HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 1997/11/24 (2)•
Page 1
LIJ
November 24, 1997 � {� E
Mounds View City Council`"'a�;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
November 24, 1997
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Hwy. 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
**********************************************************************************
A CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
The Mounds View City Council was called to order by Mayor McCarty at 7:00 p.m. on November 24, 1997.
C. SWEARING IN 0E NEW COUNCIL MEMBER - ADMIMSTRATIVE OATH BY CITY
CLERK.•
Mr. Whiting administered the Oath of Office to Ms. Sherry Gunn, newly elected City Council member.
Ms. Gunn was accompanied by her daughters, Amanda and Alissa.
B. ROLL CALL:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor McCarty, Council members Koopmemers,
Gunn, Quick and Stigney
ALSO PRESENT: Chuck Whiting, Clerk Administrator
Rick Jopke, Community Development Director
Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works
Bob Long, City Attorney
0 iut"KIAWNiflas"
1. Regular Meeting of November 10, 1997
MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Gunn to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 10,
1997 as presented in writing.
VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Page 2
November 24, 1997
Mounds View City Council'-
1 None.
2
3 F. CONSENTAGENDA:
4
5 Council member Stigney requested that Item (3.) be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
6
7 MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Koopmeiners to approve the Consent Agenda with the removal of Item 3.
8
9 VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
10
11 Mr. Stigney asked for a clarification on Item 3. Mr. lopke, Community Development Director explained that
12 the grant agreement referred to in Item 3 is for a grant of $5,070. The city has received an estimate for the
13 updating of the Comprehensive Plan in the amount of $93,200, however, he expects that this will be reduced
14 significantly.
15
16 MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Koopmeiners to approve Item F(3) of the Consent Agenda.
17
18 VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
19
20 G. RESIDENTS REQUESTSAND COMMENTS FROM THE FI OOR•
21
22 Mayor McCarty explained that this is the time for residents to address the council with concerns on items that
23 are not on the Agenda.
24
25 There were no questions or comments from the floor.
26
27 H. COUNCIL BUSINESS:
28
29 Mayor McCarty asked that Item H(2) be considered prior to H(1).
30
31 2. Consideration of Resolution No. 5185, Authorizing the Mayor and the Clerk -Administrator to
32 execute a Cooperative Agreement, a Joint Power Agreement and a Development Agreement with the
33 Minneapolis Public Housing Authority and MSP Real Estate regarding the Silver Lake Commons
34 Project.
35
36 Mayor McCarty asked that the City Attorney respond to his memo regarding the MSP Project and the initial
37 agreements and the operational agreement for this project. He stated his concern in that there was no
38 clarification as to how long the agreement would go. Attorney Long explained that the initial agreement term
39 would be 40 years and would be tied back to the Cooperative Agreement. The forty year period is the period
40 in which HUD would operate this through the MPHA.
41
42 Mayor McCarty noted that throughout the process, the developer has assured the city that the implementation
43 agreements were only a formality. He is unable to locate an assurance clause for long term city costs relevant
44 to the agreement. He does not feel the "formality" should cost the city anything
45 and felt there must be a clause in the` agreement that would insure that the city would get full reimbursement for
46 all activities in the future. Article #3 on Management limits the agreed on -site management requirement for •
47 five years. He would like to see this amended to insure that the on -site management operation would go on for
48 the life of the agreement. Item #4 in Article #3 should be amended to assure that the maintenance funds
•
0
Page 3
November 24, 1997
Mounds View City Council
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
r
^lea✓ \. i i al L L
would be continuing and sufficient and adjusted for inflation as required. The Hold Harmless Clause seems
to affect body injury and property damage only. He wondered if the injury provision would include tort liability
such as Human Rights litigation.
Attorney Long explained that the way the clause is currently worded, per request of the MPHA, it would need
to be a result of negligence or a breech of the agreement. It is his understanding that the city would not be
covered under MPHA's language, but would be covered by the insurance language. However, if the developer
went away due to bankruptcy, etc. the city would not have the protection from the MPHA. He would like to
get additional language incorporated for added protection. Mayor McCarty commented that he would feel
much more comfortable having the MPHA or HUD involved in the indemnification.
A discussion continued as to timing concerns. Attorney Long stated he believes the developer would have
until the end of the year, but would likely face penalties.
