you are the self -described expert on
all things fire, but the truth is, there are many people in the State that have been around longer and care more about
the fire service than you may think you do. Please stop sending me any correspondence and do the right thing by letting
those actively serving in the fire service do theirjobs.
Mike Scott
Fire Chief
1001 Station Tr 1 Eagan, MN
55123
Office: 651-675-5901
httos://www.citvofeaaan.com
From: Nyle Zikmund <nyle.zikmund@moundsviewmn.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 4:20 AM
To: Mike Scott <MScott@cityofeagan.com>
Subject: Follow Up
Morning Mike, just wanted to follow up on yesterday's meeting to make sure I have an accurate understanding.
1. You indicated Chief Associations believes the volunteer pension system may not be the most effective
recruitment and retention tool and that those dedicated funding resources may be better utilized/targeted to
such things as additional training, certifications or other programs?
2. Chiefs Association has concern regarding the "double dipping" issue and that should be talked about?
3. Chiefs Association was not opposed to having a discussion on the surplus/benefit increase reform but as
opposed to having it done as an interim LCPR Legislator Led format, you were comfortable with the State
Auditors Volunteer Working Group process taking it up (typically they start meeting in October/November) later
this year?
Let me know so I can get back to Chair Murphy that progress will continue. As I indicated the goal of these task forces is
to transform the work into legislation and prior to these past study groups, they were LCPR legislator led (but is has been
a number of years) which ensures a high degree of probability of the work product becoming law. Given the perfect 15
year record that the OSA has of transforming their work product into law, and given their apparent willingness to
1
undertake the discussion (and include Chapter 353 (PERA Plans), the equation is the same and thus, time spent in
formulating a solution has a high probability of being enacted into law.
Thanks
Nyle Zikmund
City Administrator
763.717.4001 w 1763.717.4019 f 1612.860.7442 c
2401 Mounds View Boulevard
Mounds View I MN 155112
www.moundsviewmn.org,
Momm uw11
2