Council member Stigney stated the residents have concerns with this project. He strongly opposes the project
as well and noted that the city is not under any obligation to sign the contract and would urge the council to
reconsider. Mayor McCarty noted that the project is in conformance with all building codes and therefore
there is no reason for denying it. Council member Stigney noted that he does not feel the city should support
the use of public funds for the project. Furthermore, if the developer wishes to come in and complete the
project using his own funds, he would have no problem with it.
MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Gunn to table Resolution No. 5185, until the concerns addressed have
been resolved.
VOTE: 4 ayes 1 nay (Stigney) Motion Carried
1. Consideration of Resolution No. 5182 to consider the reconstruction of Spring Lake Road/County
Road L
Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 7:25 p.m.
Mr. Ulrich, Public Works Director, introduced Barry Peters, Project Manager, Glenn VanWormer, Traffic
Engineer, and Steve Campbell, City Engineer. Mr. VanWormer provided some basic background information
about pavement management, curb and gutters, street widths and street utilization. Mr. Peters of SEH
provided a map of the project area. He noted that the project area currently has sanitary sewer over the length
of it so this has not been included as part of the improvements. Water mains will need to be installed on
County Road I from Pleasantview to Spring Lake Road The roads are anticipated to be a part of the
Municipal State Aid system that the city has and therefore there is certain criteria which need to be followed
Mr. Peters went over the design standards for MSA roadways, dated April 1996. Information was provided
for both suburban and urban design roadways. He explained the three options/alternatives for water
collection over the project area.
Mr. Peters briefly went through the city's current assessment policy. He provided information in regard to the
estimated project costs which included contingencies, engineering, administration, fiscal, legal and
miscellaneous costs. Estimated construction costs were provided for roadways ranging from 32 feet wide to
26 feet wide. It was noted that one of the options presented, a 28 foot Cold In -Place Recycling of the existing
asphalt without curb and gutter would not be eligible for MSA funding. An estimated project schedule was
presented, indicating an estimated construction completion date of 9/15/98.
Page 4
November 24, 1997
Mounds View City Council
1 Mr. Ulrich explained that based upon input, staff has come up with a recommendation which would essentially
2 be a compromise between the current city standards and the acceptable designs posed
3 by the questionnaire Ms. Haake prepared. Staffs recommendation is for a 28 foot wide roadway on a portion
4 of Spring Lake Road with a 26 foot wide roadway on County Road I and a small part of Spring Lake Road with
5 curb and gutter. He noted that staff continues to be concerned about potential parking problems for residents
6 if the design of the roadway does not allow for parking.
7
8 Council member Stigney asked what MSA funds would be lost if the city chose the option that would not be
9 MSA funded. I* Ulrich noted that it would be a percentage of the total cost, however he did not have the
10 exact figures available. However, not only would they lose the construction dollars allotted for the project at
11 this time, plus future maintenance dollars and reconstruction dollars for that segment of mileage. Because this
12 is a county road turn back, this will be the only opportunity for the city to consider this road for state aid
13 funding.
14
15 Council member Quick asked what width that portion of Spring Lake Road is in the City of Spring Lake Park
16 Mr. Ulrich noted that it is 32 feet wide. Mr. Whiting asked what the life span of the various options would be.
17 Mr. Peters noted that this is difficult to establish as it will be based upon the amount of traffic on the roadway.
18 If the road is sealcoated approximately every 4 to 5 years, it could be expected to last twenty years; the time
19 would likely be reduced without curb and gutter. Mr. Ulrich gave examples of other projects, noting that
20 those without curb and gutter experience significant deterioration. .
21
22 Mayor McCarty asked about the loss of mature trees in the project area, noting that this has been a concern of
23 residents all along. Mr. Peters stated he will be able to provide more information after a design has been
24 decided on.
25
26 Barb Haake, 3024 County Road I, asked what portion of the project area is currently designated as MSA
27 roadway. Mr. Campbell, City Engineer noted that none of the project area is MSA at this time. By the end of
28 the year, the city must certify to the state how the road is to be designated Ms. Haake stated she believes
29 there are many other roads in Mounds View that could be designated MSA roadways and according to a
30 representative she spoke with, the money would not be lost and it would stay in a fund and could accumulate
31 for a period of time before it would need to be expended The cost estimate she received over the phone for a
32 similar roadway was considerably less than the city's, however with the additional 25% for engineering fees and
33 contingencies, it would add a significant amount.
34
35 Council member Quick clarified that only turn back roads could be designated as MSA roadway, therefore the
36 funds could not be used unless the road under consideration met certain criteria.
37
38 Ms. Haake noted she still believes there are other streets that could be designated MSA and she would like
39 professional research done to show that. Additionally, she explained that residents were never told that there
40 was an option to leave the street width as it currently is (24 feet). They were also told that curb and gutter was
41 required - they later found out that with an urban design, it is not required. She stated she would like to obtain
42 information in regard to the difference in dollar amounts that the city would receive each year if the entire
43 project were to be designated as MSA roadway. Another suggestion would be to do an asphalt road with a
44 two foot concrete section on both sides to protect the edges of the road Ms. Haake noted that residents would
45 not be so disturbed if they felt that the turn back funds were being applied to this particular project. She felt
46 the city should tell Ramsey County to fix the road up and keep the funds so that the residents wouldn't be left .
47 with the assessment. Ms. Haake noted that the best way to treat storm water is to have a holding pond An
•
�J
y
Page 5
November 24, 1997
Mounds View City Council
1 alternative to the option presented by Mr. Peters would be to purchase a vacant lot and create a holding pond
2 there.
3
4 Ms. Haake stated she would request that the council not to expand the project of upgrading Spring Lake
5 Road/County Road I beyond what is really needed to provide a smooth driving surface for movement of traffic,
6 maintain good water quality/quantity by letting the water run off remain where it is and minimize the cost to the
7 city and its residents by budgeting the road improvements with everyone and the city
8 within all of their meens and what is best everyone.
9
10 David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, noted that in regard to water run off, each tree requires 55 gallons of
11 water to grow and there are plenty of trees on that street to take care of this.
12
13 Mary Mah-ick, 8289 Spring Lake Road read a statement in regard to the proposed project. According to State
14 Statute 429, an assessment must not exceed the benefit it brings to the property. She noted that she is not
15 certain that the increase in value to her property would be equivalent to the improvements assessed to her
16 property. She believes this project, which started out as a simple road project, has turned into a water
17 management fiasco. She wonders if any other viable options have been explored, such as routing the water to
18 another area. Furthermore, she questioned how much responsibility she must bear in paying for the water
19 treatment project of Spring Lake (this is a tri-city resource). She stated she is not sure that her assessments
20 reflect improvements only to her road - she would like to see a detailed cost analysis for each road. She
21 asked when the assessments will be adopted She noted that if the residents vote down the project by petition,
22 the project will be put last on the list for reconstruction - she stated this offends her belief of the democratic
23 process. She stated if the city cannot adequate address concerns raised by residents, she respectfully would
24 request that the Council postpone the project until sufficient information is available.
25
26 It was noted that the assessment hear is proposed to be in October of 1998.
27
28 Brian Kaden, 7675 Spring Lake Road, noted that the county turn back funds are put into a city fiord for the
29 repair of city streets and therefore are not directly applied toward the repair of the turn back road According
30 to the currently policy, the $590,000 in turn back funds is going towards the city's share of the project costs, not
31 toward the resident's share. He feels the council should take the funds and the MSA fimding and use it to
32 directly reduce the assessments to residents on the affected roadway. The city should not be making profit at
33 the expense of its residents. Mr. Kaden read a letter that he received from Bonnie Hagel, a Real Estate Agent,
34 in regard to the value that the future road improvements would bring to the residents. It is her opinion that the
35 cost benefit to his property would be $0. Additionally, he is located on a corner lot and therefore is being
36 assessed for the two roadways. He objects to this as it does not make his property any more valuable. He
37 noted that if the city is paying engineering fees at a percentage of the total construction costs, there are no
38 incentives for the engineers to keep the cost of the project down. In regard to the proposed removal of the
39 Stop Sign on Spring Lake Road, Mr. Kaden asked that the city re -consider this. He would like to see a three-
40 way stop at every intersection to provide a safer roadway. If the proposed trailway will be on the other side of
41 the street, he asked that the city provide a crosswalk at the intersection. He noted that he is against the
42 proposed curb and gutter. He asked that the city council review the survey once again and give the residents
43 what they really want.
44
45 Doug Thompson, 7841 Spring Lake Road, noted that the current Assessment Policy, especially with regard to
46 MSA and turn back funds, tends to increase the cost of the project. The assessment policy essentially ends up
47 giving the city an extra dollar for every two dollars that are spent (the MSA fiords go into the city's fiord plus
48 the residents are assessed). This allows the city to increase the funds available for the entire reconstruction,
Page 6=
November 24, 1997 , ;,5; ' ' ✓�, r
Mounds View City Council `�✓
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
but maximizes the amount they spend on anyone particular project. There are limits on the MSA funds, but
right now there are no limits on the assessments. He asked that the council consider putting a cap on
assessments. It would be better to calculate the maximum amount that can be afforded and then see what
improvements can be done with that dollar amount. If the cost of the project is greater than the dollars, the
project should be scaled back, or another funding source should be sought.
Dan Coughlin, 8468 Spring Lake Road, stated he feels a 24 foot wide roadway is sufficient. Making a wider
road only increases the speed of the traffic. Gutters route contaminants to one area. Without gutters, nature
takes care of it. The aesthetics of the road will be affected if trees are removed He asked that the Council
consider just making road improvements and leaving the rest MSA funding will essentially cost him more as a
resident
Mike Heglund, 7604 Spring Lake Road, stated he believes that the city is only concerned about the MSA
funding for the road - and that safety really has nothing to do with it. He thinks that the policies need to be
looked at before any proposals are considered.
Cameron Obert, 8315 Greenwood Road, stated he thinks the city needs to make a policy and stick with it
He does not think the policy should be changed for each project.
Pat Severson, asked why the residents on County Road J weren't assessed for the reconstruction of their road
Mayor McCarty explained that the reconstruction of the road was necessary in order to force William's Pipeline
to put the pipe deeper after the explosion. The County policy is to not assess construction projects on County
roads. The county funds and MSA funds were used in order to expedite the project and avoid the lengthy
assessments hearings.
Mayor McCarty stated it is his suggestion that the Council look at the assessment policy again with the idea of
serviceability, long term value and its benefit to the city. He believes perhaps that a workshop meeting should
be held to review the policy.
David Malrick, 8289 Spring Lake Road, stated he does not feel one set policy should dictate all projects.
Everyone is different, every situation is difference and the roads are all different. The City Council should do
what is best in each individual situation.
Brian Kaden, 7675 Spring Lake Road, noted that Spring Lake Road and County Road I are turn back roads and
that the county gave the city a certain amount of money to fix the roads. He feels the money should be used
directly to reduce the resident's assessments for this particular project. Mayor McCarty noted that the turn
back funds came back at 80%, not 100%.
With no further comments, Mayor McCarty closed the Public Hearing at 10:23 p.m.
MOTIONISECOND: Stigney/Quick to hold off on the project and to address the residents' comments in
regard to Spring Lake Road/County Road I Projects, in relationship to the current assessment policy.
VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Brian Masters, 8297 Spring Lake Road, asked that residents be kept informed of the process.
9
C�
7-1
Page 7 4
November 24, 1997 JLJI
Mounds View City Council
I
Mr. Ulrich asked if the public hearing procedure will need to be followed again. Attorney Long explained
2
that under the City Charter, the city has met the requirements for a public hearing. Under the city's charter, the
3
city could not take any action for 60 days. Studying this policy for 60 days would be in keeping with the
4
charter requirements. However, if a specific date is not set for a new hearing tonight, a new notice would need
5
to be published. This hearing will serve as the starting date for the 60 day period, and the city would not be
6
required to wait another 60 days after the other hearing to implement the project.
7
8
3. 1998 Budget Presentation.
9
10
MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Gunn to remove Item 3 from the Agenda and review it on December 3,
11
1997.
12
13
VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
14
15
L REPORTS.
16
17
Report of Mayor: Mayor McCarty stated he has received calls from residents in regard to speeding
18
violations in Mounds View. One resident has requested that the Mounds View Police Department provide all
19
names of violators to the Newspaper for publication. Another resident has asked if something can be planned
20
21
for youth by the Park and Recreation Department to provide entertainment during the winter months.
22
Report of Council members:
23
24
Koopmeiners: No report.
25
26
Stigney: No report
27
28
Quick: No report.
29
30
ftort of ClerkAdministrator. No report
31
32
Report of Attorney: No report
33
34
CO[MM W-01?
KSESSIOM Decensberj,1997-6,00pn
35
WA'F COUNCIL MEETING,• December 8,1997- 7.00 p.m
36
37
X ADJ00ffiMyL-
38
39
Mayor McCarty adjourned the Council meeting at 10:44 p.m.
40
41
Respectfully submitted,
42
43
V'M-A ) kIL-
44
C
45
Tamara D. Saelke
46
Recording Secretary
47
